Knowledge talk:Category names/Archive 6

773:). The current descriptive standard (which has evolved through usage rather than having been prescriptively designed by consensus) is that these categories (but not necessarily all people-related categories) use nationality naming. The standards are certainly not immutable (are mutable), but I wouldn't be surprised if there were objections to the claim that nationality naming pertains to all people-related categories. Again, this would be fine with me, but it does raise the ugly American (pun intended) issue. -- 743:

be misrembering, but at the moment the page seems to contradict itself. The other point is that I was under the impression that these standards were not immutable, that consensus either here or at categories for deletion would change the standards. If that understanding is correct, I fail to see why it would be prescriptive to describe categorisation of people by nationality as a standard. I can see the reasoning for the other categories, just not the people ones.

464:. So if the transport one conflicts with a consensual arrangement elsewhere, we need to talk about it. Equally, if there was one particular cat that needed, for some extenuating reason, to be different to the rest within a speedy-group, we can talk about it — if it's that obvious, it shouldn't be hard to give it a green light. But we don't need to just go excising the bits of policy we don't like, or I shall take to task with a few choice ones of my own, elsewhere! - 460:. We didn't actually construct a new speedy mechanism for cats, because we lost some of our core editors (and the proposal, in a refactoring). So they are speedies, but as with all speedies on CfD there's a 48 hour delay as it says at the top of that section, to allow time for objections on reasonable grounds. As ever, you'd have to have a good reason for it. I don't think there would be a problem with de-speedying certain, individual entries from the main page, 31: 201:, and neither is necessarily constrained to result in the obviously "right" answer). If we can successfully adopt the proposed naming conventions as policy, these specific CFD discussions become speedy renaming cases without requiring a full CFD discussion and without running the risk that the set of folks interested in CFD when they happen to come up fail to reach the obviously "right" conclusion. -- 1058:) whose titles are horrificly ungrammatical (the first should be a possessive, i.e. Beatles', and the second should be a contain an adjective and not a noun, i.e. musical). Is there a reason that these categories, not to mention other ungrammatically titled categories, are titled like this, apart from someone making an honest grammatical mistake? I immediately wanted to change these two to 1476:) is a list. Many categories have list-like names but are not lists (perhaps they were originally intended as lists - who knows? - but people placed related articles in them, because it was the closest category fit). The main point is that the meaning of categories is often not clear, and depends on subtle grammatical distinctions. 1448:. I think by quite a large margin most categories are lists in the sense you're thinking of, so at this point it would be highly impractical to rename them. There are fewer topic categories, but still likely so many that renaming all of them is also likely to be quite impractical. Perhaps there are few enough cases like 344:

argument for using speedy in these cases is that failing a consensus to rename is nonsensical (one of the basic reasons to make these conventions policy is to make them enforceable, just like capitalization). There may be categories that are themselves miscategorized (for example, national archaeology categories in

1554:). I think the root issue might be that some users want category membership to have a precisely defined meaning in a theoretical database or ontological sense while other users view categories simply as a navigational convenience, and allowing anyone to edit means the first camp has an uphill fight. -- 1258:. If the ethnic group existed prior to the formation of the country, then the word "in" is more accurate than the word "of", and avoids implying belonging. A Google search also confirms that generally "in" is more widely used than "of" in describing ethnic groups by country. See Google searches for 1312:

I prefer "in" over "of", but not because of any politically correct issues over historicity. There are a number of ethnic groups who as of today are not confined to a single country, such as the Iriquois, Rroma, Tutsi, and Punjabi. Such groups can't really be described accurately by the preposition

937:

I've moved those categories where there's been agreement that "Foo by nationality" will be the name down to their own section. There are no substantive implications, I hope, merely a clarity thing so that we don't keep getting "country" and "nationality" crossed. No contentioous stuff was affected.

742:

The problem I have is that if it states people are categorised by nationality, then shouldn't that be the standard? I seem to recall there was consensus that people at least could be categorised by nationality, even if there was no consensus on using nationality in other categories. Granted I might

545:

is the intersection point. I favour "Images X" because not all the images in these categories show the whole of the place named. To me, "Images of the United States" only completely appropriate for satellite photos. An image of say a Harley Davidson is an image "from" or "taken in" the United States.

392:

Using CFD-speedy was an integral part of this policy during the entire time it was discussed and was in every version discussed prior to the page being marked as policy. To remove it would require consensus, here, that it should be changed. There has been no such consensus. I'm adding it back. --

174:

I thought it was already fairly clear that because CFD is where renaming discussions happen, it has the power to decide what the conventions should be. Really, it has this de facto power, since it is the implementation mechanism. Not that this should stop anyone from seeking "community blessing" for

382:

and the chances of anyone else out of the small number of people who visit the page noticing it and being aware of how archaeology is subcategorised are pretty slim. Errors will be minimised by giving changes more exposure. Speedy renaming should be used with caution here, as speedy deletion is with

1378:

to rename some 'ethnic groups by region' categories to follow the naming conventions of the 'ethnic groups by country' categories as established here. Should our naming conventions as established here have a scope of for categories by region, instead of categories by country? Changing to "region"

502:

I would have thought that, in the absence of consensus to change, it stands. That does not preclude the kind of discussions I mentioned, nor indeed the complete abolition of the scheme: but again, only through consensual discussion. We should try to keep this in one place - I'm having to cross post

184:

Per my comments in the immediately following section, the essential point is to officially elevate the CFD authority in the "by country" cases from individual categories to groups of categories. CFD has per category renaming authority, but since higher level conventions have never been officially

1545:

Since categories don't have any formal semantics, yes I think it's okay. There's no real enforcement for what goes into what category, and I think there is even fairly widespread disagreement about the fundamental purpose of categories, which leads to a variety of what I suspect are unresolvable

1299:

This strikes me as a reasonable proposal, although personally I think making sure that the "Ethnicity" and related articles makes these points clear in their contents is more important than naming conventions. Be that as it may, I can't object to this proposal though I hope many others weigh in.

343:

Renaming as speedy - speedy is only for cases where a category name violates an established, documented, convention for its supercategory. The conventions are included on this naming conventions page and, at this point, reflect "supermajority" convention within the listed categories. The basic

1193:), not all pages with adjectives in them. If there isn't already a convention about this, then I'd like to propose one: When creating page titles, use correct grammar unless by doing so you would contradict other WP policies or violate common sense. Any thoughts? Anyone know the current rules? -- 894:

Um, any chance of an answer to my question as follows? Okay, for the sake of argument let's say that People are categorized by their nationality and occupation applies only as you say it does. Does this still not mean that subcats of Category:Occupations by nationality should be exmpted from the

725:

bit is specifically alluding to the "rename 'em all" sentiment some editors have expressed. I find it somewhat awkward to defend this position since I don't personally agree with it (i.e. I do not favor renaming all "Nationality X" categories). I'm not sure why no one has yet made one of these

377:

There remains a risk of errors being made, as is illustrated by the fact that you made one yourself the very first time this idea was applied. If I had not happened to nominate a category for speedy renaming myself that same day it is probably that the incorrect change would have been made as I

313:

In recent weeks I have made more renaming nominations for national categories than anyones else and I expect to continue to do so, but I oppose these being treated as speedies. The first attempt to use this policy was based on a misunderstanding (that national archaeology categories and national

676:

but not to other people-related categories. When the page was put together, the intent was to accurately describe current practice and provide a mechanism for changes and further conventions to be adopted. We haven't returned to the general "Nationality X" discussion. Perhaps it's time. --

480:

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 Knowledge:Category titles and should

1642:

Yes, that process seems to need a lot of help. Not the carrying out of the consensus but the process of gathering a consensus. There's not much point spending time coming up with naming conventions - like on this page - only to have one of the categories sneak back in to Cfr or Cfd and get

1120:

I agree with you -- "The Beatles Songs" sounds strange, but it's correct. And there's certainly nothing wrong with "Music occupations" any more than there is with "Government occupations" or, for that matter, "web page". Nouns can certainly modify nouns. ("Horrificly", however, is decidedly

895:

umbrella statement in the Nationality section, Considerable discussion has already occurred on this naming convention. Expect proposals for renaming many of these category types soon. since the above standard, I believe we agree, applies? Otherwise I'll amend the page accordingly.

455:

Raul654 had added the policy tag. On the more substantive point, Rick Block is quite correct. The discussion (which I spent an inordinate amount of time debating with others) was clear that the principles we established, given on the main page, were to be viewed as speedies

726:

renaming proposals. I've been proposing some (not involving "Nationality X" renaming) mostly to try out the new process. Back to your question - the page was deliberately presented as descriptive rather than prescriptive in order to ease the consensus process. --

231:

as well as new guidelines and procedures related to "by country" categories (the original topic that initiated this effort). The "by country" guidelines that are listed reflect current naming practices and add three significant new rules:

1497:). This error would be more obvious if all list categories were named "List of...". The rule would be: "List of..." categories can only have subcategories that are also "List of..." categories. A bot could automatically detect the error. 153: 1110:

No one else disagrees? I think the Beatles example is fine. A category "Queen songs" seems perfectly legitimate, so why not "The Beatles songs"? It's not a possessive. Personally I think "Beatles songs" would sound better in any case.

1488:

Here's another point. A mistake that is sometimes made is to place a category which is not a list into a list category (because the name of the category is the same or similar to an article that belongs in the list - for example,

355:

a naming convention. We need to make sure the conventions we establish are not American English (or British English) centric, but worrying about this after the conventions are established (when speedy applies) seems to be too

1626:- the randomness is not due to him but to the nature of CFD consensus (different people vote on different days, etc.). If Kbdank71 got to make the decisions himself my guess is that they'd be a whole lot more consistent. -- 1066:, but was uncomfortable doing it without asking someone about the changes (as this would be my first major encounter with categories). I figured that maybe there was a convention I was missing, but so far I haven't found one. 587:

Could someone tell me where there was a debate about renaming these all to include "soccer". I believe this is U.S. centric. If there was a debate, how many non-North Americans were involved? There is a clear precedent for

606:(non-speedy). This discussion (at CFD) is precisely about changing the convention from "fooish football venues" to "football (soccer) venues of foo". CFD is the proper place for this discussion, in accordance with 1507:

I'm not arguing this is a bad idea, simply that it's not practically possible (so it doesn't really matter whether it's a good idea or not). If you want to pursue this, you might want to try to drum up support at

481:

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.

330:. Some nominations get about two comments in seven days, never mind two - and speedy renaming is a separate and easily missed part of the page. I would rather see things done (slightly) more slowly and accurately. 168:

All we need to get the entire community to agree on is that the naming rules for by-country categories can be changed via CFD. Then, changing these naming rules only requires a CFD consensus (not a community-wide

1185:, and I imagine that this form exists in other cat titles as well. Is there a reason that this is the case? Is there a convention somewhere which I'm missing? I've searched, and couldn't find anything. I did see 486:

It is regrettable this aspect was not placed on the front page, the reason for which was probably fatigue, this was a long and arduous discussion. Is the above clause disputed, or is there still consensus on it?

148: 277:

it puts quite some weight on the "by country" problem - since that was obviously the problem that needed solving I want to give this proposal that part of "community blessing" (however small) I can give it.

546:

Thus it's easiest to stick to "United States images" to cover all types of images, and all the continental and US state categories should be amended to reflect the convention used for countries.

348:), but I really think this will be a low runner case. Forcing all "convention alignment" renaming through standard CFD so that a very few exceptional cases might be caught seems like overkill. 340:

I suspect the relative lull in national category renamings has in fact been due to the "almost policy" nature of this proposal. It's now policy, but certainly not too late to discuss further.

873: 1338:

A week has passed since the last comment about this proposal, and overall there have been no expressed objections to using the wording "in country". I've therefore made a formal proposal at

1643:

overturned by people who didn't participate in this page to begin with. Total waste of time and I'm unlikely to continue participating in cleanup and consistency efforts in the future.

224: 143: 592:

using the word soccer in that it is not used in the vast majority of national venue categories at present and it is not used for players/managers/clubs/competitions categories either.

633: 560: 523: 253:

away from individual "by country" categories to entire classes of these categories, and provide a means to facilitate changing the naming patterns for classes of these categories. --

1592: 1375: 117: 1140:. They usually read "Akronites" or "Chicagoans" or some such thing. Shouldn't these be named "People from Akron, Ohio" or "People from Chicago, Illinois" respectively? Thanks, 972: 111: 1227:

of how such ethnic groups by country categories should be named. For several reasons, I am proposing that ethnic groups by country categories be named "in country", such as

1546:

issues (like whether "list" categories can/should contain only articles that are members of the list - for example, there is sometimes contention about whether an article

1394:

Articles that are lists are named "List of..." to eliminate ambiguity. Why isn't the same practice followed for categories that are lists? This article points out that

857:

Over 80% of the categories use "American", and that is the form we should be working towards. This is the English language Knowledge and it should use normal English.

1357:

At the moment, categories for countries can be speedily renamed to follow frameworks. Similar categories for parts of countries and for cities are taking up a lot of

1136:

I've been noticing a lot of edits lately to biographies to add categories to list people from certain cities. The category that these sub-cats can be found in is

223:

Please see the archives above for previous discussion on this topic. The current proposed policy reflects a consensus of a number of editors (see, in particular,

701:

and its sub-cats. I also think if the page reflected current practice then it seems wrong to me to descibe nationality categories pertaining to people as

957:

need to be sorted out. Most are in the X ships form, but there are also some "Ships of X" - including some duplicate categories for prominent countries.

693:

I guess we disagree then. I wasn't under the impression the first point, "Special conventions for categorization of people" applied only to subcats of

541:

are in "Images of X" format. But apart from the categories for U.S. states "Images of places" is almost empty. Thus we have two different standards and

1342:

to make "in country" an official guideline, and to rename all the "of country" worded ethnic group-country categories to use the wording "in country".

1224: 1186: 607: 1472:

I'm not sure, but my guess is that most categories are not lists (as in, category Z is a "List of Z"). Of the eight top level categories, only one (

971:

This guideline says: "Category names for lists of items should be plural. Examples: "sports", "writers".". But here is the problem. As explained in

345: 138: 133: 128: 123: 97: 1286: 1263: 1259: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 801:

since the above standard, I believe we agree, applies? As to the American question, perhaps it is time to again seek a consensus around either

1271: 1267: 236:

all supercategories of "by country" categories will have an explicit naming convention pertaining to their subcategories (listed on this page)

1361:. Should speedy renaming be extended, and should “same spelling” also include “same disambiguation”, which is rarely an issue for countries? 1277:

The choice of "in" instead of "of" has also been made through debate or has not been objected to for several ethnic group articles including

1031:

So it is, too. I thought we had agreed back on CFD that "sports venues" was correct regardless of the sport/sports divide. Rivers it is. -

912: 831:

Yup. I think it's time. On the other hand, I'm not at all sure any consensus other than "people don't agree on this" is achievable. --

799:

Considerable discussion has already occurred on this naming convention. Expect proposals for renaming many of these category types soon.

703:

Considerable discussion has already occurred on this naming convention. Expect proposals for renaming many of these category types soon.

379: 706: 1536:). It's not a natural and intuitive thing to do. So categories that begin as lists inevitably mutate into topics. Maybe that's okay? 318:). I am particulary concerned that this policy could be used to convert all names to American English, thus giving as such things as 1339: 603: 327: 1509: 1228: 1011: 1015: 920: 761:- a very narrow interpretation of this (using logical AND rather than perhaps the more normal meaning of logical AND/OR) is 698: 323: 383:

articles. Cancelling this criteria will not prevent any correct changes being made, but it will reduce incorrect changes.

1063: 993:

Good eye. I've gone ahead and substituted in a different example, "sports venues." I trust this is acceptable to all? -

770: 319: 47: 17: 1528:

As it stands, most people don't worry about topic/list distinctions. If there's a plural "list" category available (e.g.

908: 794: 766: 694: 673: 1282: 1278: 916: 1220: 1137: 542: 1529: 1490: 1051: 954: 38: 315: 1059: 538: 1055: 1533: 239:

conformance with these "by country" naming conventions will be treated as a "speedy category renaming" criteria

1512:. I certainly agree that the meaning of categories currently depends on subtle grammatical distinctions. -- 1379:

would allow for the application of naming conventions to entities that are above and below the country-level.

1419: 1445: 1147: 1593:

Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 22#Category:U.S. aircraft to Category:American_aircraft

1402:

are distinct categories. That is ridiculous! It's way too easy to make mistakes. In the article namespace,

537:

The problem is that 48 out of 49 national categories are in "X images" format, while the subcategories of

1166: 1422:. In general, any category which is a list should use the "List of..." convention, just as articles do. 1170: 1162: 293:

No substantive edits have been made to this discussion in a few weeks - can it be brought to a close? --

279: 1622:

is, in fact, a person. He's one of not very many people who carry out the consensus decisions made at

651:

Do people agree the page asserts nationality is to be used with regards to categorisation of people?

1632: 1560: 1518: 1494: 1462: 1174: 882: 837: 779: 732: 683: 668:

categorized by their nationality and occupation, but then lists some cases where "of country" format

616: 569: 441: 399: 367: 259: 207: 1365: 1647: 1637: 1613: 1599: 1574: 1565: 1540: 1523: 1501: 1480: 1467: 1426: 1383: 1368: 1346: 1331: 1317: 1305: 1293: 1201: 1115: 1105: 1088: 1074: 1035: 1026: 997: 987: 961: 942: 927: 902: 887: 861: 842: 824: 784: 750: 737: 716: 688: 658: 640: 621: 596: 574: 550: 530: 509: 494: 470: 446: 419: 404: 387: 372: 334: 303: 282: 242:

changes to these "by country" naming conventions can be made via the category renaming process at

179: 1235: 1198: 1102: 1071: 175:

this idea. I'll be glad to see the renamings-to-standard finally make it to WP:CFD. ::sigh:: --

1301: 1238:, pre-date the formation of the countries that they are now located in. For example, see the 1112: 919:, are not covered by the standard. As mentioned above, United States classifications such as 561:

Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 30#Subcats of Category:Images by country

1328: 1145: 899: 821: 747: 713: 655: 491: 301: 1627: 1610: 1571: 1555: 1537: 1513: 1498: 1477: 1473: 1457: 1453: 1437: 1423: 1415: 1399: 877: 832: 774: 727: 678: 611: 564: 436: 394: 362: 254: 202: 664:

I would say no. Under "Special conventions for categorization of people" is says people

983:

could refer to all the athletics in the whole. So I suggest fixing this in guideline. --

1644: 1596: 1449: 1441: 1433: 1411: 1395: 1362: 1161:, that there are a number of very poorly grammatically constructed cats there, such as 1432:

All categories are lists, so naming them "list of" would be redundant. Specifically,

604:

Knowledge:Categories for deletion#Subcategories of sports venues by country categories

415:

declared policy before I intervened. Go back and look at the position a few days ago.

351:

Converting names to American English - again, speedy is only for cases in which there

1623: 1619: 1606: 1380: 1358: 1343: 1314: 1290: 1239: 1212: 1194: 1158: 1098: 1081: 1067: 250: 243: 190: 186: 1327:

for the reasons Caerwine mentions — ethnic groups often span more than one country.

475:

As another participant, I can confirm that we consensually agreed on the following:

185:

recorded and there is no supporting policy in place, we still have discussions like

1085: 1032: 1023: 994: 984: 939: 924: 637: 527: 228: 194: 326:, and this might not be stopped in time. There aren't exactly hordes of people on 1177:, etc. Almost all of the pages in the Maps cat were in the ungrammatical form of 1141: 896: 818: 744: 710: 652: 504: 488: 465: 294: 176: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

958: 858: 593: 547: 432: 416: 384: 331: 154:

Knowledge talk:Category titles/Archive: Summary of poll started August 4, 2005

1190: 451:

On the largely irrelevant point, CalJW's first edit to the project page was

793:

applies only as you say it does. Does this still not mean that subcats of

1591:

Several of my attempts at Cfr's to follow this standard were struck down (

797:

should be exmpted from the umbrella statement in the Nationality section,

1216: 938:

If this is a real problem for anyone, I'd take no offense to a revert -

1403: 1255: 1247: 1251: 672:

used. I think these two bullets specifically pertain to subcats of

1440:

is "list of articles about (specific individual) operas". Perhaps

765:, i.e. in a category like "Fooian fooers" (2-deep subcat of either 149:

Knowledge talk:Category titles/Archive: Poll started August 4, 2005

1407: 1243: 907:

The standard apparently refers to accepting what is listed on the

1050:

I've come across a couple of categories (the ones I remember are

198: 1609:

renamed some of them, but not others. So it's nice and random.

1436:

is "list of articles about (the generic topic of) opera" while

1014:, for example. May be you should change it to something like.. 563:

for discussion about creating a convention for its subcats. --

1595:

and other sections). I guess these need to be reconsidered?

1353:

Proposal: Extend per-country conventions to parts of countries

25: 1532:), they hardly ever create a singular "topic" version (e.g. 763:

People are categorized by (their nationality and occupation)

314:

archaeological sites categories are the same thing - see eg

874:

Knowledge:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American

628:

Category rename Afghanistan images to Images of Afghanistan

791:

People are categorized by their nationality and occupation

759:

People are categorized by their nationality and occupation

1444:(and similar categories) could be renamed something like 1219:

generally use "of country" in their name. For example,

225:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Archive 5

144:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Archive 5

1223:. However, there currently is no listed guideline at 1084:, I think, since there is no appropriate guideline. -- 911:

page. The names to be used in subcategories, such as

118:

Knowledge:Naming conventions (country-specific topics)

1189:, but that refers to pages about adjectives (such as 435:

or myself please comment on this thread? Thanks. --

191:

WP:CFD#Buildings and structures by country - the rest

112:

Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Category:By country

872:

I've started a page for this dicsussion, please see

309:

Categories by country. Objections to speedy renaming

1456:that something could be done where both exist. -- 1374:Relating to this proposal I've put in a request at 789:Um. Okay, for the sake of argument let's say that 518:Renaming in progress of Images of United States 815:Category:Musicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina 522:I point out a renaming vote is in progress at 1414:. To be consistent, and much less confusing, 1234:The existence of some ethnic groups, such as 8: 967:Sport or sports; should change the guideline 1080:You should try to propose these changes to 632:I point out that a rename is proposed for 1225:Knowledge:Naming conventions (categories) 1187:Knowledge:Naming conventions (adjectives) 1012:Category:Sport venues in Northern Ireland 709:was guideline and thus current practice. 608:Knowledge:Naming conventions (categories) 602:The discussion is presently occurring at 1153:Adjectives vs. nouns in category titles? 346:category:Archaeological sites by country 289:Can we bring this discussion to a close? 139:Knowledge talk:Category titles/Archive 4 134:Knowledge talk:Category titles/Archive 3 129:Knowledge talk:Category titles/Archive 2 124:Knowledge talk:Category titles/Archive 1 1287:Indigenous peoples in the United States 524:WP:CFD#Category:Images of United States 227:) and includes current guidelines from 378:normally skip the speedies section of 324:Category:Theater in the United Kingdom 249:The intent is to shift discussions at 187:WP:CFD#Last "Fooian rivers" categories 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1390:Naming convention for list categories 7: 1570:Thanks for the insightful comments. 1132:People from "City X" or "City X'ers" 913:Category:Sportspeople by nationality 771:Category:Nationalities by occupation 320:category:Transportation in Australia 1207:Ethnic groups by country categories 909:Category:Occupations by nationality 795:Category:Occupations by nationality 767:Category:Occupations by nationality 695:Category:Occupations by nationality 674:Category:Occupations by nationality 707:Knowledge:Categorization of people 24: 1340:Knowledge:Categories for deletion 1510:Knowledge:WikiProject Categories 1229:Category:Ethnic groups in Mexico 1221:Category:Ethnic groups of Canada 1211:Currently categories that group 1138:Category:American people by city 543:Category:Images of United States 164:In archive 5, Rick Block wrote: 29: 634:CFD:Category:Afghanistan images 264:04:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC) 219:previous discussion and summary 212:16:23, September 11, 2005 (UTC) 1016:Category:Cathedrals by country 921:Category:American sportspeople 699:Category:People by nationality 641:19:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 622:04:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 597:03:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 575:13:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC) 551:01:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 531:15:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 510:22:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 495:19:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 471:05:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 447:04:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 420:03:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 405:02:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 388:22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 373:04:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 335:23:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC) 304:00:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 1: 1648:02:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 1638:01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 1614:18:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 1600:17:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 1575:19:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 1566:15:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 1541:04:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 1524:01:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 1502:20:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 1481:19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 1468:19:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 1427:17:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 1384:20:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 1369:20:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1318:07:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC) 1306:22:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 1294:21:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 1202:01:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC) 1106:15:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC) 1097:O.K., I've gone and done so. 1064:Category:Occupations in music 955:Category:Ships by nationality 813:similar to the given example 283:06:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC) 193:(both currently on CFD as of 180:04:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC) 18:Knowledge talk:Category names 1347:18:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 1332:21:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 1313:"of", but "in" is accurate. 1283:Indigenous peoples in Brazil 1279:Aboriginal peoples in Canada 1264:"ethnic groups of Australia" 1260:"ethnic groups in Australia" 1148:17:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 1116:21:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 1089:22:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 1075:02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 1036:21:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 1027:06:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 1002:I'm not sure. It seems that 998:05:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 988:12:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC) 943:20:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 928:16:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 917:Category:Afghan sportspeople 903:11:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 888:03:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 316:category:British archaeology 1605:The computer program named 1410:. The list of operas is at 1157:I noticed, when looking at 1060:Category:The Beatles' songs 962:05:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 949:Ships categories are a mess 862:11:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 843:00:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 825:19:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 785:18:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 751:11:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 738:18:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 717:15:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 697:. I thought it applied to 689:14:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 659:10:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 1668: 1530:Category:Operating systems 1491:Category:Winston Churchill 1056:Category:Music occupations 1052:Category:The Beatles songs 1046:Grammar in category titles 1534:Category:Operating system 1272:"ethnic groups of France" 1268:"ethnic groups in France" 539:category:Images of places 1183:adjective modifying noun 1006:could be used as far as 923:are under discussion. ( 811:foo of the United States 431:Can somebody other than 1420:Category:List of operas 1131: 458:unless someone objected 380:Categories for deletion 328:categories for deletion 120:(April 2005 discussion) 1446:category:opera (topic) 1010:, as per above... see 705:when as far as I know 1618:I assume you realize 1418:should be renamed to 1171:Category:Maps of Asia 462:after discussion here 114:(Jan 2005 discussion) 42:of past discussions. 1495:Category:1874 births 1175:Category:Greece maps 106:Previous discussions 1587:Renames struck down 1493:does not belong in 1179:noun modifying noun 1167:Category:Asian maps 1165:(instead of either 1236:indigenous peoples 1163:Category:Asia maps 953:The categories in 160:Community blessing 1636: 1564: 1522: 1466: 1022:, or whatever. -- 886: 841: 807:United States foo 783: 736: 687: 620: 573: 508: 469: 445: 403: 371: 263: 211: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1659: 1630: 1558: 1552:category: things 1516: 1460: 880: 835: 777: 730: 723:expect proposals 681: 614: 567: 507: 468: 439: 397: 365: 299: 280:Francis Schonken 257: 205: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1667: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1589: 1474:Category:People 1454:Category:Operas 1438:category:operas 1416:Category:Operas 1400:Category:Operas 1392: 1355: 1209: 1155: 1134: 1121:ungrammatical.) 1048: 973:this discussion 969: 951: 649: 630: 585: 583:Football venues 520: 311: 295: 291: 270: 221: 162: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1665: 1663: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1588: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1548:list of things 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1450:Category:Opera 1442:category:opera 1434:category:opera 1412:List of operas 1396:Category:Opera 1391: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1354: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1335: 1334: 1321: 1320: 1309: 1308: 1208: 1205: 1181:, rather than 1154: 1151: 1133: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1092: 1091: 1047: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 968: 965: 950: 947: 946: 945: 934: 933: 932: 931: 891: 890: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 829: 828: 827: 755: 754: 753: 648: 645: 629: 626: 625: 624: 584: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 554: 553: 519: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 484: 483: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 359: 358: 357: 349: 310: 307: 290: 287: 286: 285: 269: 266: 247: 246: 240: 237: 220: 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 161: 158: 157: 156: 151: 146: 141: 136: 131: 126: 121: 115: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1664: 1649: 1646: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1634: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1620:User:Kbdank71 1617: 1616: 1615: 1612: 1608: 1607:User:Kbdank71 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1598: 1594: 1586: 1576: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1562: 1557: 1553: 1550:should be in 1549: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1520: 1515: 1511: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1482: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1464: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1406:redirects to 1405: 1401: 1397: 1389: 1385: 1382: 1377: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1367: 1364: 1360: 1352: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1333: 1330: 1326: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1316: 1311: 1310: 1307: 1303: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1275: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240:First Nations 1237: 1232: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1213:ethnic groups 1206: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1159:Category:Maps 1152: 1150: 1149: 1146: 1143: 1139: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1114: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1045: 1037: 1034: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1008:sports venues 1005: 1001: 1000: 999: 996: 992: 991: 990: 989: 986: 982: 978: 974: 966: 964: 963: 960: 956: 948: 944: 941: 936: 935: 929: 926: 922: 918: 914: 910: 906: 905: 904: 901: 898: 893: 892: 889: 884: 879: 875: 871: 870: 863: 860: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 844: 839: 834: 830: 826: 823: 820: 816: 812: 808: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 787: 786: 781: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 752: 749: 746: 741: 740: 739: 734: 729: 724: 720: 719: 718: 715: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 691: 690: 685: 680: 675: 671: 667: 663: 662: 661: 660: 657: 654: 646: 644: 642: 639: 635: 627: 623: 618: 613: 609: 605: 601: 600: 599: 598: 595: 591: 582: 576: 571: 566: 562: 558: 557: 556: 555: 552: 549: 544: 540: 536: 535: 534: 532: 529: 525: 517: 511: 506: 503:everything! - 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 493: 490: 482: 478: 477: 476: 473: 472: 467: 463: 459: 454: 449: 448: 443: 438: 434: 421: 418: 414: 413: 408: 407: 406: 401: 396: 391: 390: 389: 386: 381: 376: 375: 374: 369: 364: 360: 354: 350: 347: 342: 341: 339: 338: 337: 336: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 308: 306: 305: 302: 300: 298: 288: 284: 281: 276: 272: 271: 267: 265: 261: 256: 252: 245: 241: 238: 235: 234: 233: 230: 226: 218: 209: 204: 200: 196: 192: 188: 183: 182: 181: 178: 173: 172: 171: 170: 165: 159: 155: 152: 150: 147: 145: 142: 140: 137: 135: 132: 130: 127: 125: 122: 119: 116: 113: 110: 109: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1590: 1551: 1547: 1487: 1393: 1356: 1324: 1302:Slrubenstein 1276: 1233: 1210: 1182: 1178: 1156: 1135: 1049: 1019: 1007: 1004:sport venues 1003: 980: 976: 970: 952: 814: 810: 806: 803:American foo 802: 798: 790: 762: 758: 722: 702: 669: 665: 650: 631: 589: 586: 521: 485: 479: 474: 461: 457: 452: 450: 430: 411: 410: 352: 312: 296: 292: 274: 268:New comments 248: 222: 195:September 11 167: 166: 163: 78: 43: 37: 1376:today's CFD 1329:Luigizanasi 915:containing 809:or perhaps 647:Nationality 559:Please see 169:consensus). 36:This is an 1628:Rick Block 1611:Mirror Vax 1572:Mirror Vax 1556:Rick Block 1538:Mirror Vax 1514:Rick Block 1499:Mirror Vax 1478:Mirror Vax 1458:Rick Block 1424:Mirror Vax 878:Rick Block 833:Rick Block 775:Rick Block 728:Rick Block 679:Rick Block 612:Rick Block 565:Rick Block 437:Rick Block 395:Rick Block 363:Rick Block 353:already is 255:Rick Block 203:Rick Block 98:Archive 10 1645:wknight94 1597:wknight94 1363:Susvolans 1250:, or the 275:guideline 90:Archive 8 85:Archive 7 79:Archive 6 73:Archive 5 68:Archive 4 60:Archive 1 1381:Kurieeto 1344:Kurieeto 1315:Caerwine 1291:Kurieeto 1195:Blackcap 1191:eloquent 1099:Blackcap 1068:Blackcap 757:It says 1325:Support 1217:country 1113:Stevage 1086:Monkbel 1033:The Tom 1024:Monkbel 995:The Tom 985:Monkbel 975:, both 940:The Tom 925:SEWilco 638:SEWilco 528:SEWilco 409:It was 39:archive 1624:WP:CFD 1404:Operas 1359:WP:CFD 1285:, and 1266:, and 1256:Brazil 1248:Canada 1142:Dismas 1082:WP:CFD 1020:Rivers 981:sports 897:Hiding 819:Hiding 745:Hiding 711:Hiding 653:Hiding 505:Splash 489:Hiding 466:Splash 297:BD2412 251:WP:CFD 244:WP:CFD 177:Beland 1408:Opera 1304:| ] 1244:Inuit 1018:, or 977:sport 959:CalJW 876:. -- 859:CalJW 610:. -- 594:CalJW 548:CalJW 453:after 433:CalJW 417:CalJW 385:CalJW 356:late. 332:CalJW 273:As a 229:WP:CG 16:< 1633:talk 1561:talk 1519:talk 1463:talk 1452:and 1398:and 1270:vs. 1262:vs. 1199:talk 1103:talk 1072:talk 1062:and 1054:and 979:and 900:talk 883:talk 838:talk 822:talk 780:talk 748:talk 733:talk 721:The 714:talk 684:talk 656:talk 617:talk 570:talk 492:talk 442:talk 400:talk 368:talk 322:and 260:talk 208:talk 199:2005 189:and 1274:. 1254:in 1252:Awá 1246:in 1242:or 1215:by 769:or 666:are 636:. ( 590:not 412:not 361:-- 1289:. 1281:, 1231:. 1197:| 1173:), 1169:or 1101:| 1070:| 817:. 670:is 643:) 533:) 278:-- 197:, 94:→ 64:← 1635:) 1631:( 1563:) 1559:( 1521:) 1517:( 1465:) 1461:( 1366:⇔ 1144:| 930:) 885:) 881:( 840:) 836:( 805:, 782:) 778:( 735:) 731:( 686:) 682:( 619:) 615:( 572:) 568:( 526:( 444:) 440:( 402:) 398:( 370:) 366:( 262:) 258:( 210:) 206:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Category names/Archive 6 - Knowledge

Index