< April 11	April 13 >

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: merge to Category:Jews from Thessaloniki. As the other categories were not tagged, they may be nominated for merging in a subsequent nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Jews from Selanik to Category:Jews from Thessaloniki

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Jews from Thessaloniki. There is no need to split article by time period.TM 23:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am surprised to find we have categories of the form 'Booians from Foo' at all. My preference would be an upmerge of all to Category:People from Thessaloniki (intersection of unrelated traits). Occuli (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support that as well.--TM 23:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Historical people of Thessaloniki is curious as it contains Category:Jews from Thessaloniki, who seem to be fairly unhistorical. There only appear to be Category:Historical people of Istanbul, Category:Historical people of Thessaloniki and Category:Historical people of İzmir. We then find Category:People of Ottoman Istanbul ... all these would perhaps benefit from closer scrutiny. Occuli (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I am concerned, we should merge them all into Category:People from Thessaloniki, Category:People from Istanbul etc.--TM 13:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: delete. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grindhouse films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Grindhouse is not a genre of film, but a type of theater which plays exploitation films. As we already have a category for this, Category:Grindhouse films is not needed. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete redundant.--mono 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Communities by occupation to Category:Communities by industry

Nominator's rationale: This category was created as an intersection of Communities and Occupations; however, fishing, logging, and mining are Industries, not occupations. The option of deleting is also worth considering as the category contains only four members. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can certainly see a rename, but I submit that the concept is a valid one, if underutilized. There are a variety of settlements which are objectively based, totally or near-totally, around a given industry/trade/profession, and I'd say it's worth having a category to compile and express those. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You're probably right. There are at least two other natural-resource-based industries—farming ("agricultural communities") and hunting—which could function as the basis of small, rural communities. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: rename. — ξ^xplicit 23:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Polish Sejm to Category:Members of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the main article, Sejm of the Republic of Poland, and to disambiguate from other Polish Sejms. The Sejm is an institution with a long history, which has changed in various ways over time. For example, the present-day Sejm is the lower house of the Polish parliament, yet before the 20th century the term "Sejm" referred to the entire three-chamber Polish parliament. Disambiguation is needed also to distinguish between the Sejm of the Second Polish Republic, the People's Republic of Poland, and the present-day Republic of Poland. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I agree that this is a good idea—to match to the main article and to disambiguate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: do not rename, though I believe that there is a need for additional discussion and consideration of relevant issues.

Propose renaming Category:LGBT rights opposition to Category:U.S. organizations opposed to gay marriage

Nominator's rationale: Rename. LGBT rights opposition is too broad a topic and open to much interpretation, misuse and potential BLP issues. This category is 5 days old, the move has been discussed on the category's talk page is is supported by all save the category's creator. Other suggestions for a move destination are welcome. - Schrandit (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the category name. "LGBT rights opposition" category name was chosen to be as neutral (non-pejorative) as possible and is not intended to be used for any organization's incidental views, nor individual's (as per Wikipedia:Categorization of people), but only for activist groups that focus primarily and unambiguously on limiting LGBT people's legislation or public opinion . I understand Schrandit's concerns and perhaps my definition of category may not be clearly evident, however I have a couple of concerns for renaming the category to reflect marriage only.

1. Civil rights or human rights, as they are universally understood, are not individually categorized. If one believes that a group of people only deserves SOME rights while still acceptable to deny them other rights OR even to treat them differentlyas codified by law, it indicates an opposition to view them equally and is still a denial of rights. The argument has been suggested that LGBT people don't want equal rights, we want more than equal rights, because a gay man can get married(to a woman,) same as a straight man. That is like saying "everyone in Iran has freedom of religion, as long as it is the religion of Islam". Treating a group of people differently for any reason, moral or otherwise, doesn't change the FACT that the group is being treated differently.

2. My secondary concern is creating too many categories, such as "U.S. organizations opposed to same-sex couples adoption", "U.S. organizations opposed to gay in the military", "U.S. organizations opposed to non-discrimination laws against LGBT people", "U.S. organizations in favor of criminalization of homosexuality", "U.S. organizations opposed to civil unions / partnerships", and the rest.

Perhaps a compromise could be "U.S. activist organizations opposed to LGBT rights".

That said, I am not against renaming this category "U.S. organizations opposed to gay marriage".--DCX (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights are not congruent with gay marriage legalization, and it's not made clear what the change would accomplish in terms of "misuse" and "BLP issues". Also, it should be "same-sex marriage" not "gay marriage". Hekerui (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Organizations opposed to gay marriage to avoid Americentrism? --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Hekerui - I'm fine with changing "gay" to "same-sex", as for the other part of your statement, good points.

@ IdiotSavant - One of the editors from Australia wanted us to define it as US based, because he felt it would be mostly American's in that category.--DCX (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not limiting it to US based. Other countries certainly have currents of opposition, and rather than a category for each country or continent, why not put them all in the same one? —Zujine|talk 04:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the above mentioned Aussie, I should clarify that my concerns on the US centric front revolved around two things, firstly, the term LGBT, a term I only discovered from Wikipedia in its descriptions of the American situation, and secondly, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, obviously a very American thing. If the scope is narrowed to just same sex marriage, it could again be global, because that is an issue in many countries. However, it still runs the risk of becoming a very US-centric article simply because of the disproportionate amount of relevant activity happening in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping both the category LGBT rights opposition and the category Organisations opposed to same-sex marriage. They're not the same thing, there will be articles that fit into one but not the other (in both directions). Orpheus (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support what Orpheus does, Category:LGBT rights opposition and Category:Organizations opposed to same-sex marriage CTJF83 chat 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. - Schrandit (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the concerns expressed around both categories, but particularly the LGBT rights one, is that they could be misused. Well, every category can be misused. The Wikipedia approach on misuse, like any vandalism, is for the vigilant among us to revert the misuse, warn the violators, etc. IF time shows us that the category is really, extremely problematical, THEN we get rid of it. This area, while sensitive to some, should not be treated differently. That WOULD be discriminatory. Let's be BOLD. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like Orpheus' suggestion to keep both categories, but suggest Category:Organizations opposed to same-sex marriage become a subcategory of LGBT rights opposition, as same-sex marriage is an LGBT right. --DCX (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The proposed sense is of narrower scope than the original, and thus not a suitable rename. Moreover, the name does not convey the sense that the organization must primarily be organized around opposition to gay marriage, as opposed to a formulation like "Anti-gay marriage organizations." Otherwise, probably a majority of articles about religious denominations and political parties (opponents in this case being more splintered than proponents) will qualify, rendering the category uselessly broad. But even the more restrictive category may be problematic. We do not categorize individuals by issue or opinion as established by Wikipedia:OC#OPINION, but the problems may be even more pronounced for organizations, as different representatives of the organization may nuance its stance differently, especially over time. - choster (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about the term "LGBT" being US centric I completely understand HiLo48, however it is notable that there are already categories and subcategories called "LGBT organizations in Australia". LGBTI is used in the United Kingdom to include Intergender people, but LGBT is well understood the there as well. Spanish speaking countries also use the term LGBT, (ex. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Federation of Argentina, or FALGBT). --DCX (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unrenamed: I believe this category has a good name.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but use Orpheus solution and be careful in its use: I agree with Orpheus, generally. But instead of Category:Organizations opposed to same-sex marriage, I would use a category that includes all sides, such as Category:Organizations addressing same-sex marriage issues. Otherwise it seems POV to pick out those opposed for being labelled and not those in favor. Let's be even handed, and let's list all parties addressing the issues under a single category.

Further, regarding Category:LGBT rights opposition, that has to be limited to LGBT rights opposition. Not what some editors claim it is. Not legitimate opposition to those seeking to obtain superior rights over and above the existing rights they currently enjoy but choose not to avail themselves of. I foresee it being very limited to true LGBT rights opposition, as in opposing the rights of those labeling themselves as LGBT vis-a-vis those who do not in cases where both communities are already enjoying the same rights. It is POV for us to say LGBT rights opposition includes legitimate opposition to efforts to seek superior rights others do not enjoy.

Everyone knows Wikipedia is being used as a battleground for those seeking to promote one view or another. Let's not do that. Let's be very, very careful. Let's use neutral terms that everyone can agree is neutral.

Given all that, note that I am speaking off the top of my head and I am not an LGBT issue expert, so give me slack if I have not explained my views clearly enough. Remember my comments are intended to improve Wikipedia, not address the underlying issues of LGBT rights or suprarights and opposition to either. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe you are inciting Please clarify superior rights / suprarights and "legitimate opposition to those seeking to obtain superior rights over and above the existing rights they currently enjoy but choose not to avail themselves" in unambiguous and non pov terms.

I believe LegitimateAndEvenCompelling may be violating WP:BATTLE.--DCX (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with DCX. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has used a humble sounding final paragraph to follow up from an initial paragraph using tricky, manipulative language to present a extreme, fringe view on the issue of LGBT rights. It's a view I hadn't even heard of before seeing an earlier post of his. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I think we ought move this to the title that Orpheus suggested and have it out on what merits inclusion and whether or not the category should be nation-specific over there. - Schrandit (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - Orpheus' suggestion was to keep both, not move to a suggested title.--DCX (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the dyslexia kicking in. I'm saying we should move the content over to the better category and wrangle out the other issues there. - Schrandit (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• LGBT rights This is the reference of what LGBT rights are comprised of. Weather Whether you agree or disagree with this definition is not the issue.--DCX (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the field of "LGBT rights opposition" is relevant and appropriate, fairly easily delineated and certainly large enough for this category. I can see it as an umbrella category for smaller, more topic-specific categories as exemplified above. __meco (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: delete. — ξ^xplicit 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communist terrorism in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I believe this category to be redundant. The articles in it have been related to the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency which by its description does not appear to employ terrorist strategies. All organizations which the Indian government considers terrorist groups have now been categorized in Category:Government of India designated terrorist organizations. If there should be any specific category related to communist terrorism I believe that should be a subset of that category. meco (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. We've been through this before, official designations is the sole reasonable criteria for 'terrorism' categorizations. --Soman (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: do not rename. Perhaps it would be useful to create subcategories for each airline, and to place articles relating solely or primarily to one arline in the subcategory for that airline—if, that is, there are enough articles to warrant a three-way split. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pan Am to Category:Pan American World Airways

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Pan Am is ambiguous since at least three airlines used that name, see Pan Am (disambiguation). If moved, the two articles on the other airlines would need to be removed from the renamed category.Vegaswikian (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The three airlines that used that title are related as each owned the Pan Am trademark in turn, so the name is not ambiguous. Cjc13 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for above reson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougcweho (talk • contribs) 23:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 20#Category:Braniff. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Braniff to Category:Braniff International Airways

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Braniff is ambiguous since at least three airlines used this name, see Braniff (disambiguation). If renamed, the two articles on the other airlines would need to be removed from the renamed category. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: delete. — ξ^xplicit 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Untitled works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Trivial aspect of these works. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - OCAT by shared absence of name. Occuli (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Occuli; same basic idea as the recently deleted "No Name as name". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify only those entries that were released without a name, things released with the name "Untitled" or "No Name" would not qualify. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already listified. See Untitled#Works that have no title. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: keep Category:Politics of Asia and Category:Politics of Oceania and rename/merge the rest to Politics of Foo. Categories which were not tagged may be tagged with ((subst:cfr-speedy)) and processed under speedy renaming criterion C2.C. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combine and standardise various duplicate subcategories of Category:Politics by continent:

Propose renaming:

Category:Politics in Oceania & Category:Politics of Oceania to Category:Oceanian politics

Category:Politics in Asia & Category:Politics of Asia to Category:Asian politics

Category:Politics in North America & Category:North America politics to Category:North American politics

Category:Politics in Europe to Category:European politics (existing?)

Delete or make redirect (soft redirect as for Category:San Francisco)

Category:Politics in Africa (use existing Category:African politics)

Category:Politics in South America (use existing Category:South American politics)

Nominator's rationale: Need to combine duplicate categories, and also to standardise on one format ie Fooian politics (the most popular form) not Politics in/of Fooland Hugo999 (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – the subcats of Category:European politics use 'Politics of foo' without exception, and I thought this was the way the names were going (away from 'Fooian' and towards 'of/in Foo', except for people). Occuli (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge to the form of Category:Politics in Asia. Better with "in" than "of" since most of the politics will be national rather than continental. Category:Politics of European Union should be a sub-cat of Category:Politics in Europe, since there are still a few countries outside EU. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Followup comment: I am happy with standardising with Politics in/of, but shouldn’t it be Category:Politics of Europe, Category:Politics of Oceania etc if the country categories all seem to be Category:Politics of Australia etc? That is, use of not in. Hugo999 (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to Category:Politics of Foo, since "of" is the format used for the national sub-categories. There are probably interesting arguments to made for several alternative formats, but since "politics of" is so widely used it makes most to change the by-continent categories to use the "politics of" format of the sub-cats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 14 April 2010
• Rename all to Category:Politics of Foo for consistency with country categories. No need to get into the semantics of politics being of or in a continent—just rename them to a standard for consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: keep, speedy rename (criterion C2.C) to Category:Costa Rican people of Russian descent. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Costa Ricans of Russian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one member of category, and no evidence presented to show that he is of Russian descent except apparent presumption on basis of mother's surname. Kevin McE (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have added an archived article as reference to back up Amador's Russian background. While it is true the category currently only has one article, Costa Rican articles in general are very underdeveloped. I am currently helping both the Central American and Costa Rican work projects in writing new articles and translating more from Spanish Wikipedia. During both World Wars and the Cold War many Eastern Europeans and Central Asians immigrated to Latin America, and while most of those that arrived in Costa Rica were of Polish descent Russians and other ethnic groups are also accounted for. With time new articles of notable people from this community will be added and it is my belief this category will be beneficial. Mardochaios (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Keep category as part of a pattern of 'Costa Ricans of fooian descent'. Many of its sibling categories also have only a few articles at present, but they will grow. If any given article is wrongly categorized, then fix the article, which is something not for this discussion. If a category becomes empty, then there are other methods for getting rid of it than discussing it here. Hmains (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep where there is now a reference but Rename to Category:Costa Rican people of Russian descent as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: rename all. — ξ^xplicit 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Blyth Spartans F.C. to Category:Blyth Spartans A.F.C.

Category:Blyth Spartans F.C. players to Category:Blyth Spartans A.F.C. players

Category:Blyth Spartans F.C. managers to Category:Blyth Spartans A.F.C. managers

Nominator's rationale: Categories need renaming to match the title of the parent article. BigDom 08:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match main article. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Seems to be purely typographical. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 22:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: rename. There's been more than adequate time given for anyone to object to the proposal, which on its face sounds reasonable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PBS Sports to Category:Sports programming on PBS

Nominator's rationale: Rename. PBS never had a separate sports division -- all sports programs were produced by other companies or local stations for PBS. azumanga (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename Nobody objected to it first time round and it's tiresome to have to go "I agree" all the time. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: rename. — ξ^xplicit 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fear before the March of Flames albums to Category:Fear Before albums

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the main article, Fear Before. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: rename to Category:Rivers of Cape Verde. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ribeiras of Cape Verde to Category:Streams of Cape Verde

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Ribeira" is a Portuguese word for "stream" or "rivulet". Because there is no article for ribeira that is different than stream (ribeira is a disambiguation page), I suggest we use English in this instance. Apparently there might be a resistance to using "Rivers of Cape Verde", since it is commonly said that Cape Verde "has no rivers." I'm not sure how one formally distinguishes a river from a stream in this context, but whatever. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Rivulets of Cape Verde, as a translation closer to the original. The appropriate English word would be brook (not stream), but that is to impose English terminology on a foreign land. However in certain English (once Norse) regions it would be beck. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Rivulet is a redirect to stream. I don't think we can say "rivulet" is "more correct" than "stream", since both are essentially synonymous English terms and Portuguese–English dictionaries often list either or both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Rivers of Cape Verde to match the naming pattern for all other such categories. All streams, brooks, rivelets, rivers, etc, etc are categorized together as 'Rivers of foo'. There is no further breakout, regardless of width or length of the moving water. Hmains (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fairly sympathetic to that view, and would be fine with Category:Rivers of Cape Verde. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: delete. — ξ^xplicit 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musta Surma albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redlink artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Needs a discography page, not a category. Szzuk (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: no consensus. I have initiated a technical requested move discussion on the article's talk page to help to clarify consensus regarding the use of The Essential as a page title; see Talk:The Essential#Requested move. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Essential to Category:The Essential album series

Nominator's rationale: More intelligible name. I would recommend moving the main article as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as "The Essential" - Unnecessary change, unless there's another reason to do this. It's actually unintelligible to move something to a more onerous and more difficult to allocate category. While it does seem a very basic name, unless there's ambiguity in its title, there's no real reason for this move. If there's something else that ought to occupy, or co-occupy this title, then it would make sense, but no such proposition was made in the proposal to rename. --rm 'w avu 07:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: WikiProject Albums has been notified using Template:Cfd-notify. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see any disambiguity and the fact that it is a child to Category:Compilation album series provides definition. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the proposed name is even more ambiguous, since it's now a sentence with many more meanings. Suggest Category:The Essential... (Sony album series) instead. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:The Essential (album series). If changing is to dab, then do it correctly. A category name should impart some idea of what it contains. What we have here is a series of album releases that are part of a series. What is wrong with the title reflecting that? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 20#Category:Band-centric video games. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Band-centric video games to Category:Video games about bands

Nominator's rationale: It seems better to me than a coinage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

• Comment: I noticed that this category is both a subcategory of and a parent to Category:Musician video games. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: WikiProject Video games has been notified using Template:Cfd-notify. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although the name of the category does need clarifying, 'video games about bands' doesn't quite get there. A lot of kids' cartoons etc. have 'bands' (I'm thinking things like Bratz etc.), so ideally the title should convey that these are video games based on real musicians/bands. 'Video games featuring non-fictional musicians and singers' or something along those lines would be clearer IMO, if not quite as snappy. Someoneanother 03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: delete. There were many arguments brought forward by both sides of the discussion, and I believe those in favor of deletion had the upper hand. The category is in fact too broad; what constitutes as a playable "protagonist" is unclear and does not have a set definitive. Similar categories containing the term "protagonist" have been deleted in the past, most notably here and here, and nothing about this category's deletion is sexist, nor did it address the concern of the nominator and those who argued for its deletion. — ξ^xplicit 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games featuring female protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Category is too broad, and there is no strict definition of what is a "protagonist" or playable character. There is also no "video games featuring male protagonists" and this assumes there is a bias against female protagonists. IIRC, a category like this was deleted already. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree there are challenges but at the same time there are plenty of video games that's primary feature is the fact that they have female protagonists and other sites have categorized games based on this principle. This is not to say that this category could not be changed or replaced only that it is true that some games stick out by having a female protagonist. While it may be "biased" or not, there are less women in games than men and games like Tomb Raider and No One Lives Forever are known for defying this principle. If you can think of any ideas to handle this better then this category then I will welcome them, at the same time I will not be too upset if this category goes. I am just trying to help people search for games on Wikipedia. Comrade Graham (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, some inspiration from MobyGames. It has a similar category but fights the vagueness by specifying that the game must either contain only one playable character, female, (such as in No One Lives Forever), or in the rare event that every playable character in the game be female (such as, picking a bad example, Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball). This would mean some slight changes to the category name and remove some of the entries, but it makes it a lot less generalized. What does everybody think? Comrade Graham (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For a 'broad' category it doesn't contain that much. Just needs an inclusion criteria. Szzuk (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The problem with defining games this way is that it cannot be clear-cut. Even if the criteria were switched as Comrade Graham suggests above it leaves the question of whether or not to include games with character-generating mechanisms which have female PCs as a possibility. If somebody creates a female player-character every time they play Fallout 3, or one of the numerous western RPGs which give the same option, how is that any different than the same player loading up Super Cauldron or Alisia Dragoon? The stricter criteria also means that games from certain genres, such as fighting games and beat 'em ups are ignored since they typically have multiple selectable characters and very often feature at least one female chara. If someone wants to research how women are represented by games in terms of 'importance' given by being the main character etc., they're going to have to set their own parameters and do their own legwork, whichever way this category is cut it will be slicing the cake in a way which the researcher may not want. Someoneanother 01:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Well, my original category left room for fighting games, but that is what was helping it be too broad as there are many games that feature at least one female player character option. The issue of games that allow you to create your own character is an interesting point and I guess under the broadest definition they would count. However, there is an article on the portrayal of women in video games so that can be used to research how gender is portrayed in this relatively new art form. There is a point however that categories like Category:Science fiction video games are also inconceivably large, given that it covers everything from Space Invaders to Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force (which coincidentally contains a female player option). So gaming is in general hard to define. All we can do is try and slice it into smaller chunks. I am glad we finally have a discussion going here, by the way. Comrade Graham (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The term "protagonists" is too difficult to define for this category to be useful, and a "male" equivalent, while potentially equally problematic, does not exist. Tezero (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I clicked on the category thinking, "oh, the category police have left this one alone", only to see the pink deletion box. Typical. It's a valid categorisation, female playable characters in video games are rare and worth categorising. Complaining that there's no category for male characters is 1. Lame. 2. WP:OTHER. Worries about how to best define the category are not solved by deleting it: do you people not know about babies and bathwaters? Why not think of readers like myself who wonder "what other games have main female characters?" (I just played The Longest Journey). In summary, the category is helpful - I just made use of it - and deleting it reduces the information offered and navigation between these articles. Fences&Windows 02:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons given by Someoneanother, which make the most sense to me. This is also so common so as to hardly be defining anymore. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Hmm, we are getting some good posts from both sides here. Deciding consensus will be difficult... Comrade Graham (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This looks like a triple or quadruple intersection that includes subjective inclusion criteria. Maybe in some form this might be useable. Maybe a reincarnation as a list could address some of the concerns. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Hmm, interesting suggestion. Comrade Graham (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hello there, I'm a female who goes to Wikipedia. A while ago, I saw this category and I thought it was a good idea. Exactly how often do you see and/or play a game that has playable females? Chances are... not much. That's why some people made this. The fact that some of you want to delete this... that's pretty sexist. So please let us keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.185.113 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 96.225.185.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I vote for keeping this category. It's not sexist, just informative. Ksabers (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malaysian people of mixed descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: In the last couple of years similar cats, that are non-specific about the ethnicities involved, have been consistently deleted. (e.g. Category:People of Eurasian descent) Mayumashu (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (unless "mixed" has become a separate ethnicity), as with Anglo-Indian in India. Much precedent on this. If a person has a Booian parent and a Fooian parent, he/she should be categorised as of Booian descent AND as of Fooian descent. This avoid the triple intersections inherent in "mixed" categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 19. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games featuring Nazism to Category:Video games containing Nazism

Nominator's rationale: The "featuring" part of the title suggests that the games promote or are mainly based around Nazism. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If a Nazi appears in a video game, it is not necessarily defining for the game. Nazis have become such a stock "bad guy" character that this is probably nothing more than a trivial aspect of a game. I would think that a category that is mainly based around Nazism might be worth categorizing, but not any game that happens to contain aspects of Nazism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Video games featuring Nazis. The ones I looked at did not feature an ideology, but did feature Nazi persons. Similar categories exist for games featuring US Marines, for example. Hmains (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2008–09 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary category for only one article. Categories take into the article. --Nordlicht8 (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As of now, it could be C1'ed as empty. Since all but one of the events appear to be non-notable, we can get rid of this category for that reason too, so delete. As the nominator, you should tag the category to point to this discussion, however. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not Delete. I was wrong, sorry. Exactly like the Category: 2008 Samsung Super League is also the category Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2008–09 also for individual tournaments in the series. Articles of this tournaments didn´t exist at this moment. --Nordlicht8 (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Category was not tagged for discussion. It is tagged now. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: WikiProjects Equine (diff) and Sports (diff) have been notified. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems almost duplicative of Category:2009 in show jumping. Excess categorization. Montanabw^(talk) 19:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC) (WP Equine member)[reply]

---

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.

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: Delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Orators by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Orators of the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Orators of The United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Lots of people give speeches; hardly anyone is notable for being an orator and nothing else. Deciding who is a "good enough" orator to be categorized as an "orator" in Wikipedia is subjective. Right now, the only 3 articles in this tree are Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and Barack Obama. (If kept, the normal format would be "orators by nationality", "Soviet orators", and "American orators".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as per nom. far too much a matter of subjectivity, as nominator says Mayumashu (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The term will usually be applied to some one with excellent oratorial skills, but whehter a person has that skill is a matter of POV. We cannot allow categories that depend on the POV of editors. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.