Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 31

< May 30	June 1 >

May 31

Category:Gaikokujin Tarento

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:Expatriate television personalities in Japan.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Gaikokujin tarento to Category:Foreign television personalities in Japan

Nominator's rationale: this rename is not overly wordy yet far more comprehensible to those not familiar with Japanese TV entertainment. Mayumashu (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Suggest Category:Expatriate television personalities in Japan (cf parent Category:Expatriates in Japan); or upmerge to the 2 parents. (My recollection is that we don't use foreign in category names.) Occuli (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative rename sounds good too - support it. Neither 'foreign' nor 'expatriate' are wholly true as one or two only became TV personalities after gaining Japanese citizenship - 'foreign' would be more appropriate within a Japanese context but 'expatriate' within the global context as we describe it in our WP catting. I rather oppose upmerging given the particular cultural significance within Japanese cultural between 'uchi' (domestic) and 'soto' (foreign), again, not based on citizenship but ethnicity (particularly including non-'native ability' in Japanese language). Mayumashu (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Variety television personalities by nationality

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 all. Courcelles (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Propose merging

• Category:Variety television personalities by nationality to Category:Television personalities by nationality
• Category:Japanese variety television personalities and Category:Tarento to Category:Japanese television personalities

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. There is no category tree Category:Variety television personalities while there is Category:Television personalities by nationality, and Category:Japanese television personalities is vastly underpopulated. (Note: tarento are TV personalities who appear as participants on Japanese game/talk shows - see the article page for clarification.) Mayumashu (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge. People inside the category don't have much in common beyond being on the TV. East of Borschov (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Merge – most TV personalities will appear in several types of TV show. Occuli (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Future infrastructure

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 all to "Proposed foo in Bar". Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Nominator's rationale: Rename. After this successful nomination changing "Future" to "Planned," here's a batch of future infrastructure categories. The rationale is that we can't know the future, we can only know what is planned. (Note: Category:Future London infrastructure's other parent is Category:London infrastructure, not "infrastructure in London." Might try to change that later.) As noted below, "Proposed" is also under consideration. I would be fine with that, and if that gets accepted, then I will change all subsequent nominations to that as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rename all to Category:Proposed ''foo'' in ''Bar''. Atlanta's second airport is not planned, it is "an idea being studied." Like the Fourth harbour crossing, Hong Kong, Vedanta University, the Baltic Pipe, and many, many other articles currently tagged, it cannot even said to be on the drawing board, much less "planned"; the best that can be said is that they have been seriously proposed. - choster (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. In addition to "planned", "proposed", "crackpot dreams" etc. many "future things" are either being actively built (Texas State Highway Spur 260), or rely on pre-existing things (Danube–Oder Canal) or are merely plans to refit such existing things (Montreal Planetarium). These must be re-categorized one-by-one. East of Borschov (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I would also support "Proposed" if that's the way consensus goes (and switching the ubercategory to "Proposed infrastructure"). And I have no objection to there being multiple categories per type, though that's a much bigger project than CfD can handle. I just want it out of the future.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment -- The content of any such categories will need to be closely monitored on grounds of WP:CRYSTAL. I would support "Proposed", as long as a warning is placed on the category page to discourage the pipe-dream projects from appearing. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I wonder if the closing bot can make such an addition as it goes through the categories?--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't those articles already be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL? I guess the question here, and in many other related categories is how do you classify a project that had a lot of work done, maybe even including starting construction, and then is abandoned? Clearly it went from proposed to projected to future to defunct. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I think those are all still "proposed" (that is, we don't need living/dead categories for proposals). Obviously, the ones which were completed were also proposed, but I can't imagine anyone putting something finished into one of these categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Rename all to Category:Proposed foo in Bar. Once created the introduction needs to mention that this is for items that might actually be built and is not for dream projects. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Closing note: Seems like there's strong support for "Proposed," so I've created a list at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_31/Future_infrastructure with the changes heading to "Proposed (X)" for this and the other two nominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Soundtrack 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 result of the discussion was: merge; if in the future the distinction needs to be re-established in categories, this could be done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Soundtrack albums to Category:Soundtracks

Nominator's rationale: I do not understand what the distinction is here between "soundtracks" and "soundtrack albums." For what it's worth, I have re-structured Category:Soundtracks to organize them by date, medium, artist nationality, and property, and in all of those cases, I have used "soundtracks" rather than "soundtrack albums", so I am in favor of simply merging into "soundtracks." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the distinction is that every film has a "soundtrack", even if its soundtrack isn't compiled and released as a "soundtrack album". That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to the move in principle, as it's vanishingly rare that a film soundtrack would be independently notable as a separate topic from the film if it wasn't released as an album — but I felt it should be clarified nonetheless. Note, though, that if the merge does go forward, it'll have to be done carefully as the content articles that are currently in Category:Soundtracks are not all albums, and should not be sloppily interspersed with albums — so some additional structuring and diffusing will be necessary for proper organization. No vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge. I can't find any articles that aren't albums, but regardless, "Soundtracks" can define both album and non-album creations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Most of the articles in Category:Soundtrack albums are already/could be included in categories in Category:Soundtracks by medium such as Category:Film soundtracks, Category:Television soundtracks etc., so do not need to be in Category:Soundtrack albums, and removing them from this category would simplify things. Cjc13 (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Soundtracks and soundtrack albums are two distinct things and should not be confused. Thus, most of the soundtrack categories should be named Category:Television soundtrack albums and Category:Hip hop soundtrack albums (used as examples because it appears all albumsarticles in these categories are albums) for accuracy. If the merge takes place, Category:Soundtracks should not be a subcategory under Category:Albums because non-album articles relating to soundtracks can also be placed here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Wikipedia books on science people

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 all. Courcelles (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia books on science people to Category:Wikipedia books on scientists

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia books on arts people to Category:Wikipedia books on artists

Nominator's rationale: The usual noun for "science people" is scientist and for arts people, it's artists. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support per presence of Category:Scientists, Category:Artists and absence of Category:Science people, Category:Arts people (noting also Category:American people and absence of Category:United States people). Occuli (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This, and the below CfD can probably be speedily closed (absolutely nothing controversial about either).Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Artist collectives

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'. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Artist collectives to Category:Artist groups and collectives

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Basically the same. Foxtrotnik (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - In no way should this category be merged into the umbrella parent category. Collectives are a particular type of group, different in character from other types of groups -- and there is a category tree under Category:Collectives which for some inexplicable reason was missing as a parent cat (I've just added it). The real problem here is with the name of the parent cat, which should be nominated for renaming to Category:Artist groups. Cgingold (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and agree with Cgingold's proposition for simplifying the naming of Category:Artist groups and collectives. Collectives are distinct from the various exhibiting Institutes and Societies through which artists have organised. The tendency of our times is likely to increase the number of Category:Artist collectives and it is a reasonable category link, as well as having a reference article in Artist collective; better to maintain that structure than to dilute it. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Cross-Tipped Churches Thematic Resources

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: split contents between new Category:Churches in the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches and Category:Religious buildings in the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Propose renaming Category:Cross-Tipped Churches Thematic Resources to Category:Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Move to meet primary article, Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches. The current name is a bureaucratic designation for the group of buildings that give the area its name, while the proposed new name is popularly-used and well known. Please note that I'm the creator of this category, and except for a single bot edit, the only user to have edited the category. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – should it not be something like 'Churches of the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches' (as the articles are all about churches)? Occuli (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Given the template and list (which may not include all of these, but does include only notable ones), do even need the category? From the article it would appear that the proper name might need to be Category:Buildings and structures in the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches since there are more notable buildings in the area then just churches. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Buildings and structures" wouldn't be a good idea, since that would logically include places such as the Julius Boesel House that are within the region but don't at all belong in the category. Right now, there's only one existing article that's not about a church (Shrine of the Holy Relics), but there are other non-churches that belong in this category that don't yet have articles; I'm currently in the middle of writing an article on a convent, for example. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Then you need to propose a less ambiguous name for the category. It needs to cover buildings, in a specific area, but those that are not part of some umbrella inclusion criteria, right? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Don't understand your point. Could you clarify? Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• What material is intended for inclusion in the category? Category:Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches is really ambiguous in that it would allow inclusion of anything within the general geographic area. Is it intended only for churches? Only for churches with crosses at the highest point? Clearly it is not intended to be only for churches, but a category name should clearly identify its contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to the shorter version: "Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches". I don't see anything ambiguous here; current contents of the category need no further subcategorization (there are only churches plus the lead article). The same approach has been used for historical areas elsewhere (that is, Dortmund belongs to Category:Ruhr Area, not to Category:Populated places in Ruhr Area). That said, the whole content of Category:Historical regions and similar categories need closer attention, but not formal enforcement of rigid schemes. East of Borschov (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, there are two convents in the category, and I'm planning to write articles on a rectory, a school, and a seminary that will belong in this category as well; it's not just churches and the lead article. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not going to object to the rename now. I will note that neither the existing or proposed names are clear about what the contents are. While my proposal above is actually the most accurate, it is apparently too broad for the intended contents of the category. Clearly at a minimum, an introduction is needed in the category to define what is to be included. Lacking that a delete becomes a very reasonable option. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Re category: Shouldn't it relate to the local area/state ie Category:Roman Catholic churches in Iowa or Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Cincinnati as there are other than churches; or both? Hugo999 (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure since the intent of the category is not clear. From the discussion above, clearly there is no focus for the category. This is the problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Churches in the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches, and create a new subcategory parent category Category:Religious buildings in the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches in which the convents and (if any) other non-church religious buildings get placed. This would mirror Category:Religious buildings in Israel, as an example.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Churches in the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches per Mike Selinker except make Category:Religious buildings in the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches the parent category since it is the broader scope and inclusive of churches. Upmerge contents to the parent as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that's exactly what I meant. Just used the wrong words.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Wikipedia books on specific people

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 all. Courcelles (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

---

NB to other sysops: Two of these targets have been placed into CydeBot's queue for renaming. Therefore, this work will not be placed into queue until the bot runs those renames. Courcelles (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging:

• Category:Wikipedia books on Abraham Lincoln to Category:Wikipedia books on United States people
• Category:Wikipedia books on Albert Einstein to Category:Wikipedia books on science people
• Category:Wikipedia books on George Washington to Category:Wikipedia books on United States people
• Category:Wikipedia books on Leonardo da Vinci to Category:Wikipedia books on arts people and Category:Wikipedia books on science people
• Category:Wikipedia books on William Shakespeare to Category:Wikipedia books on arts people Category:Wikipedia books on authors

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge all - categories each with a single book, with the same name as the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- We will presumably nerver have more than one WP book on a subject, so that the categories are a useless and will never be expanded, but I am unhappy about the names of the targets. Practitioners of science are not "science people" they are scientists; Leonardo was an artist, not an arts person. Shakespeare was not an arts person or an artist, but an author. This presumable requires a fresh nomination, which I will make above. They should be Category:Wikipedia books on scientists, Category:Wikipedia books on artists, and Category:Wikipedia books on authors. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have created the latter, because Shakespeare was not an arts person, but a playwright, a variety of author. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I merely copied the existing parent book categories from the respective categories, paying no attention to how they sound. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Upmerge per nom as modified by Peterkingiron. Occuli (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Upmerge all. People-specific categories can be created when there's a need for them, but not before. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Upcoming aircraft

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 8. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Upcoming aircraft to Category:Planned aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Planned is about 6 times more common then upcoming when paired with aircraft. Also this is the more commonly used term for categories about future projects. Also upcoming is ambiguous since it could mean aircraft already available and becoming more popular. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Arctic settlements of Canada

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 all per adjusted nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Arctic settlements of Canada to Category:Populated Arctic places of Canada Category:Populated places of Arctic Canada

Category:Arctic settlements of Finland to Category:Populated Arctic places of Finland Category:Populated places of Arctic Finland

Category:Arctic settlements of Norway to Category:Populated Arctic places of Norway Category:Populated places of Arctic Norway

Category:Arctic settlements of Greenland to Category:Populated Arctic places of Greenland Category:Populated places of Arctic Greenland

Category:Arctic settlements of Russia to Category:Populated Arctic places of Russia Category:Populated places of Arctic Russia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Another small batch of renames. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- This is a particualrly stupid application of a bad rename decision. If it must be changed it should be to Category:Arctic populated places of Canada. They are called settlements because they are settled by people in contrast to most of the Arctic, which is completely unsettled. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Settlements is a specific type of legal community in Canada which is why the bulk conversion required manual handling. I have checked a hanful of these and they do not appear to be legally defined as settlements, so at least for Canada they can not be at settlements since they are not settlements. As to Russia, I suppose that you could consider Category:Inhabited Arctic localities of Russia as an alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think you understand the contents of the Russian category, it contains settlements that are both inhabited and uninhabited, therefore none of the category title changes you have proposed make any sense whatsoever. The same applies to Greenland, which, as I previously stated, also includes sub-categories covering uninhabited places, so again, "populated places" would not be appropriate for this category either. Maybe I have got totally the wrong end of the stick, but it appears to me that you have made a decision about Canadian settlements, seen a number of other categories with similar titles and decided they therefre all need renaming. I would ask that you review the contents of each category, and then consider whether "populated places" is appropriate. It seems to me that this proposal needs to be withdrawn. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • You may want to read this discussion. The categories are for any place that is or was populated. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but that article is far too long, you'll have to pull quotes out of it as I can't see anything to support your statement in it. Regardless, can you explain how it makes sense to call a category "populated whatevers" when it contains links to settlements that aren't populated. It's inherently confusing, not only at category level, but also article level. Take this article, as I understand your arguement, a user would read the article, see in the infobox that the population was nil, read how it has been liquidated and then find at the bottom of the article a link to a category for "populated whatevers". It seems to me that whilst your proposal will produce nice, neat uniform categories that will make pernickety editors pleased, it only serves to confuse casual users of WP, who are simply looking for information. I have no problem semantically with "settlements" being replaced with "places", or "localities" if people feel that it is more appropriate, but the idea of including the word "populated" in the category title is just wrong, for the reasons I have stated previously.

I feel I must make comment about your choice of proposed titles, which in my opinion are really quite clumsy. "Populated places of arctic Russia" flows much more readily off the toungue and using the phrase "arctic Russia" (or indeed "arctic anything") directly ties in with the template on each category explaining what qualifies for inclusion.This is just my opinion though, I'm not going to object to anything on personal semantic grounds. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Category:Arctic settlements of Russia to Category:Populated places of Arctic Russia would be acceptable (not sure of the correct spelling of Arctic in this case)? I would not object to that form if that is where consensus lies. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It seems to me that that title just sounds better, particularly as what qualifies as "arctic appears to a little vague, hence the necessity for the template at the top of these categories. Saying arctic places to me implies a place with an arctic climate that may be within a larger area that is not necessarily "arcitc", whereas saying places in arctic Russia suggests to me places within a wider geographical area that can be said to be arctic. Maybe I'm making to much of this, I certainly would want to make a big deal out of it if others were happy with the category title. I do have to reiterate though, I fail to see how having a category entitled "Populated Places" that includes unpopulated and liquidated settlements isn't inherently confusing to the casual user, but it appears that this isn't a problem to most other people! Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This makes no sense, the Russian category contains settlements now abandoned, or research stations which are either only periodically inhabited or, like Barneo are rebuilt each year. They are not all populated, to change the category title would be misleading and factually incorrect. I also note that there is a sub category in Category:Settlements_in_Greenland for former settlements too which would look out of place if this ultimately semantic name change went ahead. Fenix down (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This can be solved by creating subcategory: Category:Former populated Arctic places of Russia and Category:Never populated Arctic places of Russia. No big deal. Anyway, Barneo or the ISS should not be there. East of Borschov (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Relisting comment. On relisting, I just wanted to point out that the parent category for these is Category:Populated places in the Arctic, and that one of the subcategories is Category:Populated Arctic places of the United States. So far, the opposes seem to be opposed to the overall idea of using "populated places" at all rather than just opposing these changes alone. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• I have updated the proposed name for Russia to reflect what may be a better name based on the discussion. Is that a better formulation for the other categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support – this has been discussed ad nauseam in many places and "populated places" was the result. It is a can of worms but let us bury it. (Obviously this includes many places which are no longer populated. Nearly all categories contain ex-whatevers. We don't have 'Former US presidents' for instance.) Occuli (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• rename all including the United States to "Populated places of Arctic foo" WHY: it is the geographic boundary of the Arctic Circle that determines what part of a country is in the Arctic and what not so Arctic should be the modifier of 'foo' country, not "places". Also, consistency. If is is better sounding for Russia, it must be better sounding for the other countries also--but I cannot tell. Hmains (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Rename all to "Populated places of Arctic (X). I was maybe going to make an exception for Russia, since it uses the term "settlement" to mean something special, but this is just a collection of various types of populated place such as the city Murmansk. So let's rename them all to a standardized format, including the U.S. one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Nomination modified to reflect what appears to be the consensus, Category:Populated places of Arctic foo. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Russian painters from Saint Petersburg

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. There is no consensus on whether to delete or not, but there is consensus to rename this if it is kept. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Russian painters from Saint Petersburg to Category:Painters from Saint Petersburg

Nominator's rationale: standard pattern is e.g. Category:Actors from Chicago, Illinois etc. Moreover, not all painters from Saint Petersburg have been Russian (either as citizens or ethnically) Mayumashu (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm dubious about this. It's by the same guy who had "Leningrad School of art" deleted recently, & wrote a book on the subject. A quick sample showed actually none born there (though one infobox erroneously said one was), though all seemed to have been trained & lived there. Mind you I'm dubious about Category:Actors from Chicago, Illinois too. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

---

But by WP category naming convention, they don t have to have been born in St. Petersburg to be, so-called, 'from' there - they only have to have resided there Mayumashu (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This category is the equivalent of Category:Television actors from Chicago, Illinois existing before Category:Actors from Chicago, Illinois was even created. postdlf (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support unless some one is going to argue that we need a "Non-Russian painters from St Petersburg" (or working in St Petersburg). I think that Catherine the Great attacted many foreigners to work on the city, so that the non-Russian element may exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support – we generally have 'People from X' leaving their nationality out of it (although Category:Actors from Chicago, Illinois is eventually part of Category:American people). We have Category:People by city in Russia, subcat (allegedly) of Category:Russian people, including Category:People from Saint Petersburg. An alternative is to upmerge the painters to Category:People from Saint Petersburg as no other occupations are subcatted in St P. Occuli (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• I support the rename proposal over keeping the current name, but this category simply has no reason to exist. I don't think there are any other painters by city categories (based on a selective look at some of the larger painter categories, such as Category:American painters and Category:French painters), and I don't see a reason to start any as it's too overly specific of an intersection to be useful. Regardless, it's especially premature here where there is no parent Category:Artists from Saint Petersburg category, or any other people from Saint Petersburg by occupation categories. So upmerge as needed. postdlf (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Nominator here will support upmerge too - whichever is supported most by others Mayumashu (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Hmmm Obviously we rightly have several Italian "painters by city" categories like Category:Bergamese painters (from Bergamo), because this is a traditional art-historical way of classifying them, as "School of ...". The creator initially tried to create a "school of ..." category for St Pete's, based I think on a book he's written, but this was rejected here as a category, largely because he cannot yet be said to have won the world over to this view, & appeared to be stretching his claim too wide. I'm not bothered by the lack of a parent for "artists" - the Italians mostly don't have these. The case for Category:Painters from Saint Petersburg is stronger, as the claim is less, and the art was certainly a distinctive tradition to some degree. Many called Russian then would be regarded as Ukrainian, Georgian etc now, but there is also maybe a case for either including or excluding "expat" Germans or Italians etc settling in St P. Perhaps a note would be enough to clarify that "Russian" means here "native to the R Empire". I can see "Painters from New York" might be a sensible way to break up the colossal "American painters", if so desired, though I think London or Paris would be far less useful, as they would include the majority of major artists. I can't really decide. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • As you've noted, the Italian painters categories are a different case than St. Petersburg, because art history actually treats them as members of particular schools. That CFD has already rejected that attempt for St. Petersburg makes that line irrelevant here without any further support for that notion. More generally, breaking up large categories should not be a paramount concern, particularly if the effect is to force someone searching through Category:American painters, for example, to know a particular city with which the painter may have been associated so that they can identify the particular subcategory in which it may be found, which is almost never going to be how they are actually studied and organized in general reference works outside of Wikipedia. Which is why subnational categorizations should almost never intersect with the most specific occupation categories that exist; maintaining both "[nationality] painters" and "[artists] from [city]" seems the better way, and the size of the resulting categories (which are alphabetized and easily searchable) is irrelevant. So I still don't seem any reason for this category to exist, given that there is no showing that there was a St. Petersburg school of painting, and it would not be a good practice to meatgrind all of the painters by nationality categories through the myriad cities with which they were "from". postdlf (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Does not support renaming the category.

In the Russian wiki for the category "Artists of Russia" there is a subcategory of "Artists of Russian cities" and sub-subcategory "Artists of Moscow", "Artists of St. Petersburg" and some others. Logical continuation of such an approach for the English wiki. This allocation is justified by the fact that in Russia, because of its historical and geographical features that were not erased the differences between the cultural centers in relation to the artistic heritage and artistic tradition. And in particular, to the Fine Art tradition. At the same artists traditionally refer to the "Leningrad" or "Moscow" is not the place of birth, and not even attending college, but by the principal place of residence and participation in artistic life. Thus, among the artists of the Leningrad School in St. Petersburg - Leningrad were born not more than 25-30%, but 100% of their professional activities have been associated with Leningrad and lived in Leningrad, most of his life. For realistic art that is of particular importance. In Russian literature has long distinguished Saratov, Astrakhan, and some other provincial Art Schools. This topic has not received, until recently, the deep coverage in the literature because of political and economic reasons, as a consequence existed in the Soviet centralized funding of art (decades of Moscow's decisions on the allocation of money for the purchase of paintings, for holding major exhibitions, for publication of catalogues, and so on). Much of this financial dependence continues today. Therefore, artists and art historians deliberately avoided the opposition of the Moscow and regional schools of art and traditions, turning a blind eye to the phenomenon actually existed. With regard to ethnic composition, among the artists of Leningrad - St. Petersburg 20 centuries, besides Russian, as before, was a certain number of Ukrainians, Jews, Armenians and representatives of some other peoples of the USSR. They lived, studied and worked among Russian, but not ethnically distinct groups. They spoke in Russian, read Russian books and newspapers, taught children in Russian schools. Participated in exhibitions of Leningrad artists. Therefore, in their paintings, as well as in works of Russian artists, we first see an Era and the picturesque tradition of Leningrad-Petersburg, is common to all artists, regardless of their place of birth and nationality. In the work of "non-Russian" artists of Leningrad - St. Petersburg is not an isolated topic, a separate national existence, the opposition itself, its culture of Russian cultural tradition. This, however, prevents build for representatives of national minorities additional categories, uniting them is not by profession, but by national, for example, ‘The Armenians of St. Petersburg’. In general solving this issue for a separate country, it is advisable to orient the traditions established in this country, and carefully apply the general scheme, especially when it comes to culture. Leningradartist (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Professorships in Philosophy

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 03:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Professorships in Philosophy to Category:Professorships in philosophy

Nominator's rationale: proper title format Greg Bard 02:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Can you expand on this rationale? The norm for entries under Category:Professorships by subject appears to be capitalising the subject. Are you proposing a change to them all or just to philosophy as a necessary exception? AllyD (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If that is the "norm" under that category, that's fine, but it is certainly not the norm everywhere else. Perhaps they all should be changed. I was unaware. However, at this time, I am only proposing this for the philosophy topics.Greg Bard 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy rename per nom; this is clearly miscapitalized. It looks like these categories were all created by the same person, and no one's bothered yet to fix the capitalization. Which doesn't create a new standard, not where the content itself does not support the different capitalization. The only sibling category that should stay the same is Category:Professorships in Egyptology, as Egyptology is apparently capitalized. postdlf (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Pan-Unicode typefaces

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) 11:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Pan-Unicode typefaces to Category:Unicode typefaces

Nominator's rationale: "Unicode typeface" means like 'covering multiple scripts, all characters encoded in Unicode'. (It does not mean: a typographic style related to Unicode. It is more like: typeface Greek script?, Cyrillic script? or some Unicode scripts?). From here, there is no clear border between "Unicode typeface" and "Pan-Unicode typeface". It is just a matter of how many characters does it cover. And then: why a distinction; what's the border number? (History: maybe ten years ago it was a big feat if a typeface covered many scripts (encoded in Unicode. But nowadays it seems less relevant). btw: the word "Pan-Unicode" is not a well-used nor a defined word.
Summary: There is no clear or useful distinction between "Pan-Unicode" and "Unicode" in typefacing. If a typeface is Unicode-covering into some length, let's cat it under Category:Unicode typefaces. -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. If we ever have a Pan-Unicode typeface article, then we can reconsider this. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Template:Navigation Bar Township Structure (Hesse)

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Navigation Bar Township Structure (Hesse) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category designed for a single template, containing nothing but this one template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, this category is not only for an one template. If you look at the german speaking wikipedia you found at the category de:Kategorie:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Gemeindegliederung (Hessen) many others templates about township structure. I think that in the future many of this templates go to the english spoken wikipedia. The deletion of this category were a work-creation program in the future ;) --Markus Schulenburg (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly not needed or justified at this time. If it ever is needed, it can be discussed or recreated at that time. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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.