Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 22

3447:. Honorary British honours would bring in a lot of other awards and change the nature of the category. I have never heard the word "Damehood", but Dames are the female equivalent of knights, and I do not think it is stretching things too far to include them. I do not think honorary awards are usually made for other British orders of knighthood. The possible exception is the award of "additional" garters to foreign monarchs, which is somewhat different. This thus only concerns KBE and DBE awarded to non-British subjects. It should not be a large category. The fact that Dames are stricly not knights can be adequately dealt with by added a headnote to the category page. 1892:

opinions; rather, I am amused (as I always am) when people adamantly claim that they have spoken their last word on a subject and then return and speak additional words about it. I for one am still waiting for you, amongst your series of last words on this particular subject, to offer some rationale to support your contention that this category should be kept beyond what amounts to saying that you don't agree. Cite the policies and guidelines that support your position. Cite the policies and guidelines that refute mine. Whenever you're ready, go right ahead. I'll be here.

2898:

I'm also perfectly happy to accept that when people think of Boston they think of Boston, Massachusetts, not the small town it's named after in England. This has nothing to do with Europeans being insulted and everything to do with the primary use of the name. Birmingham, England is the second city of a very populous nation, has a population of over one million and was at one time regarded as the greatest industrial city on earth; Birmingham, Alabama is a mid-sized city among many other mid-sized cities in the United States. Big difference. --

703:(and most of those remaining should be moved) - that is the nature of such higher level categories. Keeping Tokyopop there allows for flexibility - there should probably be a "Tokyopop anime" category (as there is in the Viz Media category). So again the problem isn't with either the titles category or its parent - it is that they aren't being used properly and the fix is not to get rid of either category but to properly categorise everything that is in there or should be in there - taking your example as 1605:

neither the notability of the cemetery nor the notability of any or all of the people with Knowledge articles buried in it are relevant to a discussion of the category. Notability is not the standard for categorization, otherwise every article on Knowledge would have its own eponymous category. The standard is, are the people who are buried in this cemetery defined by their burial there? No, they are not. In very few instances is someone's final resting place defining.

2868:. A rather insulting comment. Also a very Americanocentric view. Most people in the world do not feel the need to add a qualifier to major city names unless absolutely necessary. Only in America, with a plethora of cities named after other (usually much larger) cities in Europe, will you hear "Paris, France", "London, England" or "Rome, Italy"! Most other people in the world know which city they're talking about. -- 2600:- we haven't done. It's a much larger city than the one in Alabama and the second city of England and I fail to see why the rationale applying to the article name shouldn't apply equally to the category name. It is utterly illogical to have one rule for one and another rule for the other. Also note that there was not a particular consensus to keep the category names in that discussion. -- 1695:, who is currently in 18 different categories. Is anyone, when thinking of the things that define Miss Hepburn, going to put "buried in Cedar Hills Cemetery" in the top 18? In the top 50? No. Because where she is buried, which for all we know from her article she had no say in, does not define her as a person and does not in any way relate to why she is notable. Or consider 848:- you cannot have Tokyopop itself as a child of this and merging down into titles adds things to the category which don't work with the parent categories. This structure works just fine with dozens of other companies and the only difference I can see here is that the articles aren't in the right categories, not that the categories themselves are wrong. ( 3192:. Exactly. Most people don't realise there is a Province of Rome, so what's the burning need to disambiguate? When the word "Rome" is mentioned I would suspect that pretty much everyone in the world thinks of the city. Only four people contributed to the previous discussion, so I think it definitely deserves wider discussion. -- 3473:(itself a rather poorly named article) for a long list of honorary knights who were not KBEs. It is potentially a very large category - there have been hundreds if not thousands of honorary knighthoods conferred over the centuries, many of them predating the creation of the Order of the British Empire in 1917. -- 707:(even though it needs a bit of tidying up it is a reasonable example of what should be aimed for). If you want to make categories for Tokyopop manga, manhwa and OEM then they can be made under the "Tokyopop titles" category and it'd be less work to move them directly from Tokyopop to these sub-categories. ( 1671:. The notability of the topic of a category is not relevant to whether the category should exist, so you really need to stop trying to argue the notability of the cemetery (which, since the article is utterly devoid of sourcing, is unconfirmed at this time) as a reason for keeping the category. As for 2643:

per all of my comments on the last CFD. There is potential for confusion between Birmingham, England and Birmingham, Alabama and when in doubt clarity for the reader should be paramount. Whan I think "Birmingham" I think Alabama first, because I am in the US. To assume that everyone in the world will

2346:

I don't believe I've admitted that precedent is against me. Since CFD is not a vote, the numbers on each side are rather irrelevant. I have still yet to see any refutation of my arguments as supported by our guidelines beyond what amounts to "nuh-uh" so, again, I would hope that whatever admin closes

1891:

I think you have some misconceptions about how consensus works on Knowledge. CFDs are decided on the strength of the arguments, not on the basis of how many people happen to chime in with "rename" without citing any reason for keeping the category. I have no interest in how you choose to express your

2850:

as is; rename main article instead. WP is not the place for preening by local supporters who think their locality is so special it needs no explanation; instead, WP is to help the reader not invite ambiguity. All cities should be identified by their state/county/country etc to help readers 'place'

2701:

too! Using your argument, isn't that Americanocentric POV? You also have to take into consideration the fact that Americans routinely add the state to the end of city names. Most Americans would say "Birmingham, Alabama" in any case, but no British person would say "Birmingham, West Midlands" - it's

2309:

Well, the way I see this now, the only choice for an admin is to rename. There does not appear to be a consensus to delete this category. May I suggest that after the rename, if consensus remains behind that action, that you nominate this or any other related category and see if there is consensus

1604:

Look. Read the link. "Notable" has a specific definition in the context of Knowledge, which is that the topic has been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Black and white? No. But definitely very dark grey and eggshell. Regardless,

3408:

of honorary British knighthoods. Second, contrary to what some seem to believe, dames are not knights and this renaming allows for both male and female recipients. Thirdly, it also allows for recipients of lower awards than knighthoods. I suggest that subcats for each honour are then created within

3206:

If people don't know about the province, they might see a statement in an article that says, "she is from Rome". The word "Rome" might link to the province, but they don't check that because they only know of one Rome. Then they classify the person in the category "People from Rome". But the person

2720:

should disambiguate between the American and English Bostons, then make the proposal. Same for Paris, London and any others you care to propose. Most Americans would not say "Birmingham, Alabama" in casual conversation; they would simply say "Birmingham." Which is why disambiguation is so important

2997:

No, nobody has said that at all; I have clearly stated with Boston that the American city, not the English town, should be the primary usage. Misrepresentation does not help discussion. Primary usage depends on size and relative importance, and in this context the British Birmingham is clearly the

2982:

How does the most important city automatically become the primary use? How would one determine most important? It is also clear that contrary to what appears to be a European opinion, the first city to use a name is not the primary use because it was the first. Clearly a dab should be used when

2897:

You misunderstand me. I don't think anyone has a primary claim on the name except the most important city that bears it. It seems sensible to me that Rome in Italy, known by many millions, has a greater claim to the name than some small town called Rome, population 873, in the rural United States.

2735:

I don't. That's my whole point. Even most British people (unless they actually lived in Boston, Lincolnshire!) would think of Boston, Massachusetts first. As to your second point, most Canadians would just say "London" if they meant London, Ontario (I once had a long discussion completely at cross

2074:

And again, Otto, your opinion carries no more weight than other opinions, no matter how many times you repeat it. Believe it or not, Wikipedians are smart enough to understand what you said the first time you said it, and smart enough to know that your saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

773:

That though is because the categories are not being used properly - not that there is anything actually wrong with the categories per se. It just means people have to roll up their sleeves and get stuck in (or we could assign a bot to do the work). The category "Tokyopop anime" could then be added

497:

Why? Why have everything in Tokyopo moved to Tokyopop titles? If anything, dumb this and if someone feels the main Tokyopop category should be renamed, then we can discuss that. For reference, though, while it may be inline with the comics, with the anime/manga project we have just been using the

2912:

Objectively, yes, but it still doesn't help the person who subjectively thinks of the "non-primary" city when s/he hears the name. For such a person, "Birmingham, England" is more helpful. For those who assume "Birmingham" means "Birmingham, England", nothing changes, because the DAB term merely

2760:

Birmingham in the US will cause most people to associate it with Alabama. Except for seeing it in a history book, most Americans probably don't think of a city in the UK. When Americans talk about cities, they generally leave off the state since there is an assumed context. We accept that and

1970:

As if, in disagreeing with me, you are not assuming that your opinion is superior. I can only conclude that your failure to refute even a single one of my cites, which you demanded that I provide, means that you are unable to offer up your own cites to support your own view. This leads me to the

1699:, currently in 15 categories. Does "buried in Cedar Hills," which again from his article we have no way of knowing whether he even wanted to be buried there, fall within the top 15 things that define who he was as a person or relate in any way to his notability? Absolutely not. Turning again to 520:

See my longer explanation below. The thing is that OEM, manhwa, etc. are covered by the comics project (as the manga/anime project decided they were outside of the definition of manga they were working to) and manga is ultimately a child of comics (as one branch of Asian comics) so if the manga

1915:

of guidelines. I also am quite amused that you assume your opinions carry more weight than the opinions of others. So let's see whether this category is still around in a week or so, and we'll see whether your understanding of consensus and guidelines is any more superior to how others see it.

2913:

serves to confirm their own subjective thought tendency. Thus, to add "England" helps some and hurts none. But to leave it off hurts some. You said that "there is no earthly reason for the category to be disambiguated", but this is a reason, and it's the basis for my opposition to the change.

2831:

to minimise any possibility for confusion and per the quite recent CFD. I personally think the styling of city without any further geographical information for articles and categories should be reserved only for capital cities that do not share a name with any other place in the world, e.g.,

3843:

per nom for clarity. This is typically what is done when there are states/provinces and cities of the same name in the same country. Many editors classifying articles don't always realise there are locales that have identical names, and miscategorisations often result without these types of

2037:

per nom. When I first saw the category listed, I had no idea what it meant. The proposed title will make that abundantly clear. That there are over 30 notables buried here makes this a fairly meaningful category, one of many such categories for individuals interred at particular cemeteries.

1631:": Are you saying that's a policy statement, written down in Knowledge? Or is that your interpretation? Very few people, places, or events are defined by their categories. Give me a direct quote that a cemetery is notable only if those who are buried there are defined by their burial there. 1910:

I am quite aware of how consensus works. Don't put words in my mouth. I never described consensus as "how many people" express an opinion. As for my expressing my rationale, I (and others) have done so above; you don't see it that way simply because our rationales do not conform to

1768:

per nom. This seems to be the sort of biographical fact (if known and cited) by which a person can be suitably categorised (whether defining or not). And there are 20 or so in this category, a goodly number, and many more (some with wikipedia articles) are listed at the website.

2761:

maybe that is why we find this type of rename unreasonable. Clearly it is making an assumption about context that does not exist around the word. We have shown that we are very willing to avoid the problem on the encyclopedia and don't understand why others object to clarity.

1581:

So everything is black and white, and never any gray areas??? Simply looking at what is written in this cfr is ample evidence that there are differing opinions. If there's never any opinion involved, why do we have so many debates about notability? Why do we have the process of

1997:

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I have never said or assumed that my opinion is superior to anyone's, just equal. And you can "conclude" anything you wish, just as you can have and express your opinions, neither of which makes any of your conclusions or opinions true.

1004:

per Emperor and erachima; a category which, by design, contains nothing other than titles licensed and published by a company should follow the category structure and naming conventions used by categories for other companies in the field. Without the inclusion of the titles,

1742:

of what constitutes an acceptable category. So I will "stop trying to argue notability", not because you brazenly assumed the position of wikiboss and ordered me to stop, but because this discussion between you and me is pointless. Let's see where this cfr goes and where the

2405:

I never said that your opinion is irrelevant. Wrong, ill-thought-out, poorly articulated and unsupported by policy or guideline, but not irrelevant. And if someone would just refute my citation of the several relevant guidelines, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.

3175:

should really be a DAB category for the city and the province, not just a redirect to the city. The current naming formats are more clear, since many users who may be classifying articles may not even realise there is a Province of Rome. Note: Over a year ago, there was

2887:

that everyone knows what you are talking about when you use a one-word place name is centric of that place. If that's insulting for Europeans or anyone else who feels they have the primary claim on the name, that's something that they just need to get over, I imagine.

1787:

To belatedly answer the latter half of your point (the former is I think adequately addressed above), that there are articles that would fit in a particular category does not in and of itself serve as justification for that category. Hundreds of articles could go into

1717:

In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as his or her career, origin and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have may be considered

3657:

for consistency with the other cats. Although remote, there is the possibility that someone might think this is a category for albums about Alabama rather than by the band Alabama, so why not alleviate that and match it up with the article and other cats?

3274:

That works for articles. Not so well for categories since only soft redirects can be used. That sums up the underlying point well — the two situations for article and category are distinct, which is why the names of the category / article are distinct.

1009:

has a total of three (maybe even two) articles in it, which is far too little to require a category. This means that, should this close as "keep", the other "manga by publisher" categories should be rolled up into a CfR to append the word "titles".

3139:

is the title of the article on the city and there's no reason to disambiguate the name with a "(city)". If it's to prevent confusion with people from Ancient Rome as a state I don't really think it's necessary, since there's already a clear category

1828:

that this category has no more basis than "things can go in it." Your opinion. Nothing more. Not black-and-white, iron-clad, rules that prohibit this category. Just your opinion. And based on the comments so far, other opinions outweigh yours.

1971:

inevitable conclusion that there are no cites for you to provide because guidelines and policies don't support your position. The only thing that you've offered in defense of this category is that there are other categories like it, which is

1609:? Sure, that's pretty defining because of its relationship to the notability of those buried there. But some cemetery that has little or nothing to do with what made those buried there notable in life? Not at all a defining characteristic. 698:

I don't see how it is excessive subcategorisation - it is exactly what is done elsewhere and there is virtually no difference between that and the Viz Media manga category as nearly everything is cleared out of the higher level category:

2882:

America is not the only place in the world that has adopted names from elsewhere. There are many duplicate names in the world in a variety of places. It's not centric-anything to ask for a disambiguating term. Rather the opposite — to

3422: 682:. Why drop the established category for a newer less useful one. Or do you want to completely overhaul the entire anime and manga company categorization (which would of course be beyond the scope of this all together) 598:

is a publication type category. It would be more appropriate to have a manga, manwha, etc characters for Toykopop and sort the items from the main Tokyopop title. Otherwise, just shoving everything but two links from

2964:

Because redirects do not work the same way in categories per Mayumashu's comment below. You keep referring to confusion but have yet to demonstrate why "Birmingham, England" on a category is confusing for anyone.

521:

categories aren't conforming to the broader way comics are dealt with then this is an issue that needs addressing with the other categories not with this one (which does conform to broader comic categorisation). (

2940:

No, I don't disagree with the principle, but you're right that it currently only applies to articles, not categories. Incidentally, I disagree that "Birmingham, England" is confusing for anyone, as stated above.

3242:

So we ignore the 1%? The way it's structured now, the 1% problem is essentially solved. To change it as proposed creates a problem for the 1% and solves no problem, really. It's moving backwards, not forwards.

498:

company name, with subcategories, as needed, to sort a companies manga, anime, etc releases. "Tokyopop titles" as a subcategory of "Tokyopop" is not in keeping with the categorization we've been using at all.

2998:

primary usage. It is much larger, it is the second city of England, and it was for decades one of the most important industrial cities in the world. Birmingham, Alabama is...well, it's a city in Alabama! --

478:, so the first step would either to move everything across to the titles and then sort them out or create the children and sort them straight into them. Either way "Tokyopop titles" shouldn't be deleted. ( 1454: 1445: 3410: 2644:

automatically associate "England" with "Birmingham" is Aglo-centric POV. The relative sizes of the two cities is irrelevant to the naming of their category structures. That the article resides at

2056:

And again, the notability of the people buried in the cemetery and even the number of them is not relevant, because the notability of those buried there is in no way connected to the cemetery.

3300:

to keep the two, province and city clear, both of which have a significant population. The ancient state and their Romans have had no part to play in the presentation of this disambiguation.

2328:

I don't see it myself: 6 renamers (nom included), 1 deleter, and even Otto admits precedent is against him. Why would a re-run be any different? The one 2 days ahead is a little different.

1467:. It was pointed out to me (as I created the category) that the title of the category may be misleading, and that the proposed title would be much more specific and not cause any confusion. 474:

into it but it is a big job and I've been doing what I can. I agree that that in the future it'd be worth having categories for the different types of titles but these should be children of

2693:? Of course the size and importance of the city is significant with regard to article titles - this has long been established on Knowledge. As to "Anglo-centric POV", take a look at where 1536::Obviously in many cases, notability is a matter of opinion. I consider this cemetery to be more notable than most because of the notability of the people buried there, including actress 2576: 2836:. It would be nice to develop some sort of overarching standard for these articles and categories, but that's likely a pipe dream considering the divergent opinions on these matters. 1037: 2950:

And is it logical that it should only apply to articles and not categories? I can see no justification for double standards, which is what creates inconsistency and confusion. --

3177: 42: 37: 3042:

as is. This is not the world's only Birmingham, even if is the most common usage. The similarly named city in Alabama is significant enough to justify preventing any confusion.

1720:

You have yet to refute my contention, backed by multiple citations of relevant guidelines, that where the people in this category are buried in any way defines them as people.

2622:

seem to say that if not clear, then the topic should be dabbed. However many editors of articles seem to say that a country naming convention should overrule other guidance.

3444: 1507:

doesn't strike me as being particularly significant so as to warrant a category for burials there. And before anyone points out that there are many other burials categories,

2387:

opinions, not just your own, that will decide this cfr. And, of course, you'll respond for about the tenth time that no one has refuted your opinions about the guidelines.

1873:

of guidelines. As for whether something is my "last word": (1) you raised another issue; and (2) as much as you think you can, you don't decide how I express my opinions.

985:(or split into manga/anime versions, if necessary) as part of a larger category structure, and fix the Tokyopop supercat, which is apparently where the problem lies. -- 2736:

purposes with a Canadian on a message board for this very reason - we were talking about different Londons and didn't realise it for some time) - does that mean that

2558:: There is a Birmingham in USA, but it is small in comparison the Birmingham, England. This category can be renamed to "Birmingham", the same as the en wiki article. 2093:

Well, I can think of at least one Wikpidean who isn't smart enough to understand, despite the repeats. Your "argument" in favor of this category basically amounts to

3257: 3025:

as the city in Alabama has its own category page (ie. is big enough to) and category pages do not redirect in the same automatic way as article pages do

447:

Unclear category that includes the same mix of titles as the main Tokyopop category. Merge and then consider splitting, if needed, into manga, OEM, etc.

1952:

So...just continuing to ignore all other rationales and assume that your opinions are superior? All righty. Let's see how things look in a week or two.

3168: 570: 2383:

irrelevant, Otto, are the other opinions, regardless of the numbers. As much as you imagine others' opinions to be irrelevant, it is the weight of

122: 3220:

Oh come on. If an article states "she is from Rome" then 99 times out of 100 it's going to mean "she is from the city of Rome"! How many links to

21: 114: 1340: 2926:

and you are trying to claim that categories do not need to abide by it, which to me merely creates inconsistency and greater confusion. --

1659:(reset indent) No, I don't need to show you a direct quote about the notability of cemeteries because, as I have explained more than once, 105: 3469:

British orders of knighthood and chivalry at all levels can be and are awarded honorarily, not just the Order of the British Empire. See

17: 2310:

for deleting any of these. I would not recommend a group nomination since these would need to be considered on a case by case basis.

3393: 1043: 1013: 845: 562: 467: 1847:

I have cited several relevant guidelines. You have refuted none of them. Besides, wasn't the above your "last word on the matter"?

3771: 3470: 2596:. I really don't agree with the closer's comments. If keeping the category name was clearer then we'd also rename the article to 886: 761: 3861: 3767: 3721: 1803: 1450: 155: 3414: 3389: 1036:

they should be in that category, as opposed to the one with the clearer purpose; see also the nominator's rationale at the

919: 641: 550: 3826:, which are far better known than the states of that name. I've also proposed the merging of the Rome category above. -- 1339:

Overcategorization. Schlitz has hardly ever recorded any songs, and is almost exclusively a songwriter. There is already

3864:. It is a rough distinction in any event as people from Kano usually have strong links to a village outside the city. -- 2649: 2520: 1976: 1712: 330: 253: 3756: 3775: 3747: 3145: 3120: 1168:, but there simply aren't any articles to fill the category, nor are there likely to be for notability concerns. Even 1311: 3891: 3873: 3848: 3835: 3810: 3729: 3667: 3649: 3622: 3597: 3581: 3555: 3541: 3482: 3456: 3434: 3379: 3321: 3279: 3269: 3247: 3237: 3215: 3201: 3184: 3157: 3110: 3051: 3034: 3007: 2992: 2969: 2959: 2945: 2935: 2917: 2907: 2892: 2877: 2860: 2840: 2823: 2802: 2770: 2753: 2730: 2711: 2661: 2631: 2609: 2588: 2567: 2548: 2510: 2433: 2415: 2396: 2374: 2356: 2337: 2319: 2300: 2291:

Hope does spring eternal that a passing admin will recognize that no real defense of the category has been offered.

2282: 2264: 2243: 2226: 2209: 2168: 2146: 2128: 2106: 2084: 2065: 2047: 2007: 1988: 1961: 1943: 1925: 1901: 1882: 1856: 1838: 1815: 1778: 1756: 1729: 1640: 1618: 1595: 1572: 1553: 1524: 1495: 1476: 1431: 1372: 1353: 1294: 1235: 1218: 1199: 1185: 1143: 1133: 1074: 1053: 1023: 994: 973: 931: 909: 891: 857: 820: 802: 783: 766: 735: 716: 691: 653: 616: 586: 530: 507: 487: 456: 425: 366: 352: 334: 257: 234: 175: 160: 97: 3752: 3635: 3610: 3568: 2194: 2191: 2097:, which is about the level of a four year-old. Shock the world, offer up some substantial support of your opinion. 1972: 1508: 1441: 3909: 3857: 3792: 3743: 3707: 3683: 3522: 3498: 3360: 3336: 3211:

from the city of Rome; violà, miscategorisation complete. It's not too difficult to imagine what the problem is.

3172: 3124: 3091: 3067: 2491: 2467: 1738:

If notablility, in one form or another, is not the issue, we have a moot point. And I disagree with much of your

1412: 1388: 1275: 1251: 1147: 1114: 1090: 949: 406: 382: 215: 191: 74: 3908:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3682:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3497:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3335:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3066:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2466:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1387:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1302: 1250:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1089:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

381:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

190:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3706:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3521:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3359:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3090:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2615: 2539:

then there is no earthly reason for the category to be disambiguated. The same goes for all its subcategories.

2490:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1789: 1676: 1411:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1319: 1274:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1113:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

841: 659: 633: 604: 595: 574: 558: 475: 435: 405:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

304: 214:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3551: 3639: 3452: 3141: 969: 957: 927: 816: 731: 687: 612: 503: 452: 326: 318: 308: 278: 249: 3253: 2923: 2619: 2563: 298: 288: 268: 248:

which are genera that either contain only a couple species or are obsolete. Detailed reasons to follow. -

3312:

and see about getting any loose naming standards in line so that they absolutely support this direction.

566: 314: 294: 264: 3856:. I am not sure about Lagos, but I do know something about Kano. It might be more appropriate to delete 3807: 3646: 3618: 2988: 2798: 2783: 2766: 2627: 2584: 2315: 2239: 2222: 1774: 1511:

is not a particularly persuasive argument and the existence of the category structure doesn't mean that

1368: 1231: 1048: 1018: 284: 93: 965: 923: 812: 727: 683: 608: 499: 448: 3409:

the cat and the cat for the appropriate honour to avoid double categorisation (e.g. instead of adding

1934:

So...just not planning on answering my citations of guidelines with any of your own then? All righty.

3831: 3478: 3430: 3265: 3233: 3197: 3153: 3003: 2955: 2931: 2903: 2873: 2833: 2749: 2707: 2698: 2605: 2544: 1541: 1472: 1179: 1162: 953: 882: 757: 671: 667: 3252:

That's why we have redirects, to redirect the 1% to the 99%, not vice versa! Basic WP principles of

3887: 3845: 3783: 3631: 3572: 3305: 3276: 3244: 3212: 3181: 3030: 2966: 2942: 2914: 2889: 2837: 2597: 2524: 1504: 1364: 1344: 1227: 726:

rather than some extraneous subcategory? So we can make people waste an extra click for no reason?

466:

The problem is not with the category, which is in line with comic project category structure - see

172: 2793:

To maximise potential confusion? Otto4711 is quite right - it's the article name that is unclear.

3800: 3663: 3448: 3047: 2726: 2657: 2429: 2411: 2392: 2352: 2296: 2260: 2164: 2159:. Please leave any future personal comments on user talk pages rather than this discussion page. 2142: 2124: 2102: 2080: 2061: 2043: 2003: 1984: 1957: 1939: 1921: 1897: 1878: 1852: 1834: 1811: 1752: 1725: 1636: 1614: 1591: 1568: 1549: 1520: 1491: 1214: 1209:, single entry category, can be spun out again later if more articles are written to go in it. -- 1070: 990: 945: 905: 873: 834: 798: 704: 700: 679: 675: 663: 649: 582: 274: 168: 151: 1586:? Or are you saying that it's not a matter of anyone else's opinion, just your own? I disagree. 2819: 2559: 2370: 2333: 2278: 2205: 1692: 1537: 1006: 961: 941: 853: 779: 723: 712: 629: 622: 600: 554: 526: 483: 471: 439: 348: 1629:

The standard is, are the people who are buried in this cemetery defined by their burial there

3804: 3643: 3614: 3418: 3317: 3225: 2984: 2856: 2794: 2762: 2623: 2580: 2311: 2235: 2218: 2197: 1770: 1169: 90: 3869: 3827: 3474: 3426: 3261: 3229: 3193: 3149: 2999: 2951: 2927: 2899: 2869: 2745: 2741: 2703: 2678: 2674: 2601: 2540: 1799: 1688: 1468: 1174: 877: 752: 3571:. Therefore, I think that this category should be moved to match the band article name. 1606: 3883: 3779: 3606: 3564: 3301: 3026: 1747:

goes. That will be the deciding factor, not your opinions. My last word on the matter.

1032:

I'll also add that "they've always been in such-and-such category" doesn't tell anyone

3726: 3659: 3592: 3538: 3376: 3107: 3043: 2722: 2686: 2653: 2507: 2425: 2407: 2388: 2348: 2292: 2256: 2252: 2160: 2138: 2120: 2116: 2098: 2076: 2057: 2039: 1999: 1980: 1975:, and that there are famous people buried in this particular cemetery, which is also 1953: 1935: 1917: 1893: 1874: 1848: 1830: 1807: 1793: 1748: 1721: 1700: 1632: 1610: 1587: 1583: 1564: 1545: 1516: 1487: 1428: 1291: 1210: 1194: 1130: 1066: 986: 901: 794: 645: 625:

should be deleted. In other words, my suggestion is the opposite of your suggestion:

578: 470:. The problem is the category is underused - most of the titles should be moved from 422: 361: 231: 146: 830: 666:, not a standalone item. While Seven Seas has titles, and CMX does, the rest do no. 2922:

It seems to me that what you really oppose is the long-established WP principle of

2815: 2782:. If the main article is so named, that should be the name used for the category. 2690: 2366: 2329: 2274: 2201: 1796: 1696: 849: 775: 708: 522: 479: 344: 722:

Why can't the manga, manhwa, et all just be under the already existing and in use

840:

The important point though is that it all slots into a large category structure.

3313: 2852: 1660: 1560: 245: 3865: 2645: 2536: 1792:

but we don't have such a category just because it could be populated. We have

1806:. There has to be a better reason for a category than "things can go in it." 1503:- where one is buried is in most cases not a defining characteristic and the 3638:. The same principle should apply to the categories. Move the song cat to 2614:

Actually the root problem here is the various locality naming conventions.

1709:

as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article.

1685:, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions. 964:

if somehow this one is so much better, as it is still completely redundant.

3700: