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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I think the user might have meant in the context of the first category listed, "Royal ... yachts" refers to royal yachts from a variety of countries, not just the UK. Thus, in this generic usage context, it should not be capitalised. But I'm not sure, because this reason doesn't apply to the last category listed, so it's unclear. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...i kinda lost track, and you summed it up very well. the secondary cat could be use the proper noun (i.e. remain as is) but presidential yachts should not. --emerson715:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename at least the first two per nom, to reflect correct capitalization. The third one could be kept if that is the correct capitalization in the UK. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:43, 6 July 2010 (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:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal
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. 'Medal of the Order of Australia' is the actual title of the award. Whilst the postnominal entitlement is 'OAM', the name 'Order of Australia Medal' is inaccurate. Due to the the common misuse of the medal's title, the old category name should be redirected to the proposed new name rather than deleted. AusTerrapin (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Orderinchaos. None of the postnoms reflect the order of the words in the long name: AC is Companion of the Order of Australia, and similar for AK, AD, AO and AM. OAM is a further scrabbling, but necessary because Medal and Member start with the same letter. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, Orderinchaos and Jack of Oz. There's little more to say, really, other than it's surprising this hasn't been picked up before. Frickeg (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2010 (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:Superior Generals of the Society of Jesus
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.
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 nom and in the interests of consistency. Per Vegaswikian, I see no bar to subdividing these categories into towns/cities/etc if warranted. --Xdamrtalk15:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Attempting to bring all of these in line with the consensus on the subcategories of Category:Populated river places, which I would also like to rename to match "-side" in the parent category Category:Populated waterside places. The key element in these categories is that they are on a river, not what types of populated places they are (that is covered in each place's other categories). So, for example, Canberra, a large city, is in Category:Towns on the Murrumbidgee River. There's no reason it shouldn't be in a category about the Murrumbidgee, but it is unnecessarily specific and exclusive to say more than "Populated places" here. The UK ones are also nominated to bring them in line with Category:Populated places on the River Thames. Also, the Magdalena River is entirely in Colombia, so there's no need to specify the country there.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose usability people dont search for populated places on the foo river, they search for Towns on foo river. I understand the concept behind populated place as a structure to encompass the global variances between definitions on town,cities, villages etc but these subcategories should follow what would the most looked for terminology based on the local language. Gnangarra03:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom This is in accordance with the naming of such categories to 'populated places'. I reviewed a selection of these categories and most contain a mixture of cities, towns, villages, etc--collectively 'populated places'. Hmains (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gnangarra. This idea that we can create our own terminology, used nowhere else in the real world in natural languages, and our readers (that long suffering group that this encyclopedia is supposed to aid) will automatically be able to understand and use this terminology is one of the more arrogant conceits of this Wikipedia project. Wikipedia should be descriptive and reflect current usage, not prescriptive and set out a preferred usage- this appears lost on those editors involved in the great category renaming project. From places to people to species, the general trend in category names continues down a path from simple and rational to byzantine and opaque to all but those "in the know". Alas, this trend won't be reversed here ... -- Mattinbgn\talk03:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the more used term should be used, the compromise does not have to be accepted, and resistance should be provided whenever possible to inappropriate names. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All of these examples (except the very first, which is simply a grammatical correction) are over-extensions. Within Wikipedia, the top levels should be standard, but there is considerable room for diversity below that level, especially at sub-country level such as these examples. There is no *need* to "standardise" these. Orderinchaos02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom unless it can be shown that the category only contains towns or cities. Simply put, it is wrong to label a town as a city or a city as a town. If there are enough articles, these renamed categories can be split into towns and cities if anyone sees the need. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2010 (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.
Not a bad point. Almost every organization that's won has been a multinational, so parallel categories for other countries wouldn't make as much sense.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose these are not organizations composed of Nobel laureates ( by analogy, MENSA is an organization composed of high IQ people) these are organizations which received Nobel prizes 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The target names are ambiguous: they sound like associations whose members have the nobel prize - which probably should be an empty category. Rename to Category:Organisations awarded Nobel Prizes. Since most laureates are not from USA & Canada this spelling should be used for the parent. Upmerge American category: a one-member category is not useful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 17:52, June 20, 2010
I totally agree with Peterkingiron's point - the proposed name is quite ambiguous, and could also be construed as "organizations for Nobel laureates". The correct rename should, however, maintain the US spelling, to wit: Category:Organizations awarded Nobel Prizes. And by all means, merge the US category. Cgingold (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
