Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 17

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:SEN presenters to Category:SEN 1116

Nominator's rationale: Merge, No need to have separate category for presenters. This is not normally done for any radio station in Wikipedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no merge - per WP:OCAT we don't categorize performers by performance or venue. Merging the presenters into the main category is an end-run around that consensus. Similar to deleted actors by TV network and people by TV network categories. Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711 above and established precedent. Terraxos (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-Interstate Route numbers in the United States that are freeway in its entirety (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization. This is a very narrow intersection and seems to serve limited usefulness. When asked to justify this category, its creator gave an off-topic answer. Brian Powell (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. With so many segments of freeway in the united states not designated as an Interstate along with some non-interstate numbers that are freeway in its entirety, it simply generated an opportunity for this category. --Boxstaa (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Boxstaa neglected to note that he created the category in question. Brian Powell (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with the nominator. There is very little value imparted by this category. There are many more highway designations that are applied to roads that are at least partially freeway. Not all freeways are Interstate standard, and oddly, not all Interstates are freeways! A better categorization scheme would be to tag articles on roads that are at least partially freeway into a category, a scheme that currently exists. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no requirement that a freeway in the United States be designated as an Interstate Highway. The category is also redundant. One can simply look at the Freeways in the United States category and pick out the non-Interstate routes there. In fact, since Interstate Highways are in their own subcategory, that is actually quite easy to do. --Polaron | Talk 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the above reasons. What's more, the category title is hopelessly garbles (not only is there a mismatch of a plural and "its", but as worded it suggests that numbers are freeways). On the rare chance that this is kept, it will need renaming to Category:Numbered Non-Interstate Route numbers in the United States that are freeway in their entirety or similar. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a bad idea - category is not easily defined and defines a situation that is too unique. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete freeway =/= Interstate; that doesn't even make sense, no need for such a cat. 76.66.201.13 (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Saw this category added to a page and immediately thought that category needs a CFD -- and it was already done. It's redundant, its mis-spelled, its trivial categorization, and its wordy. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete Trivial intersection (ha!), hopelessly misnamed. Yes, maybe M-14 in Michigan is a freeway/expressway in its entirety, but that's far from uncommon. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep current name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator's rationale: Rename Main article moved; category should change as well. Georgia guy (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The trend is going the other direction, with categories becoming (city, state) just about everywhere.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The target is ambiguous unless you consider it a catch all for all things Los Angeles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it? I don't see why one name rather than the other suggests this anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as precedent and best practice says categories should be unambiguous as, unlike articles, categories can't be simply resolved with hat notes and disambiguation pages. - Dravecky (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is. There is no agreed upon plan to convert all city categories to such a pattern nor even to change any subset of them. No reason at all for such one-off changes. When the articles were moved, there was also discussion that the categories would not move. Hmains (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment less ambiguous category names are always a better solution. 76.66.201.13 (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I don't see really any harm in the nom, except for consistency. In fact there are no other "Los Angeles"s without an accent. But the category deals with the metropolitan area, and the article with the city only, it seems. Maybe a rename to reflect this is better, to Category:Los Angeles metropolitan area, like Category:Chicago metropolitan area - though that has a city category underneath it. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't oppose creation of Category:Los Angeles metropolitan area and moving the appropriate articles into there. The problem is that Los Angeles is totally and completely ambiguous. I was watching a Travel Channel production last night and they said that Los Angeles is comprised of 80 communities. That show also described Beverley Hills as Beverley Hills Los Angeles. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the category says it covers the metropolitan area, and that includes the city, which is not true vice versa. My advice is not to watch the travel channel - it is bound to lead to unhappiness ;) Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Greater Los Angeles Area. I would expect this to be a parent category of Category:Los Angeles, California but it isn't (yet); perhaps I am missing some local subtlety. Occuli (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the next Russian doll up in the set. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain the difference between the Greater Los Angeles Area and the metropolitan area as mentioned in the category? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per many recent precedents in USA-related cfds. Occuli (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - No persuasive argument has been made for changing this. Cgingold (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Back in March we had a long discussion about a proposal to rename Category:Los Angeles area museums which is directly related to this discussion. At that time I researched the various geographical terms and regions pertaining to the Los Angeles area, and basically concluded that it was damn near hopeless. For your continuing edification, here's what I learned:

The boundaries of the "Greater Los Angeles area" are not well defined; moreover, as described in the article, it covers areas that fall well outside of Los Angeles, which renders it pretty useless in terms of serving as a Category. Far better to restrict it to Los Angeles County, which has clearly defined boundaries. // If an umbrella category for the region is thought desirable, I think Category:Museums in Southern California would be a better choice.

I'm afraid that "Los Angeles metropolitan area" is no better than "Greater Los Angeles Area". No matter what the Wiki article claims, neither term is clearly defined. If you had asked me last week, just off the top of my head, I would have said they mean roughly the same thing. I spent about half my life living in one or another part of the "Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area" -- yes, that term is also in use -- and I can tell you that, even though all of these terms are widely used, the average person has only a very fuzzy notion of what they mean. The problem is, there is no single, agreed-upon definition for the "Los Angeles metropolitan area", as the following excerpts -- none of which agree with the Wiki article -- demonstrate very clearly:

• The Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers (sounds authoritative, doesn't it?) refers to "The five-county metropolitan region of Los Angeles..."
• But the Center for Housing Policy, in Washington, DC, in a publication called, "Housing Challenges Facing Working Families in the Los Angeles, CA Metropolitan Area", states: "The Los Angeles metropolitan area is defined as Los Angeles County, CA [emphasis added] according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development."
• And then there's the Encarta article on Los Angeles, Section II: Los Angeles and Its Metropolitan Area, which states:

"The City of Los Angeles is the seat of Los Angeles County, which includes most of the Los Angeles-Long Beach metropolitan area. In turn, Los Angeles County is at the heart of the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), a vast metropolitan region that stretches from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the San Gabriel Mountains in the north to the Mohave Desert in the east and to the San Diego Metropolitan Statistical Area in the south."

Now that we're all feeling very enlightened about all this, I'm sure the desired solution is just around the corner... :b Cgingold (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (empty). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Planned radio stations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Redundant to Category:Future radio stations and programming which is added by the {{Future radio}} template as part of the greater "Future" category structure. Had been in use by only two radio stations, one now on the air and the other now properly tagged with the {{Future radio}} template, but is now empty. Dravecky (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I say STRONG DELETE and protest. Because radio has no future!!! I suggest that you all buy and MP3 player and load your favorite songs on it, and put it in shuffle mode. Because one of these days you will regret liking radio. Besides, don't you want better accuracy to your music taste. Besides, the most serious reason to listen to radio is also the most ignored reason (i.e. traffic and weather, and emergency bulletins are more important). But even the most serious reason to listen to radio is going to have GPS systems give traffic, weather and state of emergency bulletins. A one time payment of an MP3 player will break even with Satellite radio's subscription fee meaning that you are getting "more for your money". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxstaa (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete the entertaining rant above not withstanding, this redundant category is empty and better handled through template populated Category:Future radio stations and programming .--Rtphokie (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per above minus the entertaining mp3 player promotion. Unfortunately (or fortunately for me) radio has a future :D, have a nice day. --milonica (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Atlanta to Category:Sports venues in Atlanta, Georgia

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Chicago to Category:Sports venues in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Cincinnati to Category:Sports venues in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Cleveland to Category:Sports venues in Cleveland, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Colorado Springs to Category:Sports venues in Colorado Springs, Colorado

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Denver to Category:Sports venues in Denver, Colorado

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Las Vegas to Category:Sports venues in Las Vegas, Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Louisville to Category:Sports venues in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Milwaukee to Category:Sports venues in Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Nashville to Category:Sports venues in Nashville, Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in New Orleans to Category:Sports venues in New Orleans, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Omaha to Category:Sports venues in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Philadelphia to Category:Sports venues in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Pittsburgh to Category:Sports venues in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Seattle to Category:Sports venues in Seattle, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in St. Louis to Category:Sports venues in St. Louis, Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with sister categories under "Category:Sports venues in (State), to match parent categories "Category:Sports in (City), (State)" and "Category:Buildings and structures in (City), (State)", and per best practices and countless precedents. Dravecky (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This seems like a good move for consistency and clarity. Brian Powell (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This follows the trend toward (city, state).--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename for the excellent reasons stated; nothing more to add Hmains (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note that about half of these cities have articles at (city), while half are at (city, state). Is there really a consensus on this subject? --Eliyak T·C 06:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, the large number of precedents at CfD do point to a consensus towards the more specific and consistent City, State category naming. Article naming is different on this point because articles are easily disambiguated with hat notes and redirects while categories work by an entirely different mechanism. - Dravecky (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My points on this type of rename have been made in the past. Given the discussion above on LA, I really believe that we need a better structure on dealing with the metropolitan area mess. If anyone else feels this way, point to the discussion and I would be happy to join in. Heck, I may even start it! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Unreleased works by medium to Category:Unreleased works

Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need for a "by medium" holding category when there's no "Unreleased works" category. GregorB (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant since this area is already covered by Category:Future products and an elaborate tree of "Future" subcategories. On second thought, Rename as "unreleased" is distinct from "yet to be released" but the category will need to be thoroughly described to prevent confusion. - Dravecky (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts also... Currently, it is a parent of both Category:Upcoming albums and e.g. Category:Cancelled video games, which is not consistent. Note that classification under Category:Future products is also not satisfactory, since e.g. plays and television shows (unlike, say, albums) can't really be described as "products". GregorB (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is - I re-assessed this category in light of your comments, and I think it's useful for readers to know when they come across it that the contents are sorted by medium, which also allows it to be part of the categories by medium structure. Btw, if you haven't seen the the category talk page, you may not be aware of the prior CFD that created this category. Cgingold (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw the talk page, but it was only after I proposed the renaming. There are still two reasons to rename it: a specific one (no category to put Carnival of Light into, short of creating Category:Unreleased songs), and a general one (an already established category hierarchy scheme under which, in order for a "thing by property" category to exist, there should be a "thing" parent category). But you're quite correct, the renaming would make the Category:Categories by medium parent no longer applicable, which is a downside. GregorB (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin (if any): the category probably does not need renaming after all. I'm going to create Category:Unreleased works - problem solved... GregorB (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consequently, I also took the liberty of removing the Cfr template from Category:Unreleased works by medium. GregorB (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. If this was meant as a test case and not just an isolated change, the level of participation suggests that this result should not preclude a future nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Afghan television to Category:Television in Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: I suggest renaming all the categories in the category "Category:Television by country" using a different naming convention. I also noticed there is no accepted standard naming convention for television categories in the page "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)". Currently, most of these categories are in the "x nationality" format. this can be misleading, especially when a national language is spoken in many other countries. "french television" could refer to either television in france or television in french language, creating confusion. I propose the renaming of all said categories in a "television in x country" format. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - On the whole, I agree with the reasoning for this proposal. However, if this is to be regarded as a test case, it should be noted that the results will have direct implications for several other major category structures: Category:Media by country, Category:Broadcasting by country, Category:Magazines by country, and Category:Radio by country. (Category:Newspapers by country already uses the "...published in Country Xyz" formulation.) Cgingold (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oppose This is a non-trivial proposal. WP:NCCAT stipulates Fooish subjectname for cultural topics, though it does not establish that television, radio, or publications are cultural topics; film is likewise listed in the "undecided" section. Still, I do not at all hold with the language argument. If anything is language-dependent, it is literature, which is happily at Fooish literature and just as literature is often translated, television and films are frequently dubbed or subtitled— I remember watching a South Korean soap opera last year in Peru, dubbed into Spanish of course. In relatively few countries is mainstream broadcast television broadcast in multiple languages; in everyday speaking, I wager my Canadian friends would say "French-language television series" to indicate a French-language show from, say, Quebec, and simply "French television series" for one from France in any language (in this case, almost certainly French). By the same token, would a native speaker of the English language really classify The Simpsons as an "English" series?-choster (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to clarify ethnic television from television in nation-states. 76.66.193.170 (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PPE graduates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete See the deletion debate for "notable philosophy majors" - overcategorization. Bencherlite^Talk 11:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the subject of one's university degree is not a unifying feature. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but merge with (completely unsourced) list at Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Occuli (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• LIstify (perhaps) in Philosophy, Politics and Economics as suggested by Occuli. PPE is taught (probably only) at Oxford Univerity and is a qualification held by a significnat number of politicians and other leading people in Britain. The alternative might be to treat it like an alumni category: we have an alumni category for each Oxford and Cambridge College; we might therefore have such a category for Oxford PPE graduates. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, it's being taught in a lot more universities now including Warwick, York, Pennsylvania, Essex, East Anglia (at MA level), Swansea, UCL (MA again), Lancaster, Denison and many more.There are a lot of degrees held by many prominent people - the American JD is particularly prevalent and categorisation by degree subject is overkill. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listify to List of Oxford PPE graduates (See below), while they still all are. Note "from Oxford" is in the category description, if not the name. That is certainly encyclopedic, and notable, as the press is always going on about how powerful they are. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with a list, preferably at List of Oxford PPE graduates per Johnbod rather than overload Philosophy, Politics and Economics now or in the future with every notable PPE grad. Bencherlite^Talk 13:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is already a long unsourced list within Philosophy, Politics and Economics - by all means break it out. Occuli (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It wouldn't surprise me if that list was the source of the category in the first place. Bencherlite^Talk 15:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• AWB informs me that all members of the category are already in the list (6 in the list but not the category) so your surmise seems well-founded. Occuli (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - apparently listified already, and a poor way to categorise people for the reasons given above. Terraxos (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Imogen Cunningham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category on semi-notable photographer, with a single irrelevant page within the category Flewis^(talk) 08:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per irrefutable nom. Occuli (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even the categorised article does not belong, sicne it does not specifically refer to Imogen Cunningham. If that wereremoved there would be nothing but the head note left. It must go. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Imogen Cunningham is a very notable photographer. However, I agree that the category doesn't serve much purpose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:British actors of Chinese descent. Close is without prejudice to future CfD on deletion because of overcategorization concerns. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese British actors to Category:British Chinese actors

Nominator's rationale: The relevant main article is at British Chinese not Chinese British, per the conventional British use - see Talk:British Chinese#wrong name. The category should use the same name form. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment confusion can be avoid by renaming the entire ethnic/national heirarchy... say to Category:British actors of Chinese ancestry etc 76.66.201.13 (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That would be out of line with the main article though. The other comparable actors category is Category:British Asian actors, which is in line with the article at British Asian. These are the terms actually used. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - but a parent cat is Category:British people of Chinese descent which supports the unambiguous Category:British actors of Chinese descent. But do we wish to be subcatting Category:British people of fooian descent by occupation? An intersection too far IMO. Occuli (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but to Category:British actors of Chinese descent as Occuli. We have a long series of CFD discussion over these Booian fooian categories a couple of months ago, but only for "people" categories. This form was what was decided in those many discussions, and we should stick to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:British actors of Chinese descent as per Occuli and Peterkingiron Mayumashu (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2008 (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.