Wikipedia talk:Category names/Archive 5

message: This is copied from [User:Hiding|Hiding]]'s proposed poll question.  
Any categories that go to speedy renaming to be standardised to the agreed format will have a two-day window in which users may state why the category is an exception to said standard. If there is valid objection to the speedy by at least two users, each of these users having been registered before the speedy nomination was made, the category gets the remaining 5 days. Inappropriate reasons include "I want." Appropriate reasons include factual accuracy and length.
I think this is OK, but my understanding is that there are objections. However it turns out, I think it's often more organized to separate the elements under discussion (that is, this part of the discussion from the discussion of which categories to poll on when).
Comments? Maurreen (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the two proposals should be separated. Mainly because the remit of any speed-rename rule would go beyond just country titles, and apply to future standardisations too (and presumably replace the current speedy rename procedure). Also, since there are at least a couple of proposals for how to work speedy renaming, there wouldn't be much harm in firming each of them up (I count about 3 of them) and present them all to an approval vote. -Splash 17:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was trying to say that discussion should of the speedy renaming exception should fall under its own header on this page. I'm not sure whether it needs to be separated in the voting. Maurreen (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy renaming 3

message: The consensus above is clear agreement with the proposed "x in foo" form for permanently located man-made objects.  Note that I recently added some classes of sports venues (which I think should be considered to be in this grouping) which are currently of "fooish x" form.  Anyone have any problem with these? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
:No problems, with both the above lists. -Splash 20:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus is clearly "man-made objects in foo"

message: Okay, we have consensus on man-made objects. Now what about natural objects? "Categories of natural objects with a permanent location divided by country, shall use names of the form..." - it seems most of them currently use "thing OF country". Should we 1) keep it that way, 2) change it to "thing IN country" for consistency with the man-made things, or 3) don't care? Radiant_>|< 09:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC) (the term "natural object" may not be the clearest, better suggestions welcome)
: The following categories contain categories which are greatly dominated by the "thing OF country" ("of foo") pattern.  The "thing BY country" structure is not being discussed at this point. — list introduction added by (SEWilco)
*:category:Geography by country (173 subcats, all "of foo")
*:category:Islands by country (41 subcats, all "of foo")
*:category:Lakes by country (89 subcats, all "of foo")
*:category:Mountain ranges by country (12 subcats, all "of foo")
*:category:Mountains by country (131 subcats, 130 "of foo", 1 "in foo")
*:category:National parks by country (50 subcats, 49 "of foo", 1 "fooish")
*:category:Peninsulas by country (7 subcats, all "of foo")
*:category:Protected areas by country (9 subcats, 7 "of foo", 1 "in foo", 1 "fooish")
*:category:Rivers by country (139 subcats, 134 "of foo", 5 "fooish")
*:category:Subdivisions by country (of foo) (71 top level subcats, all "of foo" - many subsubcats, not analyzed)
*:category:Volcanoes by country (72 subcats, all "of foo")
=== Vote here ("of foo", "in foo", "don't care") ===
*Of foo -- Rick Block (talk) 15:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
*in foo (except :Category:Subdivisions by country) --Sherool 16:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another simple question 

message: *Of foo -- Rick Block (talk) 15:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
*in foo (except :Category:Subdivisions by country) --Sherool 16:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote here ("of foo", "in foo", "don't care") 

message: *I'm not sure :category:Subdivisions by country belongs in this list.  -- Rick Block (talk) 15:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
**... or :Category:Geography_by_country.  Note I've added :Category:Islands_by_country. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
*Whether it's "of foo" or "in foo" seems relatively arbitrary, and "of foo" is the existing de facto rule (supported by numerous previous CFD discussions).  I don't see any need to institute a different rule. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
*As mentioned abowe I think the "in country" form makes the most sense for this "class" too. With the exception of :Category:Subdivisions by country, for those I think "of" makes most sence (Départements of France rater than Départements in France), and they are not realy natural objects anyway, but rather man made administrative units so I think those should not be listed alongside rivers and volcanoes. This class also have the additional "problem" of possebly also making sence to categorise by continent, island (in cases like Ireland and other divided islands) or maybe by faultlines and such (volcanoes), but I guess that's a debate for another time. --Sherool 16:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on "natural objects of/in foo" proposed rule

message: That is things like (not a complete list):
*:Category:Subdivisions by country
*:Category:Law by country 
*:Category:Government by country
*:Category:Politics by country
*:Category:Political parties by country
*:Category:Foreign relations by country
*:Category:Economies by country
Most of these already use the "of country" form (except law), and IMHO that makes the most sence. These are things that are literaly "of" a country rather than just in it. --Sherool 16:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that are integral parts of, or directly linked to a nation state. 

message: I'd like to suggest some exceptions.
*:Category:Government by country -- "Of" at least implies national government, in contrast to government at any level within the country.
*Categories in which the preponderance do not follow the standard(s) suggested here (This list is not necessarily inclusive, but the ones I noticed from information above) -- 
**:Category:Airports
**:Category:American football venues
**:Category:Baseball venues
**:Category:Basketball venues
**:Category:Cricket grounds
**:Category:Football (soccer) venues by country
**:Category:Golf clubs and courses
**:Category:Landmarks by country
**:Category:Motor racing circuits
**:Category:Theme parks
*Given the above, it could be good to at least consider sports venues separately. Maurreen (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what are you suggesting them as exceptions to? Given all the lists on this page I'm getting very confused deciding what I am even agreeing to. Hiding  talk 20:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'm suggesting that it not be 
#"Government of Foo" unless we mean just the national government, and
#that the places in my list not "in Foo". Maurreen (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested exceptions

message: We are leaning to in foo for
*Categories of man made objects which are permanently located 
*Categories of physical natural features in a country, except for islands
*:Category:Law by country
We are leaning to of foo for
*:category:Geography by country
*:category:Islands by country
*:category:Subdivisions by country
*:Category:Government by country
*:Category:Politics by country
*:Category:Political parties by country
*:Category:Foreign relations by country
*:Category:Economies by country
Can we also lean to at foo for sporting events, example being :Category:Nations at the Olympics? Hiding  talk 22:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick summary

message: And what about this situation? I think we should rename "Kazakh" or "Uzbek" categories to "Kazakhstani" and "Uzbekistani". For my explanation see WP:CFD. - Darwinek 10:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazakh / Kazakhstani 

message: In that mind, it occurs to me to propose that on the American issue we could propose to allow the term American to be used to represent the United States on the basis of first usage, similar to the British/American spelling.  If the category is named American, do not rename, and the same for United States.  US and U.S. should however, be renamed to United States, and we could also propose placing a notice on categories which use American to the effect that the term is used to convey the nationality of the United States rather than to denote continental nationality. This would prevent systematic bias which could be argued if either side were chosen, and represents the split that seemed apparant on the issue. Thoughts? Hiding  talk 20:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to presuppose the discardment of the perfectly good discussions and progress we are making chunk-by-chunk above. I don't see the reason for the sudden changing of heart. -Splash 20:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about this. I suggest defering it. Maurreen (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair play.  The issue hadn't been raised for a while, I didn't really notice any discussion of it, to be honest, and this suggested itself as a nice compromise.  It would be nice to have thoughts on the compromise, but I shall kick it back into the long grass. Hiding  talk 20:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Well, the proposal serves well in terms of spelling, which is where I utilised it from, and I believe we should afford the community the benefit of the doubt rather than pre-judge the issue.  Further, any categories listed in error can be closed immediately with reference to this policy.  No, this proposal does not make the issue go away, but neither does forcing a poorly supported consensus on the community make it go away, since it will just be resurrected again and again.  I accept this is a fudge, but I want to at least hear numerous opinions on it before I allow people to shout it down again. Hiding  talk 11:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *I apologise if I gave the impression you had shouted it down and I strike that comment.  I was merely attempting to state my intention that I would like discussion on the American/US issue rather than remove it once again after people simply state disapproval without offering an alternative.  Do we really believe a binary poll is the best answer to this problem, and if it isn't, what are the alternatives. Hiding  talk 12:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Although the page started out talking "U.S.", "American", etc., it has since taken a big detour. I still prefer to defer. Too much going on at once for my taste. Maurreen (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: American/United States

message: Since we seem to have come to consensus on the issue above, could we now turn to this issue?
The proposal is this:
In categories where we categorise by nationality, such as people as dictated by policy at Wikipedia:Categorization of people, any categories currently named American to refer to the nationality of those people of the United States should not be renamed to United States, and any category curently using United States to refer to the nationality of those people of the United States should not be renamed to American.
The thinking behind the first part of the proposal is this-
The recent poll we had was reasonably split on using American versus United States.  Official documents of the United States government utilise both forms to describe the nationality of its citizens.  Common usage does not offer a solution, and systematic bias can be claimed by both sides.  Since no position appears to offer a greater claim, this compromise position seeks to establish that no systematic bias is evident, and given that each position appears of equal merit, it follows to propose that first usage should dictate, as per spellings: If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.
I have considered the idea of proposing that sub-cats follow their parent category, but that idiom leads one to :Category:American people, of which all citizens of the United States of America with articles upon Wikipedia are nominally sub-categorised in. 
Thoughts? Hiding  talk 11:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, the proposal serves well in terms of spelling, which is where I utilised it from, and I believe we should afford the community the benefit of the doubt rather than pre-judge the issue.  Further, any categories listed in error can be closed immediately with reference to this policy.  No, this proposal does not make the issue go away, but neither does forcing a poorly supported consensus on the community make it go away, since it will just be resurrected again and again.  I accept this is a fudge, but I want to at least hear numerous opinions on it before I allow people to shout it down again. Hiding  talk 11:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *I apologise if I gave the impression you had shouted it down and I strike that comment.  I was merely attempting to state my intention that I would like discussion on the American/US issue rather than remove it once again after people simply state disapproval without offering an alternative.  Do we really believe a binary poll is the best answer to this problem, and if it isn't, what are the alternatives. Hiding  talk 12:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Although the page started out talking "U.S.", "American", etc., it has since taken a big detour. I still prefer to defer. Too much going on at once for my taste. Maurreen (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Resurrecting

message: Please see the mainpage; I've attempted to summarize what we've got so far. It should be consistent with the above bunch of summaries, and would be something we can show to the community. Thoughts welcome. Radiant_>|< 11:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted the changes.  Radiant's text was as follows:
#Parent categories by country, such as :Category:Geography by country, should be called "... by country" (rather than "... by nation").
#Categories of natural features or man-made objects by country should be called "... in country".
#Categories of businesses, governmental agencies and statistics directly related to a country (e.g. history, economy, demographics) should be called "... of country"
#Categories of abstracts and cultural items by country, such as law, music and religion, should be called "... in country".
#Categories of nations at sporting events (e.g. the 2000 olympics) should be called "country at ...". 
#The above guidelines can have exceptions when the proposed naming doesn't make sense gramatically. For instance "islands in country" sounds strange, so it should be "islands of country" instead.
Note that the vast majority of categories already conform to these proposed standards.
In addition to the above, a poll should be held to determine if there's a consensus for preferring "American topic" or "United States topic" in category naming.
Categories of people by country may be debated at some point in the future.
*I believe that the consensus was forming behind Rick's Wikipedia talk:Category titles#proposal for generic rule, which did not involve the listing of any suggested standards. Also note that categories of people by country are actually categorised by nationality as dictated by the existing policy at Wikipedia:Categorization of people, and if anyone wants to discuss that I propose they take that into account first. I also object to the fact that a poll should be held to determine if there's a consensus for preferring "American topic" or "United States topic" in category naming, when I am in the process of re-igniting that debate.  Could we please talk things through here before we make wholesale changes to anything? Hiding  talk 11:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I believe it would be courteous to allow Rick to publicise his proposal, and decide what he meant by it.  Hiding  talk 11:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Radiant, it's not that I object to the recent edit, it is that I would rather we discuss such things here before we make a presentation on the project page. Hiding  talk 11:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *I don't believe you have to do anything, Radiant, and as stated above, I believed the standards were to be decided at CSD rather than here.  However, I feel it is fruitless to edit war anymore over this issue. Hiding  talk 12:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The proposals 

message: I've split the misc. "nationality x" list up into more specific bits, because personally, I don't think all of the things list there belong, and they are certainly not homogeneous.  We haven't really asked  about these at such a detailed level, so here goes.  This is a quick poll to determine which way we lean on these specific categories.
===Cultural "nationality x" (proposed)===
Support
# I'm supporting this in the spirit of compromise.  The general idea is that the cultural influences of a country leak outside its physical borders, and include non-resident people of the national ethnicity, and others, as well.-- Beland 04:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick polls on undecided proposals 

message: Support
# I'm supporting this in the spirit of compromise.  The general idea is that the cultural influences of a country leak outside its physical borders, and include non-resident people of the national ethnicity, and others, as well.-- Beland 04:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural "nationality x" (proposed)

message: Support
# Sports teams seem to be pretty concretely tied to a specific political entity or territory. -- Beland 04:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sport "in country" (proposed)

message: Support
# These subcategories seem to refer to organizations that are specifically headquartered or active in a physical country.  They do not include e.g. an ethnic Swedish interest group operating in the U.S. under "Swedish organizations".  Those could be listed in under "ethnic organizations" or somesuch.  The distinction is useful to make for navigational purposes, I think.  Note :Category:International organizations is here, and I like that. -- Beland 04:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizations "of country" (proposed)

message: Support
# Again, a media organization is either headquartered in, primarily broadcasting to, or primarily publishing in a given country, or it isn't.  Many media organizations are "international". -- Beland 04:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Media "of country" (proposed)

message: Support
# Clearly associated with a specific political or territorial entity. -- Beland 04:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Politicians "of country" (proposed)

message: Support
# I'm supporting this in the spirit of compromise.  The idea is that you have residents, citizens, ex-patriates, and members of the national ethnicity, and these all co-mingle and overlap and it's easier just to put them under the same broad category. -- Beland 04:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: People "by nationality" (proposed)

message: * :Category:Aircraft by country "of country" (proposed)
* :Category:Aircraft manufacturers "of country" (proposed)
Support
# Either they're made in a given country, or they're not, or they're international. -- Beland 04:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous proposals

message: I added these two sections because they seemed fairly well supported and relatively uncontroversial.  "How to name the country" is absolutely necessary to have as a reference for whoever renames "Nationality X" categories to "X of country", or else it's ambiguous what the destination should be.  As for overlaps, I generally leave those up to the people who work on those categories to decide what is appropriate, but the advice in the "Dealing with overlaps" section seems useful.  I submit it for your approval or dismissal if you think it shouldn't be a part of the convention.  (Though it is a common question, and sometimes people object to a proposal because these situations create ambiguity which allows people to imagine the worst.) -- Beland 05:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I give up. Hiding  talk 07:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to name the country, Dealing with overlaps 

message: Apparently I misunderstood. I had the impression that "the proposal" was what Rick had suggested:
:All categories whose subcategories are categories by country (roughly all categories that are members of category:categories by country) shall have a naming convention which will apply to all of their subcategories. The naming conventions will be listed at Wikipedia:Category titles and should generally follow the guidelines specified on that page. Conformance to these naming conventions shall be treated as "speedy renaming" CFD criteria. Changing these conventions shall require a CFD renaming consensus.
That seemed pretty simple and relatively clear.
I had the impression that the next step was to take that proposal to the wider community.
All the other stuff on the project page is overwhelming. I can't follow all the discussion above. Maurreen (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm lost