Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions Information & Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
Northeastern Society of Orthodontists > Discussions > Case of the Month...
Northeastern Society of Orthodontists > Discussions > Case of the Month...
neso.org		 General Discussion - Discussions
General Discussion - Discussions
wanderersrunningclub.org		 
Skip to current discussions Skip to current discussions
Shortcuts:
WP:CFD/All
WP:CFDALL
Deletion discussions
Wikipedia deletion policy
Tools

Process – Log – Guide
– Images – Admins


Purge the cache to refresh this page

Contents

[edit] Speedy renaming and speedy merging

Shortcut:
WP:CFDS

Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified below. Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. This delay is to allow for objections over correct spelling, etc. to be made and to ensure that items are not listed here that do not meet the criteria.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", empty categories (that have been empty for four days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required for these.

Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions above.

[edit] Speedy criteria

Criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:

C1. Unpopulated categories
that have been unpopulated for at least four days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, featured topics categories, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help). (Place {{empty category}} at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted.)
C2. Speedy renaming or merging.
1. Typographic fixes (for example, Brdiges → Bridges).
  • Note that differences between British and American spelling (for example, Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors, but if both exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
2. Capitalization fixes (for example, Characters In harry Potter → Characters in Harry Potter).
3. Conversions from singular to plural, or vice versa (for example, Steamship → Steamships).
4. A rename bringing a category or categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
  • This should only be used where there is no room for any doubt whatsoever that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
  • This criterion should only be applied when there is absolutely no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. Any suggested renames falling short of this standard must be brought forward for a full Cfd nomination.
  • This criterion should not be used in the face of accepted differences in local usage (for example, Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).
5. Expanding abbreviated country names (e.g., U.S. → United States). However, if the corresponding article also uses the abbreviation (for example Georgia (U.S. state)), this criterion does not apply.
6. Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name (for example, Category:Georgia → Category:Georgia (country) or Category:Georgia (U.S. state))
7. Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en-dashes or vice versa. (for example, Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).

For any categories that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Due to technical restrictions, renaming or merging a category effectively deletes the original category.

[edit] Add requests for speedy renaming here

If the category and desired change do not match one of the seven criteria listed above precisely, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format:

* [[:Category:OLD name]] to [[:Category:NEW name]] ~~~~

Don't forget to tag the category with {{subst:Cfr-speedy|new name}}

Please add new entries at the top of the list and sign and date stamp your entries with ~~~~.

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, the time stamp shown is 00:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC) or earlier.

Nominations with objections or that don't meet speedy criteria will be dropped from this list if not taken to a full CfD.

[edit] Ready for deletion

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In most cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] December 3

[edit] NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit] December 2

[edit] NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit] Category:Fictional Technobabble speakers

Category:Fictional Technobabble speakers - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Hardly a defining trait for anyone (fictional or otherwise). Wholly subjective inclusion criteria. --EEMIV (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Category Creator's Rationale: Hardly a defining trait for anyone? I respectfully disagree with this sentiment and nomination, for not too many people/characters (both fictional or otherwise) use technobabble. Human beings don't even hear and use technobabble on a daily basis! With that said, I find it to be worthy of at least a category list, or an article somewhere on wikipedia.(LonerXL (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Category:Pere Marquette locomotives

Propose renaming Category:Pere Marquette locomotives to Category:Pere Marquette Railway locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match name of the railway and the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Oldenburg locomotives

Propose renaming Category:Oldenburg locomotives to Category:Grand Duchy of Oldenburg State Railways locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the railway and the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Nord locomotives

Propose renaming Category:Nord locomotives to Category:Chemin de Fer du Nord locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the railway and the lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Mecklenburg locomotives

Propose renaming Category:Mecklenburg locomotives to Category:Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg Friedrich-Franz Railway locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match name of the company and the lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Etat locomotives

Propose renaming Category:Etat locomotives to Category:Chemins de Fer de l'État locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the company, the main article and the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Baden locomotives

Propose renaming Category:Baden locomotives to Category:Grand Duchy of Baden State Railway locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the railway and the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Alsace-Lorraine locomotives

Propose renaming Category:Alsace-Lorraine locomotives to Category:Imperial Railways in Alsace-Lorraine locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Alsace-Lorraine is the name of an area and not the name of a railway company. Not sure if this is the correct name, but after reading the main article I think it is the best option. The is to cleanup up leaving this in Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Work in progress images

Category:Work in progress images - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: According to the category description, this category is for non-free images which are tagged for deletion and where the Graphic Lab is working on an improved non-free version or a free alternative. Its scope seems to be too narrow, but the category name is too broad: "work in progress images" could refer to images which convey the idea of a work in progress, which was my first thought when I saw this category, or to images (such as incomplete maps or images undergoing restoration) which are still being worked on by invidiaul editors. Category:Graphic Lab seems to include those categories used by the project, so delete unless the category still serves a function—currently it contains two talk page archive. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Featured sound nominations

Propose renaming Category:Featured sound nominations to Category:Wikipedia featured sound nominations
Nominator's rationale: Pages related to the featured content processes currently seem to be categorized in two category trees: Category:Wikipedia featured content, which contains project pages related to administration of the featured content process, and Category:Featured content, which contains actual featured articles, lists, sounds, et cetera. A category of nomination pages clearly falls in the scope of the former (the parent category is Category:Wikipedia featured sound candidates). (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Non-free sounds

Propose renaming Category:Non-free sounds to Category:Wikipedia non-free sounds
Nominator's rationale: Per category naming conventions, "[c]ategories used for Wikipedia administration [should be] prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon)" as needed for clarity. From the perspective of a reader, not an experienced editor, "non-free sounds" can be somewhat unclear. Also, for consistency with the parent categories, Category:Wikipedia non-free content and Category:Wikipedia sounds. (Category creator not notified because: bot-created). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Albinistic artists and entertainers

Category:Albinistic artists and entertainers - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete? I created this category, back when. Was just about to create Category:Albinistic politicians since so many of the entries remaining in Category:People with albinism are/were politicians, when it occurred to me that both of these ideas might be overcategorization. Creating subcats. like these appeals to my sense of keeping the main "people with" category uncluttered, but the intersection of phenotype and occupation may be too trivial. I'll leave it up to CfD to decide, rather than just create another subcat. that might also need to be removed. Also, there is no general Category:Artists and entertainers parent cat. to put the nominated category into. If it is kept in some form, it may need renaming or forking or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Recipient of Vautrin Lud International Geography Prize

Propose renaming Category:Recipient of Vautrin Lud International Geography Prize to Category:Recipients of Vautrin Lud International Geography Prize
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a list category, and therefore its name should be plural. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedily rename: That's just an obvious typo fix. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Concur with SMcCandlish. Obvious typo. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Distributed data sharing

Propose renaming Category:Distributed data sharing to Category:Distributed data storage
Nominator's rationale: See Distributed data store. 4th-otaku (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Rename': All subcats use "storage" as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Number-one singles in Japan

Propose renaming Category:Number-one singles in Japan to Category:Oricon Weekly number-one singles
Nominator's rationale: In compliance with Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and Category:Dutch Top 40 number-one singles. The two mentioned charts are published by a separate outlet as is the charts in Japan. While others such as Category:Number-one singles in Australia and Category:Number-one singles in New Zealand are issued by their Recording Industry Association. MS (Talk|Contributions) 15:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The rename would remove any reference to Japan, which is arguably important information. What about Category Oricon Weekly number-one singles in Japan or something? If this closes without resolution on this point, consider this a weak rename support comment; nominator's general point is valid. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Country Origin players

Propose renaming Category:Country Origin players to Category:New South Wales Country Origin team players
Nominator's rationale: There is a QLD County Origin team. Mattlore (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment/request for clarification: There seem to be three jargon terms at play here, none of which mean anything to anyone outside of the field of inquiry of the categories and articles in question. These are "Country Origin" and "County Origin", as mentioned above (why are these capitalized?), and "state of origin" (not capitalized, and looks to actually be grammatical) in the parent category. I don't think anyone's going to be able to !vote on this without more information on what this stuff means, why it's being named so inconsistently (including why the proposed name perpetuates the inconsistency), and what the nature of the dispute is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ah, well first of all County is a typo - it should be Country. The New South Wales Country team plays against a City team each year in what is basically a "Sydney" vs "Rest of New South Wales" match. The concept of "State of Origin" is an Australian-originated concept where players play from the State/region they grew up in rather than the region they are currently in, so Sydney based players from the bush still represent the Country team - as opposed to a Residents team. I'm not so sure there is a dispute, because no one has yet objected, but I listed it here because I didn't think it fell under the speedy rational. Mattlore (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hong Kong football templates

Suggest merging Category:Hong Kong football manager history templates to Category:Hong Kong football templates
Suggest merging Category:Hong Kong football squad templates to Category:Hong Kong football templates
Nominator's rationale: There are currently two categories for football squads and managers; this seems excessive to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, given the very well-populated parent categories Category:Football squad templates and Category:Football manager history templates. This is only excessive-looking if viewed in a vacuum (i.e., seen as out-of-the-blue and unusual Hong Kong editor overactivity), but it makes perfect sense given its entirely usual and predictable place in the systematized categorization of such templates, world-wide. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Disambiguation containing homophones

Category:Disambiguation containing homophones - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Little-used and questionable use template. No response to question (from 2008) on talk page about its intended utility. JHunterJ (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:DIC. Category is underused. List of dialect-independent homophones and List of dialect-dependent homophones are more useful. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete this underused, unuseful category. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, as non-encyclopedic. No one would actually be looking for this category, so it won't help readers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Various categories of "National Park areas" by state

I notice, within Category:United States National Park Service, various state-level categories that all seem misnamed. These are Category:National Park areas in Arkansas, etc. However, the term "National Park area in State" would refer only to National Parks within a given State, and not to other areas like National Historic Sites, National Monuments, etc. that are under National Park Service control. I think the creator/users must have intended for the broader definition to apply.

Propose 30 or so renames:

doncram (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually maybe they should all be renamed to "National Park System" areas rather than "National Park Service areas. These seem to be addressing the units within the nation-wide List of areas in the United States National Park System. And the categories correspond somewhat to entries in lists like:

etc. doncram (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Support move to Service. I think these System lists should be moved to Service. Reywas92Talk 03:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support rename to "...National Park System," which makes the most sense to me. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the idea of renaming. Although, National Park System may be more appropriate. While the National Park Serivce manages all these areas, the literature about the Service and the various areas, refers to them as the National Park System. I was confused when I tried to bring the listings together in a Category for the National Park Service/System and found only the titled "National Parks" in these state categories. Most authors separate the titled National Parks from other units, so they can concentrate on the 'highlights' and have fewer places to gather information from. Therefore, I support renaming these categories to simplify the links in Wikipedia and to connect the public to the wider system. (Chris Light (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC))
  • Support rename; prefer "system" to "service" on the basis of the logic already given, but am okay with either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Bioclimatics

Category:Bioclimatics - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: *Delete. Although this is not a reason for deletion the most of the current contents does not reflect the common usage of the word. The title is open to misinterpretation. A more apt title may be bioclimatology but such a category is not likely to be populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


[edit] December 1

[edit] Category:Sugar Bowl venues

Propose deletion: Per WP:OC#VENUES. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as only three places have ever held the Sugar Bowl- and I hope the next is a Superdome replacement not another Georgia Dome-type situation- this category is both useless (All information and links are in the Sugar Bowl article) and unlikely to ever expand any faster by more than an entry every other decadea or so. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:English-language education

Suggest merging Category:English-language education to Category:English as a foreign or second language (or vice versa)
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories; main article is at English as a foreign or second language. English-language education redirects there, and personally I think the shorter one is a superior name, so the merge could be reversed if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inland Empire (California)

Propose renaming Category:Cities and Towns in the San Bernardino-Riverside Metropolitan Area to Category:Cities and towns in the Inland Empire (California)
Propose renaming Category:People from the Riverside-San Bernardino Area to Category:People from the Inland Empire (California)
Propose renaming Category:Riverside-San Bernardino Area Airports to Category:Airports in the Inland Empire (California)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is at Inland Empire (California) and the parent category is Category:Inland Empire (California). San Bernardino-Riverside Metropolitan Area, San Bernardino-Riverside Area, and Riverside-San Bernardino Area redirect to Inland Empire (California). Also changing capitalization for the cities and towns category and the name format of the airports category to match standards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Uncertainty theory

Category:Uncertainty theory - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one member after the others were deleted at AfD. Fences&Windows 17:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The AfD was clear - nothing salvageable in all but one of the member articles. As things stand there's little chance of this category expanding beyond a single entry. andy (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as empty (no mainspace content). I nearly said that I was unsure about this one, but I was uncertain whether that was acceptable in theory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as housecleaning after the AfD decision. This one's a ghost town thanks to that decision. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Link to AfD is here in case anyone is wondering. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fictional ballerinas

Category:Fictional ballerinas - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category only contains articles about works featuring fictional ballerinas, rather than articles about fictional ballerinas themselves (contrast with Cat:Fictional detectives, which contains articles about the fictional detectives themselves). Alternatives to deletion include renaming the category to (something like) Cat:Works featuring fictional ballerinas (although I couldn't find any other "Works featuring" categories, or keeping the category and replacing the current contents with articles about actual fictional ballerinas (although I couldn't find any of those either). DH85868993 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and do not rename to a "Works featuring..." category per the rationale here. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We have Category:Ballet films which covers 2/3, and the 3rd is only a paper toy.... Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Old Adelaide Family

Propose deletion There is no evidence to indicate the notability of the Category:Old Adelaide Family. The page is a random list of old money families, some of which aren't even from Adelaide. Hazir (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • How does one "indicate the notability of a category"? (I've never seen a category that indicated its notability.) Can you provide an example please? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "The page is a random list of old money families" - On what do you base that opinion? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, without prejudice to the creation of a more appropriately-titled category if there is evidence that an encyclopedic and properly-referenced head article can be written on the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Question - Can you explain to me why there needs to be a head article? I know of dozens of categories that don't have head articles.
    • a) Why does a category need a head article?
    • b) Why do so many categories not have head articles?
    • Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to Category:People from Adelaide and make into a referenced list (which it already is, bar references). (I haven't noticed any other such categories for any city.) Occuli (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a good idea. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Turn into an article - as an administrative comment, this should be an article (including a list), not a category; a category page is not the place for the list and text which this page contains. I am dubious about whether the article would survice AfD, but I'm willing to give the main author (User:Pdfpdf) time to improve it. I also draw peoples' attention to a discussion I had with Pdfpdf at User_talk:Peter_Ballard/Archive_3#Category:Old Adelaide Family(ies) - (originally "OAF"), in which he offers references for the term "Old Adelaide Family" (which I disputed, but again I'm willing to give him time to develop it) and offers some interesting ideas on what direction the article might take. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • That sounds like an ever better idea. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - The concept of there being old, founding families exists for every city in the world. "Old Chicago Family" gets 3x the hits that "Old Adelaide Family" does. I can't find any references to suggest that the concept is particularly special as applied to Adelaide. I'm not averse to giving the original author a chance to work on an article but given its highly dubious notability claims, such a draft should surely be developed on the author's own user page. Hazir (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • "The concept of there being old, founding families exists for every city in the world." - Yes. What's your point?
    • "Old Chicago Family" gets 3x the hits that "Old Adelaide Family" does." - Yes. What's your point? (Note: Chicago has a population of "more than 2.8 million people" and is anchor to the world's 26th largest metropolitan area with over 9.5 million people across three states." - I'm surprised that it's only 3x.)
    • "I can't find any references to suggest that the concept is particularly special as applied to Adelaide." - Who/what is claiming that "the concept is particularly special as applied to Adelaide"? (Not me.)
    • "I'm not averse to ... " - Thank you.
    • "but given its highly dubious notability claims" - What claims? I'm not aware of any claims, dubious or otherwise.
Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
So you concede then, that the article/category is not notable? Hazir (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Yugoslav wars films

Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav wars films to Category:Yugoslav Wars films
Nominator's rationale: Per main article and CfR below —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Rename, a war(s) should be capitalitized by just standard English grammar. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Yugoslav wars

Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav wars to Category:Yugoslav Wars
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Uncategorised musical groups

Category:Uncategorised musical groups - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose of this category - is it only to remove uncategorized templates? If so, it serves no real purpose. noq (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The purpose is to gather together articles (if any) on musical groups which are yet to be categorised, in the hope that this deficiency will be remedied. (Yesterday there was one, so I categorised it.) Occuli (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
So someone goes to an article and adds it to Uncategorised musical groups instead of a more specific group? Why not just miss the the middle bit out? noq (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There does seem to be some redundancy here... If categorisation goes through a template, then I can agree with this, but if it is by hand, then delete. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I regularly categorize articles that I find in this category - no matter what/who adds them. And I consider that acitivity of mine useful. The fact that articles are added looks like proof to me that the category fulfills some sort of need, so keep until a better method for gathering uncategorized musical groups articles is established. BNutzer (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep but hide. This is a maintenance category, and in principle it sounds like a good idea provided that it is tagged with {{hiddencat}}. As a maintenance category, it should be visible to editors who choose to view hidden categories, but not general readers. If it's not hidden, then delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)11:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep but hide as above. Hiding T 13:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Just about as much work to categorize pages in this than it would be to properly categorize them. I can understand keeping this sort of category if there were numerous entries, but the fact it is empty means the number of potential pages for this category is manageable so it probably makes more sense just to categorize properly. Also if we want to be technical, this no longer becomes true the moment someone adds the category to the page (even if it becomes hidden, it will still be categorized). VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep but hide per BHG and Hiding. I see this category as analogous to (the subcats of) Cat:Uncategorised people, i.e. a place where editors like me, who know enough to recognise an uncategorised article about a musical group, but not necessarily enough to categorise it properly (e.g. I'm not familiar with the distinctions between the different variations of rock music) can place the article to bring it to the attention of other editors who do know enough to categorise it properly. DH85868993 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Orange (telecoms)

Propose renaming Category:Orange (telecoms) to Category:Orange (telecommunications)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article at Orange (telecommunications). - choster 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Goud people

Category:Goud people - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discussions at WP:India resulted in a consensus not to categorize by caste (see discussion). Another similar category CfD closed as delete. This is over-categorization at best; also verification of who belongs and who doesn't is an issue. There exists a list -- Notable Gouds and that should serve the purpose (although sourcing for that is almost non-existent). -SpacemanSpiff 03:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nominator's rationale. Verification is tough, because Caste people add all sorts of notables/celebrities to their list. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and linked discussions.Pectoretalk 19:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Non-article Erie pages

Propose renaming Category:Non-article Erie pages to Category:Images of Erie, Pennsylvania
Nominator's rationale: Bit of an odd one. This category was at one time used by {{WikiProject Erie}} but has long been replaced with Category:NA-Class Erie articles, leaving behind this collection of images where the category was mistakingly added manually rather than by placing the project banner on their talk pages. Suggest renaming to something more descriptive and reparenting in Category:Images of Pennsylvania. PC78 (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, Sounds like a good idea. Hiding T 12:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to more clearly describe the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:LGBT producers

Category:LGBT producers - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation by non-notable intersection. From that page: 'Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.' I don't think 'LGBT producers' could be described as such. The same could be said for many of the other subcats of Category:LGBT people by occupation, but this one stood out to me as particularly absurd. Robofish (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, 'absurd' may have been a bit harsh. But the point is, we shouldn't have categories like this. Yes, some producers are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, but that doesn't mean we should single out a category of 'LGBT producers' if there's nothing to say about such a group other than 'they exist'. Robofish (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. My initial reaction was to say "delete", but a quick scan of the category shows that several of the people categorised there produce work with LGBT themes or bring an LGBT sensibility to their work (Almodóvar is a prime example, but check the others). This is not merely an intersection category of two irrelevant issues, it is a categorization of a particular set of approaches to film-making. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep but perhaps trim so that it is a subcat of (say) Category:LGBT portrayals in media or Category:LGBT-related films (per drift of BHG's remarks). Occuli (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as a category that groups these individuals bya strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Grand Forks-East Grand Forks

Propose renaming Category:Grand Forks-East Grand Forks to Category:Greater Grand Forks
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Greater Grand Forks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom.- choster 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom to match head article, and because the current name hurts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


[edit] November 30

[edit] Category:New York Herald Tribune personnel

Suggest merging Category:New York Herald Tribune personnel to Category:New York Herald Tribune people
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are identical categories; and "New York Herald Tribune people" is the larger of the two categories and the one with the title ("people" versus "personnel") that better fits typical Wikipedia usage. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Church of England Schools

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Deleted per G7 creator request. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Category:Church of England Schools - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: it duplicates Category:Church of England schools; created in error. Saga City (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:New Democracy politicians

Propose renaming Category:New Democracy politicians to Category:New Democracy (Greece) politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is intended for politicians of main Greek conservative political party. Disambiguation is needed in order to disambiguate from the Marxist idea and other parties with the same name. Darwinek (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)

Category:Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). The party has changed name, and the main article was moved a while back. Soman (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Former municipalities in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Former cities in Arkansas to Category:Former municipalities in Arkansas
Propose renaming Category:Former cities in Connecticut to Category:Former municipalities in Connecticut
Propose renaming Category:Disincorporated communities in Iowa to Category:Former municipalities in Iowa
Propose renaming Category:Former cities in Kansas to Category:Former municipalities in Kansas
Propose renaming Category:Former cities in Kentucky to Category:Former municipalities in Kentucky
Propose renaming Category:Former cities in Nebraska to Category:Former municipalities in Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Defunct municipalities in New Jersey to Category:Former municipalities in New Jersey
Propose renaming Category:Defunct municipalities of Pennsylvania to Category:Former municipalities in Pennsylvania
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match and clarify contents; these are for articles on settlements that were formerly incorporated as municipalities (not all of which were classed as "cities"). This will conform these categories to their parent, Category:Former municipalities in the United States, and to the name followed by the other 21 subcategories that currently exist. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:2.5D video games

Propose renaming Category:2.5D video games to Category:Video games with 2.5D graphics
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per other categories in Category:Video games by graphical style. SharkD  Talk  13:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Christian Existentialists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename as capitalisation fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Propose renaming Category:Christian Existentialists to Category:Christian existentialists
Nominator's rationale: proper title format (caps) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy rename- choster 16:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Parliamentary constituency of Salisbury

Suggest merging Category:Parliamentary constituency of Salisbury to Category:Politics of Salisbury
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OC#SMALL. This category has limited capability for expansion, the merge target category is sparsely populated, and in any case the articles are adequately interlinked. I am am not aware of any other categories for individual parliamentary constituencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree - the three by-election articles could easily go into the politics category, which leaves a single article for the category. Single article categories = not good. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Categories for single political constituencies seem like a bad idea. Robofish (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge Even after the merge, there will be 7 articles in the combined category. Hardly an unwealdy number. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Deaths due to insect stings

Suggest renaming Category:Deaths due to insect stings to Category:Deaths due to insect bites and stings
Suggest merging Category:Deaths due to insect bites to Category:Deaths due to insect bites and stings
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. Whether we want to call them "stings" or "bites", I don't see any reason why these should not be merged together. The corresponding article is Insect bites and stings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Rename/Merge per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
rename/merge to proposed title - if there's an article it makes sense for the category to share the name. Could feasibly have been WP:BOLDed. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
And have certain users again drone on about me abusing my "admin power"? No thanks! Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
In a category about insects, there is bound to be the odd drone. It gives them a buzz. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Pfleas don't bee a pest. It's starting to bug me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename and merge per nom. And make it a speedy, before we drown in puns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename and merge per nom and others. Hazir (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and rename and I will avoid all attempts to bug BrownHairedGirl with a pun! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I could make quite a waspish reply to that ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Ticked off, are you? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


[edit] November 29

[edit] Category:Literary trilogies

Suggest merging Category:Literary trilogies to Category:Literary series with three entries
Nominator's rationale: Aren't these synonymous? Goustien (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Low-emissions locomotives

Category:Low-emissions locomotives - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category scope is unclear and subjective. There is not even an attempt at defining low-emission, and such a term would ultimately need to be defined arbitrarily. I have looked at several articles, and none of them make any claim of being "low emission" or contain emission details, so I fail to see even a subjective reason to include the articles. Arsenikk (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. law firms by state

Propose renaming Category:Arizona law firms to Category:Law firms based in Arizona
Propose renaming Category:Massachusetts law firms to Category:Law firms based in Massachusetts
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the other state-specific subcategories of Category:Law firms of the United States, to match these categories' own subcategories (e.g., Category:Law firms based in Phoenix, Arizona, the only content in Category:Arizona law firms), and to clarify that these are only for law firms based in these states, not just any law firm that has offices there. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • rename per nom per the outstanding reasons provided by nom Hmains (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom, for the sake of consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy rename per nominator. This is a speedy. Debresser (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by the Republic of Hawaii

Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by the Republic of Hawaii - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category, suggest deletion. RayTalk 15:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Sea Corps categories

Propose renaming
Category:Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Israeli Navy
Category:Israeli Sea Corps Special Units to Category:Special forces of the Israeli Navy
Category:Ships of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Ships of the Israeli Navy
Category:Destroyers of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Destroyers of the Israeli Navy
Category:Frigates of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Frigates of the Israeli Navy
Category:Missile boats of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Missile boats of the Israeli Navy
Category:Patrol vessels of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Patrol vessels of the Israeli Navy
Category:Submarines of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Submarines of the Israeli Navy
Category:Z class destroyers of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Z class destroyers of the Israeli Navy
Category:River class frigates of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:River class frigates of the Israeli Navy
Category:British S class submarines (1931) of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:British S class submarines (1931) of the Israeli Navy
Category:British T class submarines of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:British T class submarines of the Israeli Navy
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the main article on the navy of Israel, Israeli Navy. Also, proposed name for Category:Israeli Sea Corps Special Units bring it in line with naming of parent category, Category:Special forces of Israel. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom - perfectly sensible course of action. Hazir (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Whatever floats your boat Er... Rename per nom. Quite resonable, and a much more logical wording in English. (Though I'm unqualified to speak of Hebrew.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Indian captives

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_20#Category:Indian captives for further discussion. --Xdamrtalk 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Indian captives to Category:to be determined by consensus - possibly "People captured by Native Americans
Nominator's rationale: These people are not Indian (=from India), nor Indian (=Native American) - if the category is to continue to exist it needs to be renamed. Similarly, the disambiguating term for the members of the category - at present "(Indian captive)" - need to be changed. I'm not America so am not tuned in to the political sensitivities of language use in this area, though had a quick look at Native American name controversy, so not sure whether "Native American" is the right term to use, but on a global level "Indian" means from India. PamD (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Venezuelan Navy categories

Propose renaming
Category:Venezuelan Navy to Category:Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Ships of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Ships of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Destroyers of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Destroyers of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Patrol vessels of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Patrol vessels of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Venezuelan Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Allen M. Sumner class destroyers of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Allen M. Sumner class destroyers of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Balao class submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Balao class submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Tench class submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Tench class submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the main article on the navy of Venezuela, Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom (although this might also be a case for renaming the main article, if 'Venezuelan Navy' is the WP:COMMONNAME. Either way, the article and the categories should be consistent.) Robofish (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the more intuitive and shorter name. I don't care what they decide to call their navy, it is still just their navy. Debresser (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the point is what we are calling their navy. (After all, they call it "Armada Bolivariana de Venezuela" since they speak Spanish and all.) Personally, I'm agnostic on what the name of the navy is—call it Hugo Chavez's collection of ships for all I care. I'm just hoping for consistency — Bellhalla (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Week keep the status quo. Maybe I'm dead wrong- heck, it's likely I am- but the categories use a common convention, while the article uses the formal name. There's no unified standard on this- All articles about the Italian Navy are filed under Marina Militare a term unlikely to be familiar to non-Italian speakers. On the other hand, everything uses the French Navy not Marine nationale. These categories are under the common, logical name, and I'd leave them as is. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Italian Navy can also refer to the pre-1946 Regia Marina which is why the distinction there. — 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Aquaria in North Carolina

Category:Aquaria in North Carolina - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: the 3 (and only) aquaria in North Carolina were long ago merged into a single article, this category is no longer necessary. RadioFan (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm confused, your !vote is labeled keep but you list a keep argument (structure in a larger categorization) and an delete argument (over categorization).--RadioFan (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Read WP:OC#SMALL. It excludes from deletion "such categories [that] are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." postdlf (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the WP:OC#SMALL notation regarding categories that "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" ... which is exactly why this cat was created. This is also why the parent category, Cat:Aquaria in the United States, is marked with the {{parentcat}} header that states "due to the scope of this category, it should only contain subcategories" (with all of the child categories being "Aquaria in <state>"). — Kralizec! (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Philosopher redirects

Category:Philosopher redirects - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category has only five members - clearly, it does not include all philosopher redirects. Its name is non-standard. I can't see any reason why it is helping the project. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I suggest notifying WikiProject Philosophy. This doesn't belong in the main category tree, but may be a use for this a project maintenance category, used on talk pages (like those generated by project banners). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some one can provide a satisfactory reason for its retention: we have had a number of nominations for reduirect categories recently. Have we been retaining them? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the WikiProject Philosophy has been informed on the day of the nomination, I'd say that if no good reasons are given to keep this, it should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cook Baronets

Suggest merging Category:Cook Baronets to Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with no potential for growth, per WP:OC#SMALL. There have only been five Cook Baronets, all of which are listed in the main article and can easily be interlinked through the succession boxes, as is usually done for baronets. There have been thousands of baronetcies, and I am aware of only one other category for an single baronetcy: McConnell Baronets, which I have nominated for deletion below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Notifications: a) category creator notified. b) WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage also notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Already six articles, and the highly notable, and sadly dispersed, Cook art collection certainly deserves its own article (rather more so than any of its owners in fact) and may well get it one day. At least two of their houses have articles too. I don't see any harm in breaking up the enmormous baronet category with sub-categories for these confusing people, when there are (say) four or more articles. All 7 Gladstone baronets have articles for example. If a sub-category is set up a disam-type "Foo Baronets" article should be set up to include in the main category. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply. Johnbod, even if we set the threshold at four or more articles, have you any idea of how many categories that would create? My guess is hundreds, and subdiving into hundreds of tiny categories would be a navigational nightmare. If we go down that route, what about the many baronetcies which share the suranme with another baronetcy? Do we create a sub-category for each of the different baronetcies? Are what about the many baronetcies which changed name, as the 1st Baronet Snodgrass was succeeded by the 2nd Baronet Snograss-Cholmondely?
      Far from helping navigation (which is the primary purpose of categories), I fear that going down the category-for-each baronetcy path would create a navigational forest and a maintenance nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge as nom. The standard treatment of British peerages and baronetcies is that there is an article on the title. This can also contain a description of how they are notable - MPs, owners of notable mansions, political or diplomatic office. If seraching for a hyothetical Sir John Cook, Baronet, one looks for the article Cook Baronets and then selects the one needed. A category adds nothing to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:McConnell Baronets

Category:McConnell Baronets - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Superfluous category for the McConnell Baronets, with no possibility for expansion. Only the first two two of the four holders of the title appear to be notable (the first as Lord Mayor of Belfast, the second as a Member of Parliament), and they are adequately linked through succession boxes and the main article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Notes. a) Category creator notified. b) Under Category:Baronetcies, I can find only one other category for individual baronetcies: Category:Cook Baronets. And I'm about to nominate it for deletion too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Two articles is too small, but see above. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge as nom. The standard treatment of British peerages and baronetcies is that there is an article on the title. This can also contain a description of how they are notable - MPs, owners of notable mansions, political or diplomatic office. If seraching for a hyothetical Sir John McConnell, Baronet, one looks for the article McConnell Baronets and then selects the one needed. A category adds nothing to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People associated with Madonna

Category:People associated with Madonna - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Classic case of over-categorization. This is not a precedent we want to encourage. Every time someone, be it Madonna, Cher or the man in the moon, dates someone for some period of time, we'd be plastering categories everywhere. This is content for the main article only. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that this sort of thing sets a horrible precedent, but it seems to me that in an age of celebrity-obsession, close association with a mega-star such as Madonna may well be a defining characteristic of the notability of those in the category. I'd really like to say "extra-strong-delete", but I'm not sure that's justified. Can somebody please persuade me that I'm wrong to have reservations about getting rid of this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone who isn't "associated" enough with Madonna, so as to be defined by that association and categorized directly by Category:Madonna (entertainer), shouldn't be categorized by that association. These should be people famous only (or primarily) because of that association. Maintaining a separate category for such people only invites a looser standard for categorization, so delete/upmerge as necessary. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete -- associated with is too vague to provide a satisfactory category. Does not a person who merely went to one of her concerts have an association? If kept it should be Category:People associated with Madonna (entertainer) to match the article, and discourage the addition of people associated with the Blessed Virgin Mary, the original Madonna. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - too vague Victuallers (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nominator is correct, we don't want this kind of thing. Anybody who's ever had any sort of professional, friendship, sexual or family relationship with her would belong in this category — and that's far too broad and poorly defined to be useful at all. Bearcat (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete We have rightly set a high standard for the potentially numberless "people by person" categories. It is generally sufficient to categorize by other means and tie these individuals through wikilinks and nav templates, and each individual listed in this category is indeed notable for reasons beyond his association with Ms. Ciccone.- choster 01:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Bearcat. Debresser (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Beracat, and per Postdlf's reply to my concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The category is far to vague to be useful. Wikipedia is not a fan-site. Hazir (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Backyard Wrestling video games

Suggest merging Category:Backyard Wrestling video games to Category:Professional wrestling games
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. I suppose this isn't technically professional wrestling related, but nonetheless... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Electronic Arts' NHL series

Propose renaming Category:Electronic Arts' NHL series to Category:Electronic Arts NHL series
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary apostrophe. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Technically the apostrophe is correct, but I feel we ought to avoid punctuation in categories where possible. Robofish (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hardball! video games

Suggest merging Category:Hardball! video games to Category:Baseball video games
Nominator's rationale: Only two members —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom (and even if Hardball II was created, I don't think we'd need it). Robofish (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Japanese baseball video games

Propose renaming Category:Japanese baseball video games to Category:Video games about Japanese baseball
Nominator's rationale: This is ambiguous: are these video games about baseball that is played in Japan or are these video games about baseball in general that were created in Japan? I'm pretty sure it's the former, but it's not clear from the title. Any suggestions? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment from the contents, it's pretty clear it is not Japanese baseball, since several entries are about generic, cartoon, or North American baseball. I suppose they could be removed from the renamed category. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:World Stadium series

Suggest merging Category:World Stadium series to Category:Baseball video games
Nominator's rationale: Only one member —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, until such time as articles are created for the separate games. Robofish (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


[edit] November 28

[edit] Category:Users who want Rock Hero

Category:Users who want Rock Hero - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category not in compliance with WP:USERCAT as it does not support collaboration. — ξxplicit 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep No harm. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a category that groups users on the basis of a desire that has absolutely no relation to encyclopedia-building (some precedents: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). The userbox is fine for expressing the sentiment, but user categories should not be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices. A grouping of users who want to be rock stars does nothing to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - silly, and of no use for collaboration. Feel free to make a userbox instead. Robofish (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Robofish. Debresser (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:The United States of America songs

Propose renaming Category:The United States of America songs to Category:The United States of America (band) songs
Nominator's rationale: I'm well aware that these types of nominations are under dispute, but this one just screams ambiguity. I found this category while patrolling new categories, thinking it contains songs about the United States. I believe this category should be renamed with the addition of the "(band)" disambiguation to avoid this unclarity. — ξxplicit 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename in line with other "Category:<Artist name> songs" and especially potentially ambiguous ones such as Category:Propaganda (band) songs. Arguably Category:The Presidents of the United States of America songs should be made similarly specific? AllyD (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename – I'm not sure what the basis for a dispute with this one would be. Occuli (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I find myself intrigued by the idea that people patrol new categories. Out of curiosity, how did you resolve what the category was for? Also, is the dab phrase too entrenched on Wikipedia for us to consider a "songs by the band" format? My main reason for asking is that I just can't help but feel using proper English wherever possible is more accessible than using parentheses. I just can't help but wonder if we're making things a little too impenetrable to newcomers. Hiding T 20:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator. This is still a speedy. And I don't think that unnecessary Rfc will change that. Debresser (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Since we seem to be forum shopping, the unnecessary Rfc seems to be moving towards the merging of G6 into G4, since no-one can work out what G6 adds that G4 doesn;t already do. Hiding T 09:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Saw actors

Category:Saw actors - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is overcategorization of performer by performance. See similar nomination. — ξxplicit 21:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OVERCAT. Lugnuts (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
'Delete per nom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Classic instance of cited overcategorization guideline. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Filipinos of Mixed Foreign Descent

Category:Filipinos of Mixed Foreign Descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per long-standing consensus that categories of people of mixed ethnicity is overcategorization. These individuals should be categorized by ethnic or national origin. — ξxplicit 21:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - specific categories should be used instead. Robofish (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Did you notice the capitalisation? Debresser (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Analysis

Category:Analysis - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Administrative nomination
Further to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_14#Category:Analysis, Category:Analysis was deleted. After representations from User:Mion at User_talk:Xdamr#Analysis, I am relisting this category for fresh consideration, with the presumption that No Consensus will, as per usual contrary to the usual convention for deleted content, default to Keep (or, in this case, Restore). [1] indicates category contents as of 21/11/09.
I am Neutral.
Xdamrtalk 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "No consensus" defaults to keep for content that currently exists, not to recreate content that has been previously deleted. Particularly not for a CFD that was closed less than a week ago. If you want to make an exception in this instance, I don't think anyone will object, given that you had closed the CFD, which also had very little participation. But I just don't want that being taken as a statement of general policy and procedure. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
No, absolutely. Basically, for the sake of being equitable, this is a rerun of the original Cfd, only with the category already deleted; hence the setting aside of what, as you say, is the usual rule re. 'No Consensus' and deleted categories. Sloppy wording on my part, now amended. --Xdamrtalk 20:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a mishmash category of articles with the word "analysis" in them. I'm open to arguments that there is more to it than that, but so far I haven't heard any. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, having read Mion and Debresser's contributions to the previous CfD I had been about to change my Delete to a Keep but by the time I got there the discussion had been terminated, as had the category. That said, it was going to be a Weak Keep, merely on the formal basis that the category contents matched the content of the Analysis article; I still think it is a mishmash of much that humans do (and could ultimately stretch all the way from Aristotle to football pundits like Alan Hansen). But if people feel that the category really adds to human knowledge, then maybe it should be reinstated. AllyD (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep (restore) I can't imagine what use it would be to most users, but there seems to some coherence in the contents. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep (restore The given rationale: Analysis is a philosophical method which was applied later on in different sciences, which explains the different fields in the cat[2] is a nice start on its origins, but the article is not complete, "The supplementary document, Modern Conceptions of Analysis, outside Analytic Philosophy is not yet available.", the same with the wiki article .Mion (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep ctageory that unites common articles by a defining characteristic for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I also see some order here, and at least a valid definition. Debresser (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Adoptees adopted by family

Propose renaming Category:Adoptees adopted by family to Category:?
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how this should be renamed. All I know is the current title is confusing; before I looked at the contents, I thought it was somehow for grouping adoptees by what family adopted them. Perhaps Category:People adopted by family members?
But I also question whether this should be maintained as a separate category within Category:Adoptees. I can see there being a real difference between people adopted by complete strangers (i.e., people given away by their biological parents) and people adopted by family members (such as by an uncle or grandmother after being orphaned). But that would seem to either minimize the adoption status of those within this category as being less significant than those who are adopted by strangers (who are just included in Category:Adoptees, without such qualification), or it would beg the creation of Category:People adopted by non-family members. There is also the beginnings of adoptees by nationality, with Category:American adoptees, so we would either eventually intersect this with that (Category:American adoptees adopted by family members and Category:American adoptees adopted by strangers), or not intersect them and thus have adoptees categorized as such both by nationality and by who adopted them. Thoughts? Just rename, or merge? postdlf (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Mario baseball games

Suggest merging Category:Mario baseball games to Category:Mario sports games
Nominator's rationale: Only two entries, upmerge/delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Upmerge per nom, no need for a category yet. Robofish (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Industrial design examples

Category:Industrial design examples - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: The category is not defined, and there are no clear requirements for inclusion. Whilst a few examples may be obvious examples of Industrial design examples, in many cases it is a matter of opinion. Articles may be added because an editor favours a particular product, but there is no overall consistency. It seems to serve no purpose - we cover this much better at Industrial design, and at least there, examples that are added can be discussed, and references requested. The main purpose for a category as well as an article is if we want to list every possibility, but trying to assess whether every product on Wikipedia counts as an "Industrial design example" or not seems unfeasible, given the amount of articles, and the lack of any criteria. The category has been around for years, and shows no signs of going anywhere, beyond a pick-and-mix selection of 50 articles. I raised this at the talk page, and got one comment in agreement, but no suggestions for improvement. Mdwh (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I see the problems - really this is "notable or famous examples of industrial design", which isn't allowed, but we should have a category for actual examples rather than just designers etc. Looking at the category quickly all do seem worth including, and if the category has worked long-term on a "self-selecting" basis, it's best to leave it alone. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment But do you have an answer to the question of what the criteria should be, or do we just let anything go in there if someone adds it? What use does a category with either a random selection of products (as it is now), or a very large selection of uncategorised products (if it's updated) serve? We already have category hierarchies for listing hardware products (e.g., see Category:Manufactured_goods) that do allow finding of products much more effectively. Mdwh (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • rename to Category:Industrial designs (pluralising it) to match how many other instances of 'examples' are currently handled in WP in many difference subject areas Hmains (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Or that. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:SFR Yugoslavia sportspeople

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia sportspeople to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sportspeople
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. And the same for the related nominations below, which should have been made as one group nomination. The can still be grouped now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The correct English title of SFRY is Socialist Federative Republic, not Federal. So some day the main article will get renamed. I don't get why an unambiguous category name needs to be lengthened just to match a 'main' article. Sussexonian (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:SFR Yugoslavia politicians

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia politicians to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia politicians
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:SFR Yugoslavia international footballers

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia international footballers to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia international footballers
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

it should merge into Category:Pre-1992 Yugoslavia international footballers, itis because the kingdom and its successor SFRY is one state, but not be link to FRY. Matthew_hk tc 03:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:SFR Yugoslavia footballers

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia footballers to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia footballers
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:SFR Yugoslavia expatriate footballers

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia expatriate footballers to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia expatriate footballers
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:SFR Yugoslavia expatriates

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia expatriates to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia expatriates
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Military of FR Yugoslavia

Propose renaming Category:Military of FR Yugoslavia to Category:Military of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Nominator's rationale: Full name, per main category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Converts to Scientology from Protestantism

Category:Converts to Scientology from Protestantism - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one member currently. Considering how few Scientologists there are in sum, this might not be a useful category. If it can be populated with enough articles to justify its existence, this is a different story. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and put the member in Category:Scientologists, Category:Former Christians and Category:Converts to new religious movements. Not every intersection of categories need be a separate category, since a page can be in many categories at once. NeonMerlin 00:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can show that there is a need for this category (i.e., more than one article that belongs in it). Robofish (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Communities in Dutchess County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Dutchess County, New York to Category:Settlements in Dutchess County, New York
Nominator's rationale: All sister categories were renamed a while ago (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_29#Communities_in_New_York) but this was somehow missed. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Dungeons & Dragons symbols

Suggest merging Category:Dungeons & Dragons symbols to Category:Dungeons & Dragons images
Nominator's rationale: Only has one member. Alternately, could rename to Dungeons & Dragons logos or Dungeons & Dragons fair-use images and move in other images from Category:Dungeons & Dragons images. NeonMerlin 04:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. A fair use images cat would also be acceptable. Robofish (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge Logical proposal. These symbols are also images. Debresser (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and Debresser. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Greyhawk symbols

Category:Greyhawk symbols - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only had one member, and it is unlikely that other items will ever be added. NeonMerlin 04:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as an empty category (WP:C1). Robofish (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as empty and overcategorisation. Debresser (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Debresser. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Indian Emergency (1975 - 77)

Propose renaming Category:Indian Emergency (1975 - 77) to Category:The Emergency (India)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article The Emergency (India). If current name is preferred, I don't think the date disambiguation is necessary, since Indian Emergency redirects to the main article; thus Category:Indian Emergency would probably suffice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Indian Emergency 1975-1977. Retaining the years clarifies that this applies to a particular period in the history of India, and not to a TV show or to emergencies in general or the various states of emergency declared in the colonial era. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Indian Emergency 1975-1977 per Bhg. I think the extra clarity is justified in a category name, that is included in international categories. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. If the article title is inadequate, change it, rather than create a deliberate discrepancy between the article and the category.Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Indian Emergency 1975-1977 as above. This is clearer than the nominated rename. Also rename main article as per Alansohn. Both need to be consistent (and clear). Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep renamedas suggested. This is a general encyclopedia; to people who know about the history of modern India the dates may seem redundant, but not to the general reader in the English-speaking world. I must confess i had not come across the term before. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Newcastle Knights Articles

Category:Newcastle Knights Articles - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be an unnecessary second level of the Newcastle Knights category, especially as it includes templates as well as articles, I'm not sure what purpose it has. Incorrect capitalisation if it is to be kept. The-Pope (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Newcastle Knights per nom. NeonMerlin 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, if you want to delete it or merge it, go ahead. Josh the newcastle fan 4:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


[edit] November 27

[edit] Category:Tank albums

Propose renaming Category:Tank albums to Category:Tank (American singer) albums
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Tank (American singer), and disambiguate from Category:Tank (Taiwanese singer) albums. — ξxplicit 21:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse per noms rationale. J04n(talk page) 20:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl cities

With the Super Bowl having been held in twelve cities, all clearly laid out at Super Bowl and List of Super Bowl champions, I see no need for small individual categories like these. Reywas92Talk 20:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)}}

[edit] Category:Scottish surnames

Propose renaming Category:Scottish surnames to Category:Surnames of Scottish origin
Nominator's rationale: to indicate better that what is meant is not that the surnames are used in present-day Scotland, or that they are ones that have been used by Scots of anytime, but are ones whose origin is Scottish (ie. of Scotland) Mayumashu (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unnecessary. At Wikipedia we use the most commonly used terms. "Surnames of Scottish origin" is not a commonly used term while "Scottish surnames" is a very well understood and widely used term for this subject. Badagnani (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Badagnani says above. Reliable Sources all use the term "Scottish surnames", rather than the invented term proposed here. We use existing language; we don't make it up. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Does "Scottish surnames" mean surnames that originated in Scotland; or "surnames which are found in Scotland"? There's a difference. Wouldn't it be better to make things as clear as possible? For example, in 1991, Patel was the 24th most common surname in England/Wales [3]. Patel is an Indian name, and i assume has a recent arrival to England/Wales. I'm not sure it'd qualify as being a "Surname of English origin"; but it is obviously an "English surname" as shown by the census figures. I think we need more specific categories.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is based on the principle of WP:RS, and prohibits WP:OR. If, and only if, you can give us a reliable source which characterises Patel as an "English surname" can we accept your "obviously". You may not like the established nomenclature, but that's what we are, rightly, obliged to use. The wikipedia community is not organised in such a way as to allow it to develop new naming schemes, and any attempt to do so will just result in an unholy mess. It's not a question of what "I think we need"; we've got to use what's there. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I know man, i get the point. Define what the category means, what is supposed to go in it. Define "Scottish surname" and "English surname". Because the term can seem mean several different things. If it doesn't mean common names in England and Scotland, then what does it mean?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
        • As far as we're concerned, it means names given in books called "Scottish surnames", of which there is no shortage. In fact, this does correspond to names of Scottish origin. People have been using those words with that meaning for well over a century at least. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Citing sources goes a little deeper than parroting book titles. We need to know what those books actually say within the pages. How do they define "English surname". Common sense says "English surnames" is a catchier title than "Surnames originating in England", and a better title for a book. "English surnames" can mean so many different things. It can mean names originating within the border of England; names used in the country of England today or at some point in history; names currently used in the English language; and names that actually originate from the English language. Neither of these things means the same thing. Some names may have all of these characteristics, some only a few, some only one. A category isn't much help when no one knows what it actually represents, or what is supposed to go in it. Can you see my point?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I haven't been "parroting book titles" as you so charmingly put it. I've been talking about books I've read and in many cases own. You say "We need to know what those books actually say within the pages." No, you need to know; I already do. For example I've just been re-reading the Introduction (40 pages) to P. H. Reaney (revised by R. M.Wilson) (1997). A Dictionary of English Surnames (revised edition). Oxford University Press. . If you haven't read this or some corresponding text, perhaps you should, and leave off from pontificating in wikipedia until after you've done so. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Without getting hysterical, define "English surename". I propose it means something more than only appearing a book titled "English surnames". Does it have to do with the geography of England, the English language, or the English people. Or does it mean something else, the history of England maybe? Can you answer my question and please comment? It's been shown that the term can seem to mean multiple things. Someone has proposed to make this category more specific, so there is no confusion. IMO this is not something to take personally, but something to think about and comment on.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
                • I take your opening words "Without getting hysterical" as an indirect apology for your rudeness. If that's your intention, I'm glad to accept it. The only way I'd wish to define "English surname" for wikipedia is as anything which is described as an English surname in a reliable source on the subject. I'd be happy to describe it further, as a non-baptismal hereditary name formed in England, typically in the "surname period" which was about 1200 to 1400. It would be ideal if there were wikipedia articles on English/Scottish surnames to which we could make reference, but unforunately there aren't, and the general state of the articles in this area is pretty lamentable. I'd have no objection to adding explanatory material into the category heading, but the proposed name change would merely compound the confusion, and not solve any problem at all. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
                  • I think that you've summed up what most people would equate to "Surnames of English origin" - 'they originated as surnames in England'. It doesn't seem like we'd be guilty of 'original research' if we renamed this cat. If this is really what we intend to put inside this cat, why not rename it to reflect that? Anyways, i'm repeating myself. Whatever the outcome of all of this, i agree that it'd be a help if we had an explanation and some sort of criteria for inclusion.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If the so-called establish nomenclature was not overly ambiguous and not problematic then why was Category:English surnames, this category, and others similarly named deleted according to users following WP policy? Several users deemed the naming problematic, that is why. WP:Categorisation says nothing of being obliged to used common nomenclature. These category pages serve not those users who are used to the common nomenclature, ones used to knowing what is meant despite the actual semantics of the terminology used in the naming, but those who are not used to it and take it for it strictly says. And what this says, as User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh says, is either or both 'surnames found in Scotland' and/or 'surnames of Scottish origin', which is not what is intended. The established practice at WP:Cats for discussion is to rename cat pages that are ambiguously named, and this page is a prime example of this kind of occurrence. Mayumashu (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I see no objection in principle to a category of this kind, provided it is about names of indicating that a person is ultimately of Scottish paternal ancestry, including Stuart, Campbell, McTavish, but not White, Smith, Johnson, etc. which are not specifically Scottish. The scope of the category must be defined in a head note. No view on the rename suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Note that SamuelTheGhost has said that any name actually found in a book titled "English surnames" goes in the category "English surnames". So he would have Campbell, Mactavish, Stuart in this category, since they covered in English Surnames by PH Reaney. What does "English surname" and "Scottish surname" mean?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't say that. I made a corresponding statement about Scottish surnames, which is a less ambiguous case. The book by P H Reaney referred to originally had the title A Dictionary of British Surnames, whereas the latest edition is A Dictionary of English Surnames. This is explained in the Preface with the words "As a rule, Scottish, Welsh and Irish names are only included when forms are found for them in English sources, or when they coincide in form with specifically English surnames". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rename as current title is rather standard terminology. Alansohn (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Oppose split. Scottish surnames is fine by me, no-one would expect to find names that clearly originate elsewhere in that cat. To create a second category alongside the current one would be a ludicrous fork which will make maintenance impossible. Sussexonian (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep No other category in Category:Surnames by culture is named like that. Debresser (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Amiga Internet Relay Chat clients

Category:Amiga Internet Relay Chat clients - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small category that isn't likely to grow. Currently has three articles, only one of which is actually native software for the legacy Amiga. This one article will easily be found in either of the category intersections of Amiga software and IRC clients. Miami33139 (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subcategories of Category:Multiple units by country

Propose renaming:
Nominators rationale: (1) WP:NCCAT suggests that in ‘by country’ categories, it should be “Multiple units of Foo” rather than “Fooian multiple units”; (2) Avoiding the adjectival form of country names is an aid to users for whom English is a foreign language. (3) Parent categories use the form “Rolling stock of XXX”. Iain Bell (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Concur with rename per nom.  Sandstein  11:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes sense to me. --DAJF (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per clear and concise nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 'multiple unit' 'units' 'electric multiple units' 'diesel multiple units' are a mystery to all. Might these categories be about 'locomotives' or 'trains' or something else regarding railroads? If so, the category names should say so. Don't let readers guess. Hmains (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • So are items like Category:Tube stations in Barking & Dagenham. One issue with multiple units, is that it is a very common phrase. The only reasonable options with these is to open a discussion on the main talk page to see if there is a consensus to make all category name self explanatory. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment. There is no need at all for these titles to be self explanatory. A user will only be viewing Category:Multiple units of Denmark either having followed a link from an article in the category, or by arriving from a parent category. There is no way to randomly arrive at a multiple unit category without knowing that it relates to railways. The ultimate parent category is Rail vehicles. Sussexonian (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
        • comment what this means is that anyone who does a string search on 'locomovies' or 'trains' or whatever a multiple unit is will never find these categories in their search results. Not WP general user friendly; only insider, I-already-know-it friendly. Hmains (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Category:Turkish railways diesel multiple units and Category:Turkish railways electric multiple units. They are by railway categories and not country categories. They should be renamed to Category:Turkish State Railways diesel multiple units and Category:Turkish State Railways electric multiple units. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Kant images

Propose renaming Category:Kant images to Category:Immanuel Kant images
Nominator's rationale: Per main cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


[edit] November 26

[edit] Category:Canadian Football League lore

Propose renaming Category:Canadian Football League lore to Category:History of the Canadian Football League
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In this discussion we renamed/merged the "sports lore" categories into appropriate "History of" categories, since saying something is "lore" is subjective and kind of a form of puffery. Suggest we start a "History of" category for this league to hold these articles. More could probably be added. (NOTE: This category was created in Feb 2009 while the "sports lore" CFD was ongoing.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't get where "Lore" is POV or carries the meaning of legendary or "high-faluting" or whatever made it unacceptable in the previous discussion. Of the articles listed under CFL lore only 3 would count as history, the others belong to the ongoing facts and traditions of the league which is what "lore" means in my dictionary. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it's basically a judgment call as to whether or not something in a sport is "lore". What would be the inclusionary criteria?—I think any definition would be essentially arbitrary, since there is no widely accepted definition of what is sports lore. I don't see a problem with any of the articles in the current category being in a CFL history category. I think this would be more suitable for an article, though I note there is no general article about sports lore. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • How is it a judgement call? Lore is not a new, made-up, fuzzy word. It has a definition: oedm-wwikt:lore traditions and knowledge gained through study and experience. I definitely disagree that most of the articles currently under this category would fit under "history". If a category is desired for History, fine. If you dislike the word "lore", fine but do not pretend that this is a simple rename. Upmerge this category and create a new history category, for which I see a maximum of three of these articles belonging: History of African-Americans, Canadian Football Act, and, weakly, Touchdown Atlantic. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Any of the "annual matches" articles can go in a history article, since they happen every year and are therefore historical. Lore is not a made-up word but the name alone does not provide very clear criteria for inclusion. "Traditions and knowledge gained through study and experience"? Deciding when that applies to an article and when it does not is as clear as my grandma's cataracts. For instance, how long does something have to have been done to be a "tradition"? On the other hand, even if something has only happened once, we don't need to worry about that because it can be said to be "history". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The annual matches are ongoing, they are not historical; they are a tradition. Just as anything else, if we can write a separate article about it and it can be sourced as being a tradition, then I would say it is a tradition. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course, I do see a problem with that. We are not foretelling that it will become historical. It was probably a result of the previous move. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In general, "history" just means stuff that has happened in the past. It doesn't mean "stuff that has happened in the past that has no ongoing relevance today". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and these things are not only still relevant, they are happening now. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep "Lore" and "History" are essentially synonymous and the decision making process for what is lore and what is history are identical. In the articles included in the category "lore" is probably more accurate. Why waste our time? Alansohn (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • For consistency in the category scheme. If all the rest use "history" and it is true that there is no real difference between the two, we may as well change this one to conform. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree with Good Ol’factory. Consistency is a crucial ingredient of the category system, making categories easier to use for both readers and editors. Categories should only break a consistent naming scheme when here is some very pressing reason, but I see no such good reason here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I would not say they are synonymous; at best History could be a subset of lore. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename as per nom. For consistency, as GOF points out Mayumashu (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:History of the Canadian Football League and Category:Canadian Football League traditions putting articles into appropriate categories. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:CAMs

Propose renaming Category:CAMs to Category:Cell adhesion molecules
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expansion of ambiguous acronym. DH85868993 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename. I know nothing about the subject, but expanding an acronym is usually a good idea in category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support, much more clear. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] St Helens, Merseyside

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, adding the suffix "Merseyside" to conform with parent Category:St Helens, Merseyside and head article St Helens, Merseyside.
See also separate nomination below for one category which needs a further change, as well as the addition of this suffix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Modern English people

Category:Modern English people - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, arbitrary and unnecessary grouping of categories by century, of English people from the 16th through the 21st centuries. All included subcategories are already included (and numerically sorted) in Category:English people by century, and I doubt anyone would have a problem picking out the most recent centuries within that category. This is apparently the only category of its kind. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:English people by century. The grouping isn't entirely arbitrary, because the "modern era" is often taken as beginning with the Reformation in the 16th century, but this category does nothing to help navigation. We don't have a broader Category:Modern era, so this is just a single-parent subdivision of Category:English people by century, and it serves no useful purpose. Note that I recommend merger rather than delete, just in case the sub-categories are removed from Category:English people by century before this discussion closes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Given that the century-based categories exist, I don't see what this intermediate category adds for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Closing admin should check that the children are appropriately parented. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment That's why merger is better than deletion for situations like this, because it avoids the need for manual checks. Our closing admins are usually very thorough, but when a bot can do the job without error, why not let the bot do it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Debresser (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Government in St Helens

Propose renaming Category:Government in St Helens to Category:Local government in St Helens, Merseyside
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per convention of Category:Local government in England ("Local government in foo") and per parent category Category:Helens, Merseyside. Related nomination to follow for other St Helens categories, adding the ", Merseyside" suffix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Vermilingua

Propose renaming Category:Vermilingua to Category:Anteaters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Anteaters" is a well-known and unambiguous common name for these animals, and it agrees with the title of the main article. Similar moves have been performed recently (Category:Gundis, among others). Ucucha 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More locomotives, part 2

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Rename per nom - WP:CSD#C2 No.4. --Xdamrtalk 14:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Propose renaming:
Nominators rationale: as per recent discussions to use the "Locomotives of XXX" form. Iain Bell (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename as per nom. Previous discussion was here —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Hammersmith and Fulham

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are all sub-categories of Cat:London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and should follow that convention, as well as the format of the head article at London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Plus, we don't do ampersands in category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Barking and Dagenham

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are all sub-categories of Cat:London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, and should follow that convention, as well as the format of the head article at London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Plus, we don't do ampersands in category names.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kensington and Chelsea

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are all sub-categories of Cat:Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and should follow that convention, as well as the format of the head article at Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Plus, we don't do ampersands in category names.
Note that there is also Category:People from Kensington and Chelsea (district), but the disambiguator looks unnecessary. If this nomination is successful, the people category should be renamed to remove the disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I had spotted Barking & Dagenham, but not Hammersmith & Fulham. Will see if I have the energy to do them too.
    i take your point about the people category, and am glad I omitted that one from this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • FYI a full list of London categories is available here. I have advised WP:London of the nomination; it also impacts on WP:London Transport. I have no objection to changes as long as we maintain some consistency. Hopefully, the changes can be achieved by bot! Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I never got round to studying MySQL data base (as used by WP), but I suppose you mean if it were possible use the substr_replace( ) function in a script that would limit itself to only to the London Categories. Then we would only need to agree that it should search out for every occurrence of an ampersand that appears in ‘any’ London cats and automatically substitute it with ‘and’. It could save a lot of work and we could be sure that non have been missed. Afterwards, the same bot may be of use to other editors or maybe someone has already written one.--Aspro (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Breathe albums

Propose renaming Category:Breathe albums to Category:Breathe (British band) albums
Propose renaming Category:Breathe songs to Category:Breathe (British band) songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate from Category:Breathe (New Zealand band) albums. The nominated category should be a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In which case rename the 2 categories likewise. Occuli (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse renames to avoid ambiguity and kudos to Ucucha for moving the band to a less ambiguous title. J04n(talk page) 20:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hitler's secretaries

Propose renaming Category:Hitler's secretaries to Category:Secretaries to Adolf Hitler
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Include full name per main article Adolf Hitler and Category:Adolf Hitler. The other subcategories of Category:Secretaries seem to use the form "Secretaries to FOO" rather than a possessive, but Category:Adolf Hitler's secretaries is also an option that could be selected. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
On the fence While you are right re the secretaries cat, under the Hitler category you'll see that there is a Hitler's family subcat, which would serve as a counter-style, as well as there being pages with names such as Hitler's private library and Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations (ie without the 'Adolf'). Whatever change is made should be consistent with both the secretaries and the Hitler cats, which could mean rather a lot of changes to other pages (although many are at the moment inconsistent). Ericoides (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations is about a book of that title. Category:Hitler family follows the convention of other family categories, as seen in the other subcategories of Category:Austrian families. It similarly makes sense for the secretaries category to follow the convention of other secretary categories. If you think any articles (Hitler-related or otherwise) should be renamed, then feel free to move those pages or discuss it on a relevant talk page, but that really has nothing to do with this. What we name categories intended to group certain kinds of articles may or may not also be a good name for certain articles, and obviously a CFD cannot make binding decisions as to title changes in article space. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
In keeping with the other Hitler categories, this one should also have "Adolf Hitler" instead of just "Hitler". It could be renamed to either Category:Adolf Hitler's secretaries or Category:Secretaries to Adolf Hitler; this is currently the only category for secretaries to a specific person (others are for secretaries to the U.S. President etcetera), so there is no real precedent for which one to use. I have a slight preference for Category:Secretaries to Adolf Hitler because it is more consistent with other remotely comparable categories (Category:Failed assassins of Adolf Hitler, Category:Personal secretaries to the President of the United States), but I have no problem with choosing the other possibility, which is a bit shorter. Ucucha 01:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As a rule, I think that we should use "secretaries to office" instead of "secretaries to person" categories. In almost all cases, the fact of being a secretary to the holder of a particular office is more significant than being a secretary to a particular officeholder. Hitler could be one of the few exceptions to this rule, but I would like to express my hesitation about expressing a general acceptance of "secretaries to person" categories for every politician, businessperson, or celebrity. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More Locomotives

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Rename per nom - WP:CSD#C2 No.4. --Xdamrtalk 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Propose for discussion:
Nominator's rationale: Found listed in Category:CfD 2009-10. Apparently intended to form part of the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_24#Category:Locomotives_of_Foo which, after relisting for more discussion , settled on the general form Locomotives of XXX. I suggest for your consideration renames which follow the general form recently established. (Which I suppose means that this can be closed as a Speedy No.4 in 48h time - barring objections)
Xdamrtalk 00:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "locomotives of X" is the better form. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom and Xdamr, and per linked precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom; and my apologies for tagging them and omitting them to include in the big long list I submitted to CfD. Iain Bell (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Mutualism

Relisted for further discussion from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_18#Category:Mutualism. --Xdamrtalk 23:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Mutualism to Category:Mutualism (movement)
Nominator's rationale: In line with the article (to be created) and to not confuse it with Mutualism multichill (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment. I agree that something has to be done to move away from the biological term, but this seems premature as the related article does not yet exist, so the respective roles of the several possible categories are unclear. In particular, is Mutualism (movement) proposed to be distinct from Mutualism (economic theory)? Which name should ultimately contain historical and contemporary Proudhonist movements and which should contain historical insurers and contemporary LETS schemes etc? (Depending on proposed content, it may be better to avoid the "-ism (foo)" and opt for "-ist foos" in the article/category naming?) AllyD (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The parent article should be established first. This category collects together a group largely of weak and stub class articles that collectively with this category constitute original research. I have little doubt that this is a worthy subject, and a categorisable subject, but we need to building this encyclopedia starting with good sources first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not clear how Mutualism (movement) is different from Mutualism (economic theory). I don't know if there's a need for a mutualism category within the biology articles, but that would seem to be the crux of the issue. Perhaps there should be a definition and disambiguation at the top of the category's page for those looking for mutualism in biology. That said, Category:Mutualism is sparsely populated at this point and there seems to be a lot of overlap with Category:Cooperatives. I would be against moving the page to Category:Mutualism (movement) since there is no parent article and since I'm not sure how it would be different from the cooperative movement. Gobonobo T C 17:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep to match category contents to those of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Not quite, the parent article is about the biological concept, while the articles in this category are economical. The most logical thing to do would be to rename to Category:Mutualism (economic movement), but apparently the economic theory may not be exactly the same as what is categorized here (?). In line with SmokeyJoe's reasoning, it may also be a good idea to just delete the whole thing. Ucucha 04:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Mutualism (economics), so that it can include mutualist thinkers as well as institutions, practices etc. Mutualism is an important concept in socio-economic theory, going back at least to Proudhon, and there are plenty of articles which could be categorised under this heading. It will probably need several sub-categories, e.g. one for institutions such as building societies, one for thinkers, one for practices such as barn-raising ... but those choices don't need to be made here. What matters at CFD is that we not should remove a whole school of socio-economic thought from the category system.
    Note that economic mutualism has close intellectual ties to biological mutualism, as set out in Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. So once this category has been renamed, I suggest creating a new Category:Mutualism as a parent for both. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
BHG, there is already a category for institutions such as building societies, Category:Mutual organizations. I think that cat is quite well defined and well maintained. Some of the articles here should really be there, so I will add them now before this cat gets deleted and forgotten. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Mutualism (social science). Many of the article that seem to belong here seem to be not about theory or movements, but about social and economic phenomena. Since economics is a branch of social science, I propose that we keep the name quite general. Though I think a general name would work best for readers, I would also support a rename to Mutualism (economics), Mutualism (movement) or Mutualism (economic theory). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply. Hroðulf, I think we are on a similar track, but I think that it is inappropriate to apply the label "social science" to articles such as Meitheal, Barn raising or Bayanihan. Those are not social science, which is the theoretical study of society; they are practices developed by communities in response to practical issues in their lives. However, that has prompted me to suggest what I think is a better overall solution, which I'll outline below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep (changing my !vote).This has been a useful discussion, but thinking again about it all I reckon that we are over-complicating matters, and it seems to me that there is a much simpler solution available if we dislodge biological mutualism from its inappropraite place as the primary topic:
  1. Rename the article Mutualism to Mutualism (biology), and if necessary create a Category:Mutualism (biology) for related articles. Create a disambiguation page at Mutualism.
  2. Subdivide Category:Mutualism with more sub-categories as needed, so that Category:Mutualism itself contains only the head articles on different forms of mutualism.
Sorted! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Influenced by your response above, I would be fine with this too. (As an aside, and in the spirit of simplicity, I think a disambiguation topnote would serve readers more quickly than a disambiguation page. If someone types in Mutualism, they likely want one of 2 things - Proudhonism or biological mutualism - mutuality, mutual organizations, and mutual aid, are easily found if they are needed.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
A hatnote is fine for readers but it doesn't help with misplaced links. Creating a dab page at mutualism ensures that any links to mutualism get picked up the bots which work for WP:DPWL, and be easily fixed using popups. Without the dab page, that job is much more difficult. Plus, I see no reason to claim that biological mutualism is the primary usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
All true. However Wikipedia main namespace is for readers, not for we editors. I don't really mind which of the two Mutualism articles ends up with the prime spot, but I don't like readers experiencing extra reading, clicking and downloading. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
My opinion on hatnotes is academic really. I see now that Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_page_or_disambiguation_links? has changed to oppose my view. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are a great help to readers, both directly and indirectly. They help directly, by providing a simple short page saying "you could be looking for one of two or more similarly-named things"; and they also provide a huge help indirectly, by facilitating the disambiguation which allows editors to ensure that links are directed to the intended article. The concept of a primary topic is greatly overused on wikipedia, and other publications such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography wisely avoid it altogether ... but if there isn't a clear primary topc, it makes no sense to arbitrarily select one or the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and adjust the article naming as proposed by BHG. (As she says, it isn't clear which is the primary usage - and I note that the biological article has See-Also to Kropotkin, so perhaps all come together in a, dare I say it, mutualist way.) AllyD (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • BHG's suggestion made at Talk:Mutualism#Move_article_to_Mutualism_.28biology.29. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Older discussions

The above are up to 7 days old. For the previous two weeks, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days

[edit] Discussions awaiting closure

[edit] Discussions awaiting closure


Go back to current discussions Go back to current discussions
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions"



Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots