The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename all per nominator. Looking at the linked
CFD Feb 24 discussion, I'd forgotten that I had suggested "programming". Since it seems to have some support, and appears to resolve both the ENGVAR and content type issues, I'm happy to roll it out further. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. I am generally in favour of this move per the
WP:ENGVAR and content reasons cited. However, for the education categories, it looks like it should be "French-language-education television programming" (programming about learning the French language), not "French-language education television programming" (programming about education made in the French language). I don't really like joining the three words with a hyphen, though, so it might be best to think of other names just for the language-education categories. I thought of "Category:Television programming for French as a second or foreign language" but it's a bit long. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪12:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The head category
Category:Television programming is fine because it covers more than series/shows, e.g. genres, seasons, episodes, opening sequences and screenplays. I do not think it is suitable to be used as if it was a synonym of
television programs. It's a different
part of speech, and its scope is not the same. I now think that "television shows" would be best, as it covers one-offs as well as series, and avoids spelling variations. It would also work better for related categories e.g.
Category:Works based on television series could become "works based on television shows" but please not "works based on television programming". –
FayenaticLondon16:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)reply
But then, if the category is meant to contain programs, then it should be called programs, not programming. It's like calling a category "electronics industry" when it's supposed to contain companies. --
NaBUru38 (
talk)
19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Series is perfectly satsifactory in British English. We do not have TV prgramming (or it might mean scheduling). The appropriate spelling - for UK, Europe and most of Commonwealth would be "programmes", but "programs" in the Americas.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
You are ignoring the shows/series issues. Everyone who has TV has TV programming, that is what occurs on TV. There is no Engvar issue with that term, in fact the person who came up with it is not America, so to claim it is American will not work.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply. The current mishmash of "shows", "series", "programs" and "programmes" looks to me like a very compelling case for change. This sort of inconsistency makes it difficult for editors to categorise articles, and it confuses readers. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename. I closed the Spanish-language discussion, and so I'm not going to close this one. But I will reiterate that I think "programming" solves all the problems of ENGVAR and frequency, and thus endorse it here.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
15:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename per nomination. Series is obviously inapplicable to one-offs; episodes; and possibly even mini-series. "Programming" is much better. --
Lquilter (
talk)
15:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)reply
To me, "shows" seems like it is used by different people in different ways. Maybe I'm wrong, but some people seem to use it more formally to mean one-offs, while other people use it to mean "series" ("I'm going to watch my shows now"); but I don't get the sense that it's universally used as a universal noun. "Programming" just seems better to me because it feels a little bit more formal & generic. --
Lquilter (
talk)
14:44, 9 May 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:Events in the Thirteen Colonies
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:keep. There was a consensus here not to rename as needed, and the nomination was procedurally flawed becuase the sub-categories were neither listed in the nomination nor tagged. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There are >150 categories for "(Dis)Establishments in the Thirteen Colonies by (Year/Century/Decade)" ranging from 1607 to 1776. This category name is confusing and anachronistic, both as there weren't thirteen colonies until 1733 and because some establishments (such as
Plymouth Colony and
Wessagusset Colony) aren't technically in the thirteen. Propose renaming the whole lot of them to "... in the British colonies of North America" for all articles >1707 and " ... in the English colonies of North America" for prior to 1707. Alternatively "British North America" may be used, but that term generally refers to the colonies that would become Canada.
Rename per nom. The current name also anachronistically limits the scope to not include areas of Canada that were under British control in a given year, and also British Florida, both of which were logistically indistinguishable from other British areas at the times invovled. We should have year categories for things reflect how things were then, not impose our vision of things backwards.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)reply
The Thirteen (or however many) Colonies, Canada, and British Florida should all be considered seperately here; lumping them together would only confuse things, and be a disservice to the reader. -
The BushrangerOne ping only06:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Question. Does this have definitive dates for the start and end of when the category should be used? Does the naming affect that? If renamed do we have guidance for what areas of land are covered and when? Does the time end when independence was declared for the named territory or when Great Britain formally relinquished sovereignty? Does everyone agree that the new name probably means that we are including all of Canada?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
This change wouldn't affect that ambiguity. Currently the period 1776-1783 (independence to recognition) is not included.
JRP (
talk)
07:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep -- purge if necessary. Florida and the Canadian provinces had a soemwhat differnt history. The overlap between the Conquest of Quebec and US independence is too short to merit them being in the same catregory, but this one and other British possessions in North America could conveniently be placed together in a "British North America" container category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
NOTE BEFORE CLOSE -- The CfD was not completed successfully: I was unable to get help adding the 180+ CfD notices on the category pages themselves and so many editors that may have weighed in were not contacted. I'm holding out hope someone can poke BOTREQ to make that happen before this closes, but my guess is not...
JRP (
talk)
21:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. While there are several issues, the proposed name would add Canada to these categories. That is a change in scope that is not reasonable.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:50, 24 March 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:Images of Sly and the Family Stone
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 action. The heading says "propose deleting", but the rationale says merge without bothering to naming the target category. Feel free to make a nomination which explains what is proposed and doesn't contradict itself ... but please stop wasting other editors time with incoherent or ill-explained nominations. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:39, 17 March 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:Mayors of Basilan
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:Basilan is a province (and an island), not a town or a city, so it is not headed by mayors. These are mayors in towns and cities in Basilan. –HTD13:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Basilan is a province, but it is managed one level down by municipal mayors (below the governor). So "Mayors of Basilan" (the mayors that Basilan possesses) seems to make sense to me more than "Mayors in Basilan" (they mayors that are geographically located in Basilan). That said, they're both somewhat awkward compromises forced by the naming conventions. I guess the most accurate would be "Mayors of towns of Basilan", but that's silly. I don't think it's worth changing, but I would suggest "Municipal mayors of Basilan" would be a reasonable compromise.
72.235.9.160 (
talk)
06:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I would've been in favor of "Mayors of towns of Basilan", as it's not that silly, considering there's
Category:Mayors of places in the Philippines... in fact I'd go with "Mayors of places in Basilan", as a town and a city are quite different, but both are headed by mayors.
"Municipal mayors of Basilan" implies that Basilan is headed a mayor when it isn't. Unless there are a better naming scheme elsewhere, I'd go with "Mayors of places in Basilan". –HTD19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Added to this CFD:
Category:Mayors of Cavite -- this is more problematic, as there is
Cavite province and
Cavite City, and there's only one article in this one; the other 2 are redirects. Either this is renamed into an identical naming scheme as Basilan's, or is deleted. –HTD19:39, 19 March 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:Lakas Kampi – Christian Muslim Democrats politicians
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.
Note: I realize there's
Category:Lakas – Christian Muslim Democrats politicians (for the
original Lakas–CMD). In 2009, the original Lakas-CMD merged with
KAMPI to form Lakas Kampi CMD, which renamed itself as "
Lakas–CMD" in 2012. There's a big chance that politicians (who were alive when the parties merged) from the original and current Lakas-CMDs are the same, but these are of separate entities. I'm open on what to do here, but categorization for either party must be separate. –HTD15:20, 17 March 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.
Formula One race reports
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 all. These categories are populated with articles about Formula One races, and that is how the categories should be named. The word "report" is form of self-reference; it is a property of the Wikipedia article, not of the topic. We categorise by the properties of the topic. Including the word "reports" in the category title would be appropriate only if these categories contained articles which were about reports of the races, rather than about the races themselves. If that is unclear, consider the how we categorise an article on a person. Those articles are categorised under
Category:People, because they are articles about people; they are not categorised as biographies.
Category:Biographies leads us to
Category:Biographical works, which is for wikipedia articles which about biographies. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)reply
rename all as proposed The category structure here is a little odd because there is a year supercat of the form "YYYY in Formula One", and ordinarily I might ask for an upmerge; but there are also "cars by year" cats which make the division reasonable. In any case all the member articles are titled "YYYY PLACE Grand Prix" (excepting the times when the Indy 500 was an F1 race); besides that the main category also contains
Category:Formula One non-Championship races. Obviously these are articles about races and the categories should be given less contrived names.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Alternative renameCategory:Formula One race reports to
Category:Formula One Grands Prix by year and the subcategories to the format "YYYY Formula One Grands Prix". Note that F1 races are referred to universally as "Grands Prix", and that the parent category for the races is
Category:Formula One Grands Prix - the proposed rename to "Formula One races" is highly ambiguous to that, as it implies articles about the Grand Prix itself, not each Grand Prix of each year. This is, I suspect, why the "race reports" format was chosen in the first place; I agree it is somewhat awkward, and my suggestion would both be consistent with real-world useage and other categories in the F1 trees. -
The BushrangerOne ping only22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)reply
English is such a wonderful language that "race" covers both a series of contests as well as each individual contest. I should think that the fact that a year is involved indicates that these are categories for the latter, but perhaps something like "Formula One races run in YYYY" would make that clearer. My sense of the more contrived names is that they smack too much of insider knowledge, though they may work better in the French Wikipedia where it is understood that "Prix" is its own plural.
Mangoe (
talk)
12:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment It is important to note that not all Grands Prix are Formula One races and not all Formula One races are Grands Prix. The terminology is not exclusive or universal to either case, or to the Formula One World Championship. There have been national championships and alterations to naming conventions. And some, like the Indoor Championship, are not even races. --
Falcadore (
talk)
01:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination, and I support The Bushranger's proposal of renaming the main category to "Category:Formula One Grands Prix by year" (or "Category:Formula One races by year"). But please keep the old categories as soft redirects. --
NaBUru38 (
talk)
18:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Support -- We seem to have one article for each race, which is categorised in a branching tree (1) by year and (2) by place. This nom relates to the year brnach of the tree. Renaming to Grands Prix needs to be the subject of a sepoarate discussion.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:06, 21 March 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:Cherry Red albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Melena del Sur
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, seemingly too small to deserve its own category, but there shouldn't be any prejudice to recreation if we get several more articles that would belong here.
Nyttend (
talk)
02:34, 17 March 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:St. Francis-Xavier X-Men ice hockey players
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.