< April 12	April 14 >

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. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Nike JOGA3 teams to Category:Futsal competitions

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous, single-entry category for a one-time competition organized by Nike. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, no need for it, and am I the only one that finds Nike JOGA3 a touch on the spammy side? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:30, 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: rename to Category:National futsal leagues. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National Futsal League to Category:National futsal leagues or Category:Futsal leagues

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:National futsal club competitions or Category:Sports leagues. This is not a category for the National Futsal League, but rather a category which groups articles about the futsal leagues of different countries. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:National futsal leagues. The caps on the 2nd and 3rd words are unnecessary, but I'd rather keep witht eh format of the sport, Category:National futsal club competitions, with the option being open to consider a more general change of the Futsail categories down the road. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:33, 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: Delete Category:Luparense C5, Rename Category:Luparense C5 players. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Luparense C5 to Category:Luparense Calcio a 5 or delete
• Category:Luparense C5 players to Category:Luparense Calcio a 5 players

Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, Luparense Calcio a 5, though I have to question the need for the eponymous category, which contains only one article and one subcategory. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 21#Category:Marca Futsal. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Luparense C5 as too small. Rename Category:Luparense C5 players to match parent article. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 21 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:Cars (film) and Category:Cars (film) characters. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Cars (Disney/Pixar) to Category:Cars (film)
• Category:Cars characters to Category:Cars (film) characters

Nominator's rationale: The first category, to match parent article, Cars (film). The second, to disambiguate. — ξ^xplicit 22:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename first for a much simpler disambiguator, and matching parent article. I can live with the second one being renamed to match. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:35, 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: delete. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vancouver Academy of Music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small, eponymous category, no foreseeable expansion. — ξ^xplicit 22:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The cat has two sub-categories that are likely to expand which will be orphaned cats if this cat is deleted.4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because those categories are lacking the proper categorization. I've added Category:Alumni by university or college in Canada to Category:Vancouver Academy of Music alumni, so that wouldn't be orphaned if the nominated category is deleted. I left Category:Vancouver Academy of Music faculty alone because I have no idea how to categorize that, making me wonder if there's an established categorization scheme for university or college faculty. — ξ^xplicit 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There isn't as far as I know. The typical categorization scheme is the one that I already set in place.4meter4 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, actually, a school does not typically get its own dedicated category just to link alumni and faculty subcategories to each other — dedicated eponymous categories are only used if there are other aspects of the school that have distinct articles of their own too, such as the campus radio station, the newspaper, individual buildings, departments, faculties, one or more academic publishing houses, and on and so forth. If all we have is what's in this category right now (i.e. article, faculty cat, alumni cat and nothing else), then a dedicated category is not "the typical categorization scheme", but is unnecessary WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The existing category is Category:Faculty by university in Canada, although I've listed it for cfr-speedy to Category:Faculty by university or college in Canada as in addition to this it already contained a few other non-universities. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAT. Neither category will be orphaned, as both have now been added to other categories within the existing categorization scheme. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No apparent need for the eponymous category when the subcategories are properly categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:38, 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Football (soccer) informal variants to Category:Association football variants

Nominator's rationale: Between them, these two categories contain only about 30 pages. There is good reason to have a separate category system for established/popular variants of association football such as indoor soccer, but this split between "variants" (presumably, "formal variants"?) and "informal variants" does not aid navigation and seems to be unnecessary. (Category creator not notified because: inactive since 2007) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:24, 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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 22#Category:Privately owned Government companies in India. At the moment, there is a weak preference to err on the side of caution and merely rename the category. To help to clarify consensus, I will relist this discussion again and notify WikiProject India, whose members may be able to offer relevant information. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Privately owned Government companies in India to Category:Government-owned companies in India

Nominator's rationale: The title of this category is oxymoronic: if a company is privately-owned, it's not a govt company. However the category does appear to be for state-owned enterprises, so I suggest merging to the existing Category:Government-owned companies in India. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at the header for this category it appears that they are ‘Autonomous’ rather than ‘private’. Perhaps a rename to Category:Autonomous Government companies in India might be better than merge. I do not know sufficient about the Indian business model to say whether the distinction should be drawn between these businesses. The category is in any case in the wrong place – it should be a sub-cat of Category:Government-owned companies in India. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I know little of the subject, and agree that we have an oxymoron, but I think that BHG (in Ireland) and me (in England) should be very wary of seeking to impose our views of what can exist on a land as complex as India. I would support Twiceuponatime's suggestion or Category:Privately-run Government companies in India, both of which seem to fit the definition in the headnote better than the present title. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 20:03, 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: rename. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Surabaya, East Java to Category:People from Surabaya

Nominator's rationale: To match main article and parent category. The "East Java" bit isn't needed as Surabaya, East Java redirects to Surabaya. Lugnuts (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 19:48, 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: rename. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The great Luke Ski albums to Category:Luke Ski albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Luke Ski. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 6 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 19:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It should certainly match the parent article. If anyone wants to discuss the parent article name that's a seperate issue Cls14 (talk) 11:57, 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. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greater London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is it necessary ? This category, created some hours ago, includes by now casual articles reguarding London included with HotCat by its author. Looking at his contribs, i note a massive redundant double-categorisation using HotCat about arguments still included in their subcategories (ex: Belfast Airport is here, it is not necessary to categorize it here too). Dэя-Бøяg --18:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (most likely speedy) per WP:LONDONNAMES#Categories We use London instead of Greater London. There is no difference between the two in terms of area. Everything that has been placed in this category (and it is a pretty random collection) is already in subcategory of Category:London. MRSC (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pointless duplication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 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: merge. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:All-Japan Grand Touring Car Championship drivers to Category:Super GT drivers

Nominator's rationale: I am proposing a merge as these two series are literally the same (organisation, rules, almost everything), only branding and an unsucessful attempt to internationalise the series that makes them appear different when nothing to suggests that they are. I don't personally know why there is a need for two different categories when one is necessary. Donnie Park (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Further comment: Having these two separate categories is like having a separate categories for the primary NASCAR series (Grand National, Winston Cup, Nextel Cup and Sprint Cup)...same series, same rules, different names. Donnie Park (talk) 14:34, 6 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 14:05, 6 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 12:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 19:44, 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: merge to Category:Political organizations in Israel, but I will note that this category was probably created for conformity with Category:Organizations based in Israel. No prejudice against a general nomination of the subcategories of Category:Political organizations by country to change in Foo to based in Foo. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political organizations based in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Political organizations in Israel already exists, and is the usual format for the country subcategories of Category:Political organizations by country (although there are only eight countries in this category, why?), hence the category Category:Political organizations based in Israel is superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Political organizations in Israel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 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: No consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Lakes of the Pirin to Category:Lakes in Pirin (or Category:Lakes of Pirin)

Nominator's rationale: the reverse move was recently made. However, Pirin is a region, so doesn't have an article. I can't find any trace of a discussion of this move in the archives. Preslav (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Pirin includes the sentence "The largest lake in Pirin" so the nom might well have a point. I can't find any trace of a discussion either although Good Ol'factory is mentioned. Occuli (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Google finds this - the speedy was actually from 'Lakes in Pirin' to 'Lakes of Pirin' (which is presumably a convention). Occuli (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For the speedy "discussion", see [1], [2], [3]. Judging by Pirin, we figured it was a mountain range. "Lakes of FOO" is a convention (not "in"), so we figured "Lakes of the Pirin" would be roughly equivalent to "Lakes of the Alps", etc. If it's not a mountain range, then we have a broader problem, because Pirin says it is a mountain range. If it's a "region", then "Lakes of Pirin" is correct. "Lakes in Pirin" is incorrect according to the naming convention for landforms, which is why it was nominated for a rename in the first place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Pirin is a mountain range, but "The Pirin" sounds odd to me. Maybe it's related to the fact that it doesn't get an article in Bulgarian, as the only other examples I can think of are also Bulgarian mountain ranges (Rila, Vitosha and Jakupica in nearby Macedonia, which has a closely related language). Note that in none of these articles, the noun gets an article. Category:Lakes of Pirin is the best according to me. Preslav (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not 100% positive, but am I correct in stating that the Hungarian language does not use articles such as "the" and "a" with nouns? Many Eastern European languages do not, so when speakers of these languages use English, adding "the" or "a" to nouns often sounds wrong to their ears. But in English, if we are talking about a mountain range, "of Pirin" would be as odd-sounding as saying "of Alps" instead or "of the Alps", or to take a more common example—"of Czech Republic" rather than "of the Czech Republic" or "of Soviet Union" rather than "of the Soviet Union". It's a common language barrier—to many Eastern Europeans, leaving out the "the" always sounds better, but it's often incorrect in English usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Bulgarian is one of two Slavic languages (the other being Macedonian) that has definite articles. It's not at all related to Hungarian. My own native language is Dutch, which has the same use of articles as English. I've never seen "the Pirin" unless it's followed by a noun or another adjective. Preslav (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant to write "Bulgarian", which is what is relevant here. (Hungarian, as we all know, is an extraterrestrial language and unrelated to any in Europe.) I would note that the lede of Pirin refers to "The Pirin Mountains" and "the Pirin National Park". If you've never seen "the Pirin" used in English, look at some of Black Falcon's google search results below: there are many. See, e.g., here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To what extent does the Pirin region overlap with the Pirin Mountains? Do they occupy the same area?
  Category:Pirin is in Category:Mountain ranges of Bulgaria, so I interpret the title of this category to mean Lakes of the Pirin Mountains or Lakes of the Pirin mountain range. With this meaning, the naming of Category:Lakes of the Pirin corresponds to that of similar categories for mountain ranges, such as Category:Lakes of the Alps.
  Ascertaining common usage outside of Wikipedia is difficult because of the fact that "Pirin" can refer to the mountain range and to the national park (see Pirin National Park), where any search for "of Pirin" brings up results with "of Pirin National Park" and any search for "of the Pirin" brings up results with "of the Pirin Mountains" and "of the Pirin range". Examples to support both usages—with the definite article ([4]) and without ([5])—can be found in reliable sources. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As a native Bulgarian, I've never heard of a region called Pirin that is anything different from the Pirin Mountains, nor have I ever seen the name "Pirin" used with a definite article in English or Bulgarian. It should be either "Lakes in Pirin" or "Lakes of Pirin", depending on what is more commonly used for other mountain ranges. Todor→Bozhinov 10:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a new experience, see here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I propose that as no single common usage in English can be determined, we follow local usage and move the category to Category:Lakes of Pirin. See WP:PLACE "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name." Preslav (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that provision is on point, since the local usage does not use "Lakes of Pirin" or "Lakes of the Pirin", because both are English phrases. The provision you refer to is what to call places, as when there are varying names for a place, as with Moscow vs. Moskva, Vienna vs. Wien, etc. It would address what we call "Pirin", but not how we use an English phrase to refer to features of (the) Pirin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:20, 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: rename. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CIS Men's Soccer Championship to Category:Canadian Interuniversity Sport men's soccer championship

Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, Canadian Interuniversity Sport men's soccer championship. Initially, I wanted to rename the article to a capitalized form (i.e., "Men's Soccer Championship"), but the CIS website seems to support the lower-case form. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No objection to rename Djln--Djln (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. CIS is a highly ambiguous abbreviation (see CIS (disambiguation)) whose primary meaning is something else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 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: delete. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game companies named after film production companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An interesting but not defining intersection. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trivial category. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 21 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 01:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CONCACAF U-20 Championship to Category:CONCACAF Under-20 Championship

Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, CONCACAF Under-20 Championship. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming per main article title. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:07, 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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:South American Under 17 Championship to Category:South American Under-17 Football Championship

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the main article, South American Under-17 Football Championship. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. To match parent article. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 21 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Wanganui to Category:People from Whanganui

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The government of New Zealand recently announced that the place usually referred to as Wanganui could now correctly be referred to by that name or by the less-bastardised-Maori Whanganui. This has been controversial, and the article was moved to Whanganui a few months ago, and the matter continued to be debated at Talk:Whanganui until it petered out in January. I don't have a strong opinion on which WP should use—if I had to guess, I would say Wanganui is probably still the most common name. But I do think we should have the category name in this case match whatever the spelling of the article is, with a redirect on the other spelling. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone. The executive powers of the Government of New Zealand do not include "telling Wikipedia how to name its articles". It would appear that our article on the place is at the wrong title, and that the form without the H is still the WP:COMMONNAME. There are two other related moves under discussion at the moment, so I would suggest awaiting the outcomes of those before deciding anything here. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The proposal to move "Whanganui back to Wanganui was begun after this proposal was made. I think it's a good idea to wait for the move proposal on the article to be resolved one way or the other, and then to make this category match whatever the article discussion results in. For the article move discussion, see Talk:Whanganui#Requested_move. I'm fine if this discussion remains open until that discussion is closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Article move discussion closed as no consensus, so it is remaining at Whanganui for the time being. In which case, I think the category should be renamed to conform. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:31, 24 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.