Category talk:Organizations based in Victoria, British Columbia

	Canada portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
	This category is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

Organizations

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles

Contested deletion

This category should not be speedy deleted as being unpopulated, because... It is a perfectly good category for Victoria, BC. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title Organizations based in Victoria is a confused category. All of the Victoria, British Columbia related categories to include the province name. So the new title has to include the province name. Steam5 (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not confused at all. It's for organizations based in Victoria. Seems clear to me. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of the Victoria, British Columbia related categories have to include the province name for e.g. Category:Transportation in Victoria, British Columbia and Category:Media in Victoria, British Columbia. Steam5 (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Victoria in BC? One of the six other Victorias in Canada? The Victoria in Australia? The Victoria in the Seychelles? The Victoria in Chile? The Victoria in Honduras? One of the eleven Victorias in the United States? The Victoria in Malta? One of the five Victorias in the Philippines? One of the six Victorias in Romania?

Do you maybe get why it has to be Category:Organizations based in Victoria, British Columbia now? Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why isn't it Category:Organizations in Toronto, Ontario then or Category:Organizations in Ottawa, Ontario when there is more than one Ottawa? Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Toronto and the Ottawa in Ontario are both unquestionably the most important places in the world by those names; any person in the entire world, upon hearing "Toronto" or "Ottawa", without further clarification, will still know instinctively that the Canadian one is the one that's intended. Victoria, BC, however, is not the largest or most famous or most important place by its name; you cannot assume that something in "Victoria", without further clarification, is necessarily in BC — in fact, in most of the world the one in Australia is by far the most likely candidate for undisambiguated "Victoria".

At any rate, it's really quite simple: the rule for city categories is that they have to match up to the article's title. If the city's article is at Toronto, then its related categories use "Toronto". If it's at Victoria, British Columbia and cannot legitimately be moved to the plain title "Victoria" instead (which it can't, so don't try), then the related categories have to use "Victoria, British Columbia". The format that the city's main article is titled in dictates how the categories have to be named, in a nutshell. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfair the category history didn't go to the new category. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not possible with categories. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories can be moved just like articles can. Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither categories nor articles are normally moved overtop other duplicating categories or articles that already exist, unless there's a content-based reason to perform the merge — if there's no discernible difference between the two pages from a content perspective (such as the wrong-titled article being a clearly superior version than the right-titled article is), and no longstanding edit history to preserve, then there's no real point or purpose to doing so. Whether it's "fair" or "unfair" really has nothing to do with it. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]