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:Rename. Discovered while looking into Skye's categories (see below). The article (
Shetland) and by far the majority of the subcategories use simply "Shetland". It would also parallel the use of Orkney for categories dealing with that island group, and the current proposed changes for categories relating to Skye. I'm including the following subcategories which are the only six which use the nominated form - the other 33 all simply use "Shetland":
I didn't, no. I assumed that anyone interested would have the category on their watchlist. I also assumed that any WikiProjects with members as jumpy as to ask that sort of question would have an article alert page set up.
Grutness...wha?00:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Dear me, you're hard to please today :) For the Islands, see
this diff. It's standard practice to use the SCOWNB noticeboard for announcements of this nature and I see no need to go overboard - I don't think it is an especially contentious issue.
BenMacDui18:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose Shetland is ambiguous, this could result is many animal related things falling into the category, requiring chronic patrolling and cleanup. See
Shetland (disambiguation). Category names should be quite unambiguous, unlike article names, because of this problem. Further, isn't it "The Shetlands" ?
76.66.194.220 (
talk)
06:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. Makes perfect sense to me, and no it is most definitely not "The Shetlands". I don't have a source immediately to hand but
this and
this are about Orkney that mentions this issue in relation Shetland too. The animals are all Shetland-related and are, or should already be, in the category anyway.
BenMacDui10:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. Makes sense to me. There may be a very slight degree of ambiguity in "Shetland" alone but "Foo of Shetland" seems unambiguous, is shorter and, to me at least, more euphonious.
Angus McLellan(Talk)13:07, 20 December 2009 (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:Isle of Skye
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: Move: The island of
Skye should have a category of the same name. The "Isle of Skye" is a commonly used "poetic name" but we don't have a category of "London Town" which would be a similar expression. There are no disambiguation problems that I am aware of.
BenMacDui11:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment: Skye may well have the greatest Wikipedia coverage for settlements of any place on the plant, per head of population, courtesy of an enthusiastic creator of articles for every small settlement. I must have amended dozens of them but no doubt there are still more to fix. I presume this "Villages on ... " idea must be standard practice of some kind somewhere else. None of the Scottish islands that have such categories use this method and I much prefer it the way it is - it's shorter and gets to the point first rather than last.
BenMacDui21:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually, "Villages in..." makes some sense, in that it is used for places like Anglesey, Orkney, and the Shetland Islands (about which, see more above). "On" is used for the Isle of Wight, however. One difference which could be relevant is that - unlike those other four places - Skye is not a county.
Grutness...wha?23:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)reply
If we must go in this direction, "on" makes a lot more sense to me than "in". I am not quite sure why, but "in" sounds OK for Orkney. It may be because it is a county, but I think more so that it is an archipelago rather a single island. If there were category for one of these islands it would be "Villages on
Westray" for example.
BenMacDui10:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose category names should not be highly ambiguous, as this rename will make it. This will result in a category requiring constant patrolling and cleanup. Category names should be more unambiguous than article names because of these problems.
76.66.194.220 (
talk)
06:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Support renaming to category "Skye" for the reasons given by the nominator. The issue of "places on" vs. "places in" doesn't seem to be a problem here one way or the other. Regards,
Notuncurious (
talk)
18:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose Many of the islands are locally known as "Isle of ...". In some cases, this also makes for more natural disambiguation. Articles and categories should reflect this. (nearly missed the notification!).
Finavon (
talk)
08:36, 21 December 2009 (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:Video games set in the mid 20th century
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.
Merge to
Category:Video games set in the 20th century. This category, along with
Category:Video games set in the early 20th century and
Category:Video games set in the late 20th century, divide the century into three approximately equal parts of 33 or 34 years; however, such division is neither particularly well-established nor necessarily meaningful. A video game set in Vietnam in 1967 has more in common with one set in Vietnam in 1968 than either one has in common with a video game set in Stalingrad in 1942; however, this category scheme would group the first and three together and categorise the second separately. I have reservations about the entire 'Video games by time period' category system—mostly because it does not distinguish between setting in an accurate version of a historical time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht in Stalingrad in 1942), a fictionalised version of a historical time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht in New York City in 1942), or a completely fictional time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht on Mars in 1942)—but a much more comprehensive nomination would be need to address them. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)18:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge at best. What BHG said. I can't imagine these categories being useful, but at least merge them when possible and keep the sprawl to a minimum. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›07:18, 21 December 2009 (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.