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:renameCategory:Surnames of African origin and possibly revisit once content is defused. A good case has been made for deleting the category or making it just as container category. The problem with this is practical rather than theoretical. To defuse we would need to put the articles in a category in country/language sub divisions. For some articles its straight forward, for others like
Touré (surname) there is not enough information in the article to identify a unique country or a language. It would also mean making a number of small cats with one or two entries. For convenience I've included a summary of the article below.--
Salix (
talk): 21:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: It seems to me either
Category:African given names or this category should be renamed. I think both names are accurate and descriptive, so we might as well prefer the more concise forms.
BDD (
talk) 22:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete they are all in surnames by language, which is where they should be - geography is an illogical grouping for languages, as they are not bounded that way. Many people holding Dutch, English, and Arabic surnames are Africans (Botha,
Charles Ghankay Taylor, and
Anwar Sadat, e.g.).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 23:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
This cat contains both sub-cats and articles; only some of the sub-cats, and none of the articles, are in
Category:surnames by language. At worst, the outcome should be to upmerge the sub-cats to
Category:surnames by language, and I suggest the articles could be moved to
Category:African culture to be re-categorised more specifically along with others currently held there. –
FayenaticLondon 07:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Sounds like a great improvement to me. But wouldn't the better title be
Category:Surnames of African origin? None of the other subcats have "culture" in the name. --
BDD (
talk) 17:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I have made that correction above. –
FayenaticLondon 08:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not categorize surnames by continent. Africa is a continent made up of many countries with many and varying cultures. This attempt to imply a uniform Africa ignores reality.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Last names are not part of trans-national culture, but reflect specific national cultures and should be so categorized. Art, music and literature may be at times part of trans-national cultures, but last names are not.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I think an umbrella category could still be useful when a surname can't be specifically tied to one nation. Let's not forget that in Africa, most modern boundaries reflect old colonial holdings more than regions of distinct national identity. This category came to my attention when I created
Mahama. The majority of people with this name for whom we have articles are Ghanaian, but I don't know if that's actually where the name originated or not. --
BDD (
talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)reply
It is not "the majority" of people with the last name of Mahama who are from Ghana, it is 'all the people with that as a surname are Ghanaian. The description of this as African is just a lazy avoidance of dealing with more precise national identities.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oh, you're right. All of the non-Ghanaian people on that page indeed use it as a given name. Still, I don't think we're strong enough on African biography to say that this is definitely a Ghanaian name. This category can still be useful as a container or in cases where we're not sure. --
BDD (
talk) 15:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)reply
rename to
Category:Surnames from Africa, then sub-cat by country if it's possible to do so. We should and could also create other groupings by continent, so this would fit in a
Category:Surnames by continent tree. I don't know why it's illogical to group surnames in this fashion, especially if we are grouping by country today - there is certainly likely to be more cohesion or linkages between languages within a continent that across them, and it provides a useful and unarguable split. And as pointed above, if the particular modern-day source country cannot be easily established, placing it in the continent would be useful nonetheless. But we should only do this if we create
Category:Surnames from Europe,
Category:Surnames from North America etc., as Africa isn't special in this regard (it's not the only place where boundaries have changed...) --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 16:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge/Delete - I considered endorsing the "keep only as a container category" comments above (though renamed to Surnames by languages of Africa, to reflect the parent's name), and wouldn't strongly oppose that outcome. But the lack of such container cats for Europe or Asia suggest to me that such a cat for African surnames is unnecessary. - jc37 18:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)reply
"Upmerge" begs the question "where to?" In case the closer does not choose "rename" or "split", I point out my fall-back suggestion above (
19 April) for separate merge targets for the sub-cats and the member articles. –
FayenaticLondon 20:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)reply
So I suppose, Upmerge all to one or the other as appropriate. - jc37 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Both are parent categories, and should hold no articles directly; hence my suggested target of
Category:African culture for the articles. Perhaps the sub-cats should be separated, putting only the 4 that include "-language" in the cat name into surnames by language, and
Category:Fula surnames and
Category:Serer surnames into "by culture". –
FayenaticLondon 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Looking through the entries so see if there are defusable we have:--
Salix (
talk): 21:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Bockarie (surname) is a common surname among the Mende people of Sierra Leone,
Cissé (or
Cisse) is a common West African name of Mandinko origin.
Conde (surname), Condé, Condeh or Kondeh is a common surname among the Mandinka people of West Africa,
Conteh (surname) is a common surname among the Limba people of Sierra Leone, and may refer to:
Daramy (surname) is a common surname among the Mandinka people of West Africa, and may refer to:
Dembélé is a surname of African origin, found in Mali, Senegal and Ivory Coast.
Diakité is a Malian and Sengalese family name of Fula origin.
Diawara is the French transcription of a surname of Manding origin (the English transcription is Jawara), and may refer to:
Jawara is the English transcription of a surname of Manding origin (the French transcription is Diawara),
Kabbah (surname) or Kabba is a common surname among the Mandinka people of West Africa, and may refer to:
Kamara may refer to: Places/ People with surname Sierra Leonean
Koroma (surname) is a common surname among the Temne, Limba, and Loko people of Sierra Leone,
Mahama is an African given name and surname. Ghanaian/Others
Ouedraogo/
Ouédraogo, sometimes Ouedraogo, is a surname taken from the French spelling of Wedraogo, semi-legendary son of princess Yennenga and founder of the Mossi Kingdom. (Burkinabé)
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:Social enterprise
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.
I feel like all are rather poorly differentiated from one another. There are a few (~15-20) articles on the overall field, and then something like 50-100 companies which would qualify as being a social enterprise (but that again needs better definition) - so it does make sense to me to separate the topic from the organizations - but I'm not sure we need 3 cats to do so.
In any case, I'm not sure the best course here, happy to hear your thoughts. I do think we should get rid of all of the people in
Category:Social entrepreneurship, and categorize them into the
Category:Founders category as appropriate. I note the category
Category:Social entrepreneurs was
deleted along with the rest of the Entrepreneurs tree back in 2007.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 22:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Agree to merge from three to two The existing
Category:Social enterprises seems to be the best repository for organisations with another - I don't know about the name - for individuals involved.
S a g a C i t y (
talk) 08:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Can you clarify your suggestion? It sounds like you're proposing to rename, and then redirect, the same category. Also,
Category:Organizations supporting social entrepreneurship may be problematic as it could include orgs which support social enterpreneurship (but do really do it) like the Skoll Foundation, instead of social enterprises themselves which I think is more defining. --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree with your first comment on my proposal. However, I would also keep the other sub-cat for social enterprises, and I think this means there would not be the problem that you suggest. Here is my proposed structure:
A social enterprise which also supports others would belong in both the sub- categories.
The parent cat would just hold the sub-cats, the generic articles and the list of social entrepreneurs. –
FayenaticLondon 22:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Further comment: although I said "renaming
Category:Social entrepreneurship", my proposal is not really a rename, but rather restructure, providing a more specific new category which would make that one redundant, given that we are against categorising biographies in this tree. –
FayenaticLondon 13:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)reply
What is an organization supporting social entrepreneurship? Something like
Ashoka? The problem is, many major donors in this space (say USAID, Gates, etc) also support social entrepreneurs. I don't think this is defining. I'm ok with the rest of your structure above - a cat for the field of social enterprise, and then a cat for the orgs which are so deemed as "social enterprises", though we still need a decent consensus definition on what that means - that term itself has become quite wonky and overused.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 16:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep all, but renameCategory:Social entrepreneurship to
Category:Social entrepreneurs. I think that's the best solution here: it leaves one category for social enterprises, one category for people involved in the field, and one overarching container catgory. And yes, I'm aware 'Social entrepreneurs' was previously deleted as a category, but it shouldn't have been: like it or not, it's a widely-used term, and for many people it really is the best way of describing their profession. I've come across plenty of articles where I wanted to add that category but was frustrated that it didn't exist (e.g.
Joe Green (entrepreneur)). The delete discussion was back in 2007, when the term 'social entrepreneur' was perhaps less widely used than it is now, and it was mistakenly thought of as being redundant to the 'businesspeople' tree when it's actually rather different.
Robofish (
talk) 23:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)reply
I accept that it is a term with some currency, but it still has IMHO major definitional issues - even social enterprise is tricky, but social entrepreneur even more so. Can you point us to some places where this is well and crisply defined, and with some notion of who is *not* a social entrepreneur? I think the founders-by-type-of-org tree is a better place for these people - if they started a business, fine, if they started a non-profit, fine - the rest is more woolly stuff around intent, and while I love that stuff, I'm not sure if we can categorized based on it.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)reply
KeepCategory:Social enterprise, but prune all example enterprises and entrepenuers, restricting it to the topic, not those who may be examples of the topic; and Delete the other two. This is a rather broad distinction, which would require explanations for each example as to why they are defined as such. To quote
social enterprise: "A social enterprise is an
organization that applies commercial strategies to maximize improvements in human and environmental well-being, rather than maximising profits for external shareholders. Social enterprises can be structured as a
for-profit or
non-profit, and may take the form of a
co-operative,
mutual organization, a
social business, or a
charity organization." And: "The forms social enterprises can take and the industries they operate in are so many and various that it has always been a challenge to define, find and count social enterprises." - This is just too broad for categorisation. - jc37 19:06, 15 June 2013 (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:Non-profit organization founders
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.
Nominator's rationale: The differentiation between an NGO and an NPO is not worth categorizing on - most NGOs are NPOs and vice versa. We should merge these. I'd be happy for suggestions on a renamed head category.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 21:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete every politician in the US is a founder of his/her political campaign committee so this is basically a trivial characteristic, however worded.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 23:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Carlos Suzrez is right that this category has way too many potential members.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
comment Delete would unfortunately lose information, which is why I proposed a merger. In any case, membership should be based on
WP:DEFINING - if outside sources do not regularly highlight that so-and-so founded X, then they don't belong. There is a whole
Category:Founders_by_field tree, so this does fit into a pattern.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 22:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge and potentially rename per nom. The example given that "every politician in the US is a founder of his/her political campaign committee" doesn't pertain, since in the vast majority of cases such committees are not independently notable as organizations. Therefore deleting on the basis of what Carlossuarez46's claim might mean for the potential size of the category seems to me to be an especially poor rationale. As has been pointed out by the nominator, it seems to be a perfectly valid and viable subcat of
Category:Founders_by_field.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Question: What exactly are
NGOs - do they also include for-profit corporations?
Ottawahitech (
talk) 15:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)reply
see
Non-governmental_organization#Legal_status. It actually depends on the country where they are based, what they are called. But NGO is the widest umbrella IMHO, even if it's not captured this way in our current (broken) categorization. They generally have to have some social purpose, so Apple would never be called an NGO.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)reply
comment Another option might be to merge, as suggested, and then add sub cats, either by nationality of the founder or by country where the entity is based - I note that we have
Category:Company founders by nationality. Then, we could use the dominant title (e.g. non-profit organization, NGO, or charity) depending on the country. This is still a bit problematic as the type of organization is determined by where it's based, vs the nationality of it's founder, so another option would be something like
Category:Founders of non-profit organizations based in the United States or
Category:Founders of charities based in the United Kingdom - I would prefer this option, as the definition of non-profit/NGO is actually based on the laws of the country where it is based, and would thus be
WP:DEFINING - then this top level cat would just be a container cat for by-country or by-nationality. In any case, either of these solutions could address Carlos Suarez's point by excluding from the category certain types of organizations - for example political campaign organizations - as not inherently notable and worthy of categorization in this way.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)reply
However we do not require most things to be defining to categorize by, just to be central to the person's identity. Being the leader of their own political action committee is very important to many people. I actually think for both non-profits and companies being the founder is not really notable and should not be categorized by. In fact I have grave doubts about all founders cats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)reply
"However we do not require most things to be defining to categorize by, just to be central to the person's identity" - where do you see this? That's not my reading of
WP:DEFINING, which says "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics. Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided." As for the founders cat in general, well, that's a bigger issue - at least merging these two would help clean up the tree a bit, then you could propose a broader restructuring. Just not sure there is enough of a difference for now to merit two categories.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 16:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep the category, neutral as to the renaming; I think we need a consistent approach (or at least an approach that has some rationality) to the distinction b/w non-profits & non-governmental orgs.
... As to the comments by User:Carlossuarez46, yes, absolutely politicians who found their own PACs should not be included. But that's just a question of
overcategorization. There are definitely folks who are defined in part by their founding of an organization. For instance,
Frank Oppenheimer is at least as well-known as the founder of the
Exploratorium as he is as a nuclear scientist. Organizational founding work can be and often is a very significant, defining part of someone's career and life. University founders for instance would also fit. So the category should be kept, but guidelines as to inclusion should be written up and included within
WP:OVERCAT. --
Lquilter (
talk) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)reply
To be clear, this is a proposal for a merge, not a rename. Are you ok with the merge? --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, sorry; missed that. We need one "founders" category; whether it attaches to "nonprofit" or "NGO" is probably irrelevant. --
Lquilter (
talk) 00:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep separate - although there is considerable crossover, I think there's enough justification to keep these categories apart. Namely, an NGO and a NPO are not quite the same thing: although in theory, most non-governmental organizations are also nonprofits and all nonprofits are non-govermental, in practice the terms are used slightly differently to refer to different kinds of organizations. 'NGO' usually implies an international organization, while 'NPO' does not. (I note that a merge of the articles was proposed on
Talk:Non-governmental organization back in 2006, to very strong opposition.) Many do fall under both categories, it's true, but I think the distinction is worth preserving here.
Robofish (
talk) 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment As a minimum requirement we should have an article on the organization before we categorize someone by being its founder. However, considering how many organizations we have articles on, we do not need articles on all their founders, but if the organization is not notable enough for an article, foundign it is not notable enough to categorize by.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete both (listify if wanted, I suppose). Just to quote
Non-governmental organization: "The number of NGOs operating in the United States is estimated at 1.5 million.[1] Russia has 277,000 NGOs.[2] India is estimated to have had around 3.3 million NGOs in 2009, just over one NGO per 400 Indians, and many times the number of primary schools and primary health centres in India." This is more common than the most common occupations! And an NGO could have a membership of zero, just existing on paper. This is better done as a list, if anything. This is just too broad a grouping. And I'm looking over
Non-governmental_organization#Types_of_Non-Governmental_Organizations and thinking that these have very little in common. - jc37 02:30, 9 June 2013 (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:Hey Arnold! characters
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.
Wizardman 02:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Contains only one page. At one time it was intended for individual character articles, but those have since been deleted and merged into the main list.
Paper LuigiT •
C 20:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Unlikely to ever be further populated. --
BDD (
talk) 22:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to all parents. Please, everyone, look at the hierarchies before just saying "delete". –
FayenaticLondon 21:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Sure. It's just one article, though. --
BDD (
talk) 15:15, 18 April 2013 (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:Cartoon Network-related lists
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 per Armbrust. --
NaBUru38 (
talk) 20:05, 16 April 2013 (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:Self-published writers
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.
Nominator's rationale To be a self-published writer is not a mark of distinction. It is often a mark that the work has not been heavily reviewed or judged worth publishing by anyone except its creator. This will often involve people who are only border-line notable for their writings and mainly notable for other things. It also makes us take a clear yes or no postion on what is or is not self-publishing. If the person is the controlling owner of a publishing company, does that make their work self-published, no matter how big the publishing company is. This is not really a notable intersection and not really something that is worth categorizing by, and it is much harder to say clearly yes or not than it might seem. Also, if someone self-published one work but had published by others 100 works does it make sense to put them in this category? This leads to overly broad tags.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete doesn't it include every wikipedian?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 23:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment All the articles included make explicit mention that one or more of these writers' works was self-published. But some of these writers are indeed owners of their own publishing companies: Ozark Mountain Publishing (
Dolores Cannon), Age of Reason Publications (
Earl Doherty), Uru publications (
Rex Gilroy, his wife Heather is mentioned as co-owner), Paddleless Press (
Timothy Mo), and Stellar House Publishing (
Acharya S).
Dimadick (
talk) 15:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
We are not discussing notability of the writers themselves. The Nominator's rationale pointed the distinction between writers who self-publish because of lack of interest in their works, and those who are the controlling owners of a publishing company.
Dimadick (
talk) 14:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)reply
But if there is no article on the publishing company, we may suspect that the "company" exists primarily to publish the writer's own works. It may not even be a company but simply a brand for the author. –
FayenaticLondon 07:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete as not notable or defining. –
FayenaticLondon 21:50, 17 April 2013 (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:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles, California
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus As I count it there are 7 support and 8 oppose which is too close to call. There are good arguments on both sides, a strong convention has been established for other US cities and there are good arguments that it does not need disambiguating. However to overturn the convention would require a strong consensus which has not been shown.--
Salix (
talk): 22:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The cat main is
List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles (no California in the title). Virtually all the neighborhoods don't contain California in the title. Neighborhoods in Los Angeles already soft-redirects to this title pbp 19:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I am also nominating the following other categories for renaming:
I am nominating that for renaming as well as that is also an improper name since the name of the main page of the category is
Los Angeles, not
Los Angeles, Californiapbp 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose The convention for city of United States in the category system is "CITY, STATE" (except New York City). Don't see any reason, why this should be an exception.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Los Angeles is the second-largest city in the United States. Why shouldn't it follow the same convention as the largest, especially when there's no "California" in the cat main? pbp 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Note that the most recent discussion ended in "no consensus" and the remaining ones are 3+ years old, therefore hardly germane pbp 20:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose – the "CITY, STATE" convention in category names for US cities was thrashed out at cfd over several months a couple of years back. It is disappointing that the nom has not bothered to check 'what links here' for previous discussions.
Oculi (
talk) 19:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
You need to stop making unfounded assumptions. I checked "what links" here, and there are no discussions that
Category:Los Angeles, California links to since 2010. Anyway, since it's been a couple of years, it's perfectly acceptable to discuss it again. We shouldn't just blindly follow some years-old discussion that didn't link to this particular case, particularly when the catmain doesn't follow that convention pbp 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
In my version of '
what links here', there is
2012 December 2, which is exactly this case and in which the nom opined. Armbrust too has linked to this very discussion immediately above.
Oculi (
talk) 01:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Was it closed as a consensus either way? No! A discussion that resulted in no consensus can be revisited at any time. Please stop claiming there is a recent consensus for this title when there blatently isn't. And quit it with the tone, it's far too condescending pbp 13:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
"No consensus" doesn't mean "Keep nominating till you get your way." Three months from the last closure seems way too soon to think a change will happen.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 16:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
'Fraid not. Actually, a no-consensus closure can be immediately renominatedpbp 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose The clear convention is to use "City, State" for ALL US cases, except for very rare exceptions. I see no reason that Los Angeles should be an exception.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
The reason is quite simple: the title of
Los Angeles doesn't follow that convention. It's the second largest city in the country, one of the largest in the world. Why does its category have to have an extra 12 characters that are unnecessary? pbp 20:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. By rights this should be a C2D speedy issue, given
Los Angeles. I have yet to see evidence of editors mis-tagging topics related to the other Los Angele, and I'm convinced that any benefits from this CFD
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS are completely illusory. --
BDD (
talk) 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose yet again. The convention for US cities is very clear: City, State. Only
Category:New York City doesn't follow it, and it very much should, but no one has been able to get it through a rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 16:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
That convention violates, in this particular context: a) common sense, b) the main article's title (
Los Angeles), and c) general naming conventions, which suggest as short a title as possible. But you want to arbitralily ignore that? OK pbp 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename per article
Los Angeles. If that name is good enough for the article, it's good enough for the categories.
WP:USPLACE gives an explicit exception to the best known cities (as defined by the AP list) and Los Angeles is about the best know next to New York.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 17:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Support Renames It's about time that we followed convention here and used the name of the parent article,
Los Angeles. For those who are apparently unaware, Los Angles is a world city and one of the largest in the United State. There is no confusion here other than the arbitrary demand that there are a few dozen cities that need no disambiguation in mainspace but needlessly require it as a category, a discrepancy in policy that only adds confusion.
Alansohn (
talk) 16:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose yet again, per Mike Selinker. We have a simple, clear and consistent convention. Let's stick with it. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 19:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)reply
The convention is neither simple nor clear, let alone a rational argument for retention. We have a rather clear convention of using the title of the parent article in categories and that parent article is
Los Angeles. We use that exact same standard at
Category:People from New York City. Consider a list of the world's largest cities in population, ordered by several ranking methods taken from the article
World's largest cities, along with a link to the corresponding category of people from that place.
Wikipedia navigation is needlessly complicated by an illogical and inconsistent set of standards under which some category titles match the parent article and some don't, and it's only made even worse by the insistence of magnifying the policy conflict only for the largest cities in the United States, but not elsewhere in the world. Of the dozens of world cities that make a Top 20, why is
Los Angeles the only one that fails to follow a rather clear convention?
Alansohn (
talk) 16:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As long as we allow creation of articles with ambiguous titles, we are going to have problems. So while there may be tools that are more effective at dealing with incorrect links to articles, there is no such equivalent for misplaced articles in categories. Categories can not and should not be ambiguous.
Seeing other stuff is not a valid argument to fix something that is not broken.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)reply
But isn't it a reason to "fix" that other stuff? If so, why does no one ever seem to make that argument? --
BDD (
talk) 20:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, other stuff needs fixing. Why is it not happening? Because too many editors believe that disambiguation pages are bad? I'm sure there are many other reasons.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Seriously? Yes! You really do need to read the dab page and consider the many points raised over the years in various discussions. Yes it is the common name for the city. But it is also the common name for the metro area, the county and many other things. So yes, it is ambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)reply
What's that got to do with the price of eggs? This is one of the few articles where the title of category is different than the title of the catmain. Not only with all those cities, but with pretty much any other category. It's pretty clear that the City of Los Angeles is the primary topic for anything named Los Angeles, so the category shouldn't contain ten extra letters, a space and a comma. That violates our naming conventions. FYI to all: Vegas' line of reasoning on this has been discredited in numerous naming discussions on a variety of pages pbp 02:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I really thing we should consider renaming more categorize. London is not as unambiguous as people think. Lima is also not as unambiguous is writing, so I would support renaming that one for sure. However these is no requirement that we rename. The counter example is
Category:People from Birmingham, West Midlands.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Support - per nom, to match catmain's title, and also because LA is undoubtless the primary topic and the 2nd largest US city. IMHO could be thinked also for some other (unambiguous) largest US cities as
Chicago and
Houston... IMHO. Regards. --Dэя-
Бøяg 01:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose renaming - We have a standard, and there are good reasons for the standard. none of which have to do with "personal preference". Disambiguation.
Springfield is just one example of a city name which is the name of many cities. Unlike articles (like
Los Angeles), categories can not have simple redirects (like
Los Angeles, California) due to technical issues. So it is better to have a standard for all cities to make it easier for EVERYONE to know what to search for. That's the point of a standard, to simplify. Otherwise, by creating a myriad of exceptions, we end up making it more difficult for readers to find things. And that is contrary to the very purpose of categories: navigation. - jc37 02:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)reply
There is a standard, but it appears to be routinely ignored and applied arbitrarily. All of the more than 30 cities listed as the world's largest are listed as categories without disambiguation, for the simple reason that there is no confusion and that these are the titles of the articles.
Bogota,
Lima,
London,
Moscow and
Paris (as well as their associated categories) are all listed without disambiguation, despite the existence of
Bogota, New Jersey,
Lima, Ohio,
London, Kentucky,
London, Ontario,
Moscow, Idaho and
Paris, Texas. Let's apply the standard of "Use article title as title of category" and thereby eliminate the needless confusion of having the article be
Los Angeles with the non-corresponding structure of
Category:Los Angeles, California.
Alansohn (
talk) 05:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)reply
There's a difference between the standard for city naming in the US and such naming throughout the rest of the world. And remember, Wikipedia tends to bow to already existing standards where possible. I sincerely doubt I need to quote various manuals of style, or even state or federal documents indicating that City, State is the standard. IWANTIT because a certain city is large or famed just doesn't trump references or standards. - jc37 19:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)reply
As you haven't been contributing to Wikipedia for quite some time, your lack of recollection of longstanding Wikipedia policy is understandable. Policy specifies that article titles for place names are not disambiguated for the largest cities across the world and the United States, so that we have article titles that include
Paris,
London,
New York City and
Los Angeles. Policy further dictates that category titles match the titles of the corresponding article, so we have
Category:London,
Category:Paris and
Category:New York City, while we are working here to correct the erroneous naming for
Category:Los Angeles, California. We have a rather consistent set of standards that is followed even for cities with non-unique names so that in addition to London and Paris we have
Bogota,
Lima and
Moscow (as well as their category structures), all of which are used without disambiguation despite the existence of
Bogota, New Jersey,
Lima, Ohio,
London, Kentucky,
London, Ontario,
Moscow, Idaho and
Paris, Texas. This system works and works well. Other than IWANTIT, I'm not sure why you would ignore these rather clear and logical policies here and create needless conflict between the article title and the titles of the corresponding categories for Los Angeles. FYI: Since you've been gone we've started editing individual sections so that other editors have a vague idea of what you're referring to with your cryptic edit summaries.
Alansohn (
talk) 05:15, 16 June 2013 (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:People by city in Ireland
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, but split out Northern Ireland. - jc37 19:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Question: is there any ambiguity over definition of cities as opposed to towns in Ireland? This was part of the rationale when merging the Australia categories, see
CFD 2011 Jan 30. –
FayenaticLondon 17:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge In Northern Ireland it's the ones granted the status ceremonially. Armagh, Belfast and Derry are directly in the category but Lisburn and Newry aren't. In the Republic it's a mixture of administrative status (Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford) and a ceremonial status for Kilkeny.
City status in Ireland goes into detail but basically there are different definitions in the two parts so this category is strictly "People by settlements that have the designation of "city" within their current jurisdictions within Ireland". "By city or town" is a better name that avoids the whole issue of local status.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 19:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks, Tim. I stand by my opinion to "merge", then. –
FayenaticLondon 20:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Agree that there should be a ROI / NI breakout. In the ROI, there are 34 entities at the level of
LAU I for EU purposes. They may be sub-categorised as counties and cities; they have equal status. Categories exist for "People by county"; it is necessary therefore to maintain an equivalent one for cities.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 21:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)reply
comment There were previous CFDs (
CFD 2,
CFD 1) on a related matter, after which the top level category of
Category:People by town was deleted. The bottom line is, having looked through a number of the country cats, even if they say
Category:People by city in X they are actually dealing with all sorts of smaller level subdivisions, so at some point we should clean up that tree -
Category:People by city in France is a great example, but I could give many others.
In any case, the real problem at hand is that we have duplicate categories - one of them is city or town, and the other is city - you clearly do not need both. So either you remove the 'by city or town' cat and have a
Category:People by town or village in the RoI and
Category:People by city in the RoI, or just blend them together like is done in most countries. I can't think of any possible reason to not blend the together - what do administrative classifications have to do with finding people? From the user perspective, a much better solution is to decide what is the lowest level of administrative subdivision by which you will classify people, and then group all of those subdivisions together. This is how it is done in every other country I've looked at, and no argument has been put forth why Ireland is extra special on this matter.
To those two oppose votes above, please provide an alternative comprehensive suggestion on fixing this mess. Also I'll just point out that if there's an attempt to argue based on consistency, the Ireland tree is itself still a mess in this regard -
Category:Categories_by_city_in_Ireland has lots of subcats that aren't technically cities, so editors are already voting with their feet to blend cities and towns. --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 01:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Obi, I can't recall why I created
Category:People by city or town in the Republic of Ireland, rather than having separate categs for cities and towns. Maybe that reflected some other structure at the time, or maybe I screwed up. What matters is getting it right now, and if that means undoing something I did before, then so be it; my interest is in creating a coherent category structure rather than in insisting that my edits remain unchanged. In this case, we are looking at people-by-settlement-type categs which fit under the settlement-type categs. The groupings we have here are:
NI: 1) Cities 2) Towns 3) Villages
ROI: 1) Cities 2) Towns+villages
Reply/ Other items relating to Ireland or other countries may be miscategorised under cities. If so, we need to fix that rather than replicating an error. And it is an error, because it makes no sense to treat
Category:People from Gweedore,
Category:People from Dunmanway,
Category:People from Leixlip or
Category:People from Portumna is if
Gweedore,
Dunmanway,
Leixlip or
Portumna were cities. In all other contexts we categorise settlements by type, distinguishing cities from smaller entities. I can see no reason not to do so here, both to maintain the coherence of categories and to facilitate navigation. Ireland's rural population is unusually dispersed, so many more ppl are from cities rather than from towns or villages; and in any case, notable ppl gravitate to cities, where they can cluster with other ppl in similar occupations. So putting the large categories for cities in with the small categs for towns involves burying the city categories in a long list of much smaller categories, which impedes navigation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks - yeah I didn't bother to link the actual irish cats - but if you'll notice, those categories all contain both cities, towns, villages, and everything in-between. I still don't understand why we need to have separate cats for people in cities and people in towns, when nothing else in Ireland (or anywhere else in the world that I've found) does it that way. What is the justification? navigation is a weak argument, as there are only 30-40 members in this cat I think all together.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 17:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment: It's rare that villages will have enough notable people to justify a category, so this is mainly about people by town and people by city. IMHO there is very little navigational value in splitting them, and it may be better not to split them so that readers can navigate a whole country's people by large settlements without having to be aware of their municipal status. Note that these are national alphabetical categories which operate in parallel with by-county hierarchies. Also IMHO, it is fine to have "People by city or town in Foo" as a sub-cat of both "Categories by city in Foo" and "Towns in Foo". So I still favour merger. As for the French example mentioned above, it could be fixed by renaming likewise as "city or town". –
FayenaticLondon 05:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge This is a distinction that will hinder navigation.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (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:Oued Ed-Dahab-Lagouira geography stubs
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Very few articles in the permanent category, very few in this stub category. Propose to delete category and upmerge template.
Dawynn (
talk) 18:03, 12 April 2013 (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.
Sportspeople from Irish suburbs and towns
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:speedy merge per
WP:CSD#G7, since the category creator supports merger. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 16:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. This to me seems disruptive and not aligned with any other cats. Sportspeople by small-town is not needed.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Splitting small categories into tiny ones is a waste of everyone's time.
Oculi (
talk) 18:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, the categories are too small. Also disruptive and pointy editing.
Snappy (
talk) 20:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge I concede defeat
Finnegas (
talk) 10:34, 13 April 2013 (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:General law reviews
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.
Comment:
Law review has a different, and more specific meaning than 'Law journal'. Law reviews are associated with law schools and produced by law school students. As such, I see some value in retaining the current category name. Or, to express it in another way, perhaps there should be a new
Category:Law reviews as a subcategory of
Category:Law journals. I'd recommend soliciting feedback on this one from
WikiProject Law. Regards,
DA Sonnenfeld (
talk) 12:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Many journals in the other categories named "Foo law journals" are student-edited and associated with law schools, too (and not all of those have the word "review" in their titles; in fact, neither do several journals in the current category).
Law journal redirects to
law review. As far as I can see, the two labels are synonymous. BTW, note that there is a separate category for student-edited journals:
Category:Academic journals edited by students (not specific to law journals). --
Randykitty (
talk) 12:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I don't think a new subcat tree distinguishing law reviews from law journals should be formed. While I appreciate there is a difference, we don't need to build up a whole tree to make this difference visible - adding a given law review to
Category:Academic journals edited by students as a catch-call should be sufficient. We have a whole tree of
Category:Law journals by country and
Category:Law journals by topic - if we are serious about categorizing law reviews separately, we would have to hence create
Category:Law reviews by country and
Category:Law reviews by topic and then everything underneath as a parallel tree. Not worth it. I think the title of each article will suffice to explain whether it is a law review or not.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think that this "difference" between law journals and law reviews is generally accepted or even general usage. The Washington and Lee ranking just talks about
"journals" and has no separate category for "reviews". In their
discussion of what journals are included or not, they don't even use the expression "law review" (except in quotations). --
Randykitty (
talk) 22:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
The W&L ranking database is for all law journals, including law reviews. The ABA does make such a distinction, as in
this recent article. Kind regards,
DA Sonnenfeld (
talk) 11:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Here's another related
posting. I agree that the distinction between 'journal' and 'review' is fuzzy. Kind regards,
DA Sonnenfeld (
talk) 11:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
It's so fuzzy, that I cannot even see that these links actually make that distinction: they seem to use "journal" and "review" quite interchangeably. Neither do they say that they limit themselves to student-edited journals only. They do limit themselves to US journals and there, of course, most are student-edited and law-school related. But that is a geographical distinction and not a fundamental one. --
Randykitty (
talk) 12:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename The preceding discussion has been helpful... I agree that, for consistency, the proposed category rename makes sense, per nom. Thanks,
DA Sonnenfeld (
talk) 13:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename while some people may think these is a clear distinction, there are other people involved in the field that use journal and review interchangably, so we should not assume there is consensus that the terms are distinct. There is even less reason to categorize by this distinction.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename to keep language consistent and understandable outside the field. The distinction between "law review" and other law journals is important but a bit too wonky to be a good category, IMO. And while the flagship law review at a particular school is usually defined by its status as "student-edited" etc., other law reviews are usually more defined by their subject of coverage. I also note that different law reviews have different levels of faculty support/supervision, and there are hybrid models .... All of this is to say that I think a few lists would be a better way to handle the distinctions here, since lists can accommodate notes and caveats and explanations, while categories cannot. --
Lquilter (
talk) 15:13, 24 April 2013 (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:Groups of the United States
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.
Nominator's rationale: Parent category is "Military units and formations of the United States by size", but a more precision in the name is needed. E.g., "groups" could be seen a social organizations, etc. –
S. Rich (
talk) 14:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment another alternative is keeping this category, but adding additional category per nom as a subcategory. I would think there would be many "Groups" in the US, both military & non-military. Semper Fi!
FieldMarine (
talk) 01:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
rename per nom. Existing name is ambiguous; parent categories and content indicate this is only about US military.
Hmains (
talk) 04:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Support rename to Groups (military unit) of the United States in line with other categories such as 'Divisions (military formations) of X'.
Buckshot06(talk) 22:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Support rename to Groups (military unit) of the United States --
Lineagegeek (
talk) 22:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
By OP: Support rename to "Groups (military unit) of the United States". This will allow the inclusion of service-specific groups, such as Army and Civil Affairs. –
S. Rich (
talk) 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename to much less ambiguous title.
Valenciano (
talk) 07:06, 17 April 2013 (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:Passeridae stubs
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Tried to fill, but still only a half-size category. Propose to delete category, upmerge template.
Dawynn (
talk) 12:50, 12 April 2013 (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:Lithuania school stubs
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.
I'm not asking that we get rid of the template, just the category. There are 40 other countries that seem to be satisfied with having just a template. Since Lithuania doesn't have enough to fill a stub category, why should it be treated more important than say France or Russia?
Dawynn (
talk) 19:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Ah, I see; I thought you wanted to redirect the template. Fair enough: upmerge category keeping template. I guess people can always try "what links here" from a stub template page if they want to see how many pages use it. –
FayenaticLondon 21:29, 17 April 2013 (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:Mirza title stubs
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Very undersized stub category. Category and template never proposed, so not approved. If this is a helpful categorization, a permanent category would be built, yet none exists, which makes populating the stub category that much more difficult. Biographical articles do not tend to link to the main article. Propose deleting both stub category and template. Those interested in this categorization would do well to start with populating a permanent category.
Dawynn (
talk) 11:46, 12 April 2013 (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:Songs from Rent (musical)
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:not renamed --
Salix (
talk): 21:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that every song in the category was used in both the musical and the film.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. They appeared in the musical first, which is why they are so categorized. The category can also be in
Category:Songs from films, since the film is a musical film.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Question - If they were in both works, then it seems like they should be categorized in both works, regardless of which appeared first. In particular, if the film and the musical are both notable and topical enough to have eponymous categories, then the songs should be in both. I'm phrasing this as a question & a comment because I'm curious about the rationale behind the "only-in-the-first-appearance" category. It sounds reasonable at first, but then I thought well, why? --
Lquilter (
talk) 15:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)reply
What's the point of having two categories when the one category can be in both the theatre tree and the film tree?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose - the term "musical" is not necessarily confined solely to the stage. - jc37 20:10, 15 June 2013 (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:Songs from Hair (musical)
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:Not renamed --
Salix (
talk): 21:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that every song in the category was used in both the musical and the film.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. They appeared in the musical first, which is why they are so categorized. The category can also be in
Category:Songs from films, since the film is a musical film.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Question - Repeat comment from Songs from Rent (musical): If they were in both works, then it seems like they should be categorized in both works, regardless of which appeared first. In particular, if the film and the musical are both notable and topical enough to have eponymous categories, then the songs should be in both. I'm phrasing this as a question & a comment because I'm curious about the rationale behind the "only-in-the-first-appearance" category. It sounds reasonable at first, but then I thought well, why? --
Lquilter (
talk) 15:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)reply
(repeated response from above) What's the point of having two categories when the one category can be in both the theatre tree and the film tree?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose for all the reasons stated above. Isn't the film a musical, too, or am I missing something? --
Richhoncho (
talk) 10:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose - the term "musical" is not necessarily confined solely to the stage. - jc37 20:10, 15 June 2013 (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.