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 both to category:Card game video games. We have clear consensus to rename both, and two approximately equally supported choices. As we have a number of potential closers weighing in on this, I'll go with the one that seems clearer to me, with no prejudice if someone wants to renominate.--Mike Selinker 18:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Card video games to Category:Video card games

• Merge, New category made today exactly duplicates an existing one. 2005 23:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Doczilla 00:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge - "X video games" seems to be the far more common construction of the subcats of Category:Video game genres. Otto4711 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into category:Cardplay video games category:Card game video games. Neither current name works well: "card video games" breaks up two common phrases so they become meaningless, and "video card games" suggests they're games for video cards. "Cardplay" is a common term in card games, so it seems like it would work here.--Mike Selinker 02:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While "card video games" fits the more common naming pattern for the parent category, it is basically incoherent, whereas "video card games" is crystal clear. As for "cardplay", the word is not common, and virtually never used except in a bridge context, so that would not be a good solution. 2005 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought "video card games" had something to do with video cards when I saw the name. Otto4711 03:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Card video game is not a term used. video card game is... 600 versus 20,000 certainly makes it clear what common usage is, even if any way you say it could be misinterpreted. 2005 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except few of them are for what this category is about. If you look, you will see that most of them are about video cards. The category name makes no sense.--Mike Selinker 05:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. There certainly are both, but its plainly clear that video card games is used about 100 times more often than "card video games" which of the 600 mentions only a small handful, maybe single digits, are for the confusing formulation suggested here. Video card games is straightforward, accurate, makes clear sense and is used far more than the alternative choices. We aren't here to invent things, or use non-standard terms. And of course the previous category has been there for some time. Merging should go from non-standard to standard, brand new to existing, not the other ways around. 2005

Merging should go from whatever doesn't work to whatever does, and if consensus is that "video card games" is ambiguous and "card video games" is not then "card video games" it should be. If "card video games" is somehow ambiguous (not quite sure how it could be, but if it is) then Category:Playing card video games would be an acceptable final name as well. Otto4711 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems okay to me.--Mike Selinker 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing card video games sounds fine. I suppose the anally correct answer could be "Card game video games". 2005 23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge duplicate. To be more specific, I agree with the merge suggested by the nominator. It should have the title of the SECOND because "Card video games" sounds to me at least like a POKER video game.Bulldog123 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then again, "video card games" sounds like card games on video. Wow, this is confusing. The thing is I believe they called them "card games" so it should probably be in that order. Bulldog123 08:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Card game video games. These are Card games. - jc37 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm okay with either merge, but I have to go with jc37 on this. These are card games. It's about the games themselves, so even though I like how "Playing card video games" sounds, Category:Card game video games would be the most immediately understandable to anybody reading the name of the category. Doczilla 17:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay given the above, Category:Card game video games is the clearest, most logical and least minsunderstandable so I would go with that. Category:Playing card video games would not be as good, but would be acceptable. 2005 08:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Playing card video games, which seem to be the clearest options available. "Card game video games" sounds weird, "Video card games" sounds like something that is done with a stash of video cards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 10 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Esoteric templates to Category:Intricate templates

To match template placing templates in this category (((intricate template)), formerly ((esoteric))). David Kernow (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Bulldog123 10:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - "Intricate" is a much better word (more commonly known) than "Esoteric". Mike Peel 11:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom -- Teddythetank (talk · contribs)

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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pubs in Cheshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Public houses in Cheshire, convention of Category:Public houses in England. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and create a redirect, because "pub" is the widely-used abbreviation, so the categ will likely be recreated. --07:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Merge for consistency, with redirect for "pubs". Belovedfreak 15:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge confusing Bulldog123 10:21, 7 May 2007 (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, and yes, we have an automated way of doing this. I suppose it should be "synonyMs" rather than "synonyNs". >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:True vipers - Synonymy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:True vipers by taxonomic synonyns, by common naming conventions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are over 600 entries (almost all redirects) in this category that would all have to be relabeled. In my opinion, this seems like way much effort for very little gain. However, if the entries can all be relabeled automatically with a bot, I would not be opposed. --Jwinius 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there are scripts that do this kind of thing. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. If you think you can pull it off without damaging anything or making a mess, you have my permission to proceed (no one else is involved). --Jwinius 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nom Bulldog123 10:23, 7 May 2007 (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, as per above. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:True vipers - Common names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:True vipers by common names, to match normal naming conventions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are almost 130 entries (mostly redirects) in this category that would all have to be relabeled. In my opinion, this seems like too much effort for very little gain. However, if the entries can all be relabeled automatically with a bot, I would not be opposed. --Jwinius 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there are scripts that do this kind of thing. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. If you think you can pull it off without damaging anything or making a mess, you have my permission to proceed (no one else is involved). --Jwinius 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:True vipers by common name. Note singular name instead of names. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:True vipers by common name, per After Midnight. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:00, 10 May 2007 (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. The Christian Right is certainly notable, but not being objectively definable is problematic for a category. Note that there's already a list on the topic at Christian right. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian right (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as recreation of deleted content, CSD G4. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:Christian right doesn't show any previous CfD, and there's no deletion history. Can you provide a link to a previous CfD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_19#Category:Christian_Right -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link above - it was "Right" then. Delete per nom Johnbod 20:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and if not alreday done, listify. Rgds, --Trident13 21:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, but not as recreated (because the prev CfD was over 6 months ago and rather cursory). There is a useful discussion of the problems of this term at Talk:Christian_right#Weasel_words, where to my mind the crucial factor is some research which supports claims that the term "Christian right" is predominantly used by opponents of the group they identify. That supports my personal experience that friends who might fit the general usage dislike the term (sometimes vehemently), so as far as I can see the evidence is that it's a contested POV term, and hence unsuitable as a category. Even if it wasn't contested, there doesn't seem to be any way of defining it tightly enough to make clear inclusion criteria, so it end up as a rather severe version of a categorisation-by-opinion category; this is actually a case of categorisation-by-label-which-someone-else-attaches-to-an-alleged-nexus-of opinions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective, judgmental category. Doczilla 23:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:

  Greetings everyone!

  I vote keep (: only to be expected as this category's creator. :)

  I created this category in the course of moving articles out of Category:New Right (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). For most articles, no reliable sources were given to justify membership in New Right.

  I needed a term to describe politically-active social conservative Christian individuals and groups:

  Conservative Christianity

  This does not work because it describes an approach to values and Bible interpretation, as opposed to political activity. "Generally those seen as belonging to conservative Christianity give priority to traditional values and traditional beliefs and practices. It is sometimes called conservative theology—is an umbrella term covering various movements within Christianity and describing both corporate denominational and personal views of scripture. ... It is often said that Conservative Christianity and Liberal Christianity are polar opposites, though many liberal Christians would not agree. There is general agreement that their [approach to Bible interpretation] are quite different."[1]

  Evangelical Christianity

  Even though this contains a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues, it does not imply political activity. Additionally, as a classification, it excludes some conservative Christian groups.

  Fundamentalist Christianity

  Even though this contains a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues and politics, it excludes many conservative Christian groups. Many groups consider it pejorative, and self-identify as "conservative" or "evangelical".

  I was unaware that "Christian right" was pejorative. I welcome renaming the category to something that is not pejorative!

  Thank you, Prove It, for opening this discussion. I value consensus.

  --Kevinkor2 13:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is already Category:Conservative organizations in the United States. Would a Category:Christian conservative organizations in the United States be workable? My two concerns are first that it should be a neutral term, and secondly that it should have clear inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe Category:Christian conservative organizations in the United States would be a neutral term. Inclusion criteria would be intersection of

    1. Meet inclusion criteria for Category:Organizations based in the United States.
    2. Meet inclusion criteria for Category:Christian organizations.
    3. Be active politically. Article should indicate lobbying, support of political party, or endorsement of a political position.
    4. Support of social conservatism. (Note: It is irrelevant whether the organization supports fiscal conservatism.)

    --Kevinkor2 15:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The name implies that Category:Christian conservative organizations in the United States is an intersection not of Category:Organizations based in the United States and Category:Christian organizations, but of Category:Conservative organizations in the United States and Category:Christian organizations. However, there are no clear inclusion criteria for Category:Conservative organizations in the United States, so I don't think this is workable. The difficulties of defining inclusion criteria have led us to delete a lot of categories of people by political stance, and I think we should apply approach to categories of organisations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla Sleep On It 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete definitely has the potential to be very POVish Bulldog123 10:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very notable and important category--Sefringle 03:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - I think Christian conservatives makes sense. It's a highly notable intersection, and any POV issues can be solved by using a term like Christian conservatives that reflects how members of the group self-identify. A Musing 15:50, 8 May 2007 (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: reverse merge, per Kevin. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Loyalists in the American Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:British loyalists in the American Revolution, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the other way per nom Kevin Myers below. I did wonder. Johnbod 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the other way around. You've got it backwards: "British loyalists" is poor wording: All Loyalists were British subjects; the modifier is redundant. In fact, "British" (or "American") is the completely wrong modifier for a very few Loyalists, like Mary Brant. So, the correct procedure should be:

Keep Category:Loyalists in the American Revolution (the correct wording)

Delete Category:British loyalists in the American Revolution (redundant or misleading wording)

Delete Category:American Loyalists (equally redundant)

I was going to nominate these for deletion, but you beat me here. I see now that I should have listed Category:British loyalists in the American Revolution for renaming first, so you would have known what I was up to. I'll know next time! —Kevin Myers 21:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better to just nominate the old category for renaming. However, I do agree with your reasoning. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Loyalists in the American Revolution per Kevin Myers. The other two categories (Category:British loyalists in the American Revolution and Category:American Loyalists) should be the subject of a fresh merger nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or perhaps Rename doesn't sound right Bulldog123 10:27, 7 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman admirals to Category:Ancient Roman admirals

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity as per Category:Ancient Romans by occupation. Brandon97 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for clarity / consistency. Belovedfreak 15:27, 6 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:How to (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category encourages the listing of articles which violate WP:NOT#HOWTO. The only two pages currently categorized here are: 1) a page currently listed for deletion at AfD (for the same reason, WP:NOT#HOWTO), and 2) the user page of the category's creator Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as a very clear violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO. Speedy delete if it fits any of the relevant criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Johnbod 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 23:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too subjective--Sefringle 03:55, 8 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peak Tram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category, little or no opportunity for growth. Otto4711 16:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Johnbod 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Better navigated from the article. Rgds, --Trident13 21:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and move articles to parent class (which has been nominated for rename) RJFJR 21:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but make sure that the articles are properly categorised properly under an appropriate subset of the parent categories for this one, which include Category:Central, Hong Kong, Category:Funicular railways, Category:Mid-levels, Category:The Peak, Category:Transport in Hong Kong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 7 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electronic albums by artist to Category:Albums by artist

• Merge - per strong consensus against subdividing Category:Albums by artist by genre. Otto4711 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - per common sense, Category:Albums by artist is huge. Monni 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, Category:Albums by artist is supposed to function as a directory, subdividing it defeats the entire point of it's existence. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. What ProveIt said.--Mike Selinker 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Doczilla 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and per ProveIt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Bulldog123 10:52, 7 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works of Polyclitus to Category:Sculptures by Polyclitus

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to match Category:Sculptures by artist and remove ambiguity as to the types of "works." Otto4711 15:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems fairly pointless, but Rename per nom Johnbod 20:25, 5 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works by Phidias to Category:Sculptures by Phidias

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to match Category:Sculptures by artist and remove ambiguity as to the type of "works." Otto4711 15:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No real ambiguity, but rename per nom. Johnbod 20:26, 5 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hurricane Preparation, Safety, and Awareness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Tropical cyclone preparedness, to match Disaster preparedness, Earthquake preparedness, and Tropical cyclone. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, since we have standarsised on "tropical cyclone". However, it's not a very intuitive term, so a redirect from Category:Hurricane preparedness would be helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea on the redirect ... I agree. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:06, 5 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Treaties of Native Americans to Category:Treaties of Indigenous peoples of North America

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this may be a speedy because I recently made it myself. This category is meant to be a sub-category of Category:History of Indigenous peoples of North America. I wasn't thinking correctly when I made it, and used the U.S.-specific name (Native American), rather than the broader, unambiguous term. —Kevin Myers 14:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and existing category names. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:24, 8 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philippine Christian School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Christian schools in the Philippines, or Merge into Category:Schools in the Philippines. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. There are vast numbers of Catholic schools, which have their own categories. Christian here seems to mean Protestant. Johnbod 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. There's a difficulty here in that some protestants prefer the term "Christian", and are wary of the "protestant" label, but other species of christian would object to the word being used in a non-inclusive sense. On balance, I think "protestant" is best, but I'm not sure if the categ has any room for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom is to merge to plain "schools", which avoids all these issues (in fact plenty in that category are also Catholic, from their names). Keeping it as it is, with the highly POV implication that Catholic schools are not Christian, seems clearly wrong. Johnbod 21:58, 6 May 2007 (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, as parent cat is empty, without prejudice against subcategorizing if and when this parent cat becomes too large. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hills of Karnataka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Hills of India, convention of Category:Geography of India. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The argument put forward makes no sense, as this category already complies with the form used in Category:Hills of India. All types of geographical feature should be subdivided by state for such a large country as India. It might however make sense to merge the categories for hills and mountains across the board, as is already done for the UK, since over time more and more articles will be added about mere hills around the world. Brandon97 20:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Bulldog123 10:54, 7 May 2007 (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. This is precisely one of those issues on which an RFC might be useful. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian LGBT people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Irrelevant intersection. The category serves to promote a political agenda (mainly in the U.S.), as the introduction makes pretty clear. Non-neutral. Brandon97 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't see a neutrality problem here: Christian LGBT people may be condemned or praised by both sides. Since there is in many cultures a clash between Christianity and LGBT status, this seems to me to be a very notable intersection regardless of POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is promoted by one side only. It is just another example of how Wikipedia has any number of categories that raise the profile of left-liberal points of view, but no balancing categories of the opposite persuasion. It is impossible to fail to notice from the range of categories on articles that Wikipedia has a systemic left-liberal bias, and that wrecks its chances of achieving neutrality. Brandon97 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that your assumption that LGBT christians are inevitably left-liberal is a rather sweeping assumption (I suspect that, for example, a lot Log Cabin Republicans would disagree), but even if you were right your reason for deletion would still be bizarre. If you reckon that the category identifies one side of a political debate, then you are free to balance it by creating other appropriate category. Deleting a category because there is no "balancing" one would lead us to cut a swathe through category systems: if, for example, we had Category:United States Navy but no category for he Russian Navy, your logic would lead to us deleting Category:United States Navy, whereas what we should do would be to create Category:Russian Navy. You appear to be saying that because you don't like this group, there should not be a category to note their existence; that's hardly the "neutrality" you claim to seek. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BrownHairedGirl, this is a relevant intersection due to current events. Any POV issues with the text of the category page should be dealt with by bold editing or discussion on the talk page, not by deletion of the category. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The POV is in the name of the category, which is a crude assertion that this is relevant in all cases, not in the text, which is not seen at the bottom of the articles, where the category appears. There is no point in engaging in chatter on the talk page, which will have no impact on what readers see at the bottom of the article pages, and is in any case likely to be seen mainly be people with a strong bias, rather than by a balanced cross-section of objective people - an example of the systemic disfuntion of Wikipedia, which can only make one wonder if the whole project is a waste of time as it is blindlingly obvious that it will never achieve neutrality, but will continue to reflect the imposition of Western liberal orthodoxy on all readers. Brandon97 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll have to forgive me for not following, but I don't see where there is POV in the title of this category. The title is merely a notable intersection between Category:LGBT people and Category:Christian people. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 20:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per BHGirl. I can't see POV in the title, merely an intersection of two existing cats. Rgds, --Trident13 21:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I do not see any POV problems with this category, but I also do not think that this is a remarkable intersection. All this category says is that LGBT people believe in Jesus Christ, just like any other Christians. I imagine that a large fraction of LGBT people from predominantly Christian countries would fall into this category. In this light, I also do not see the need for Category:LGBT Jews or Category:LGBT Muslims, either. If this is an issue about the discrimination that LGBT people have encountered from religious groups, then it should be discussed in a series of articles, as the lists of names in these categories really do not say anything about discrimination issues. Dr. Submillimeter 08:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The notability of the intersection is that LGBT lives are widely criticised by the Christian churches (let's leave aside anyone's POV as to whether or not this criticism is appropraite). Sure, articles could expand on the issues raised by all sides, but that doesn't invalidate the category, which is a parallel to Category:Gay Republicans (United States), an intersection between two groups frequently in conflict which leaves the individuals concerned as a subject of controversy in both camps. On one side there's the "how dare you call yourself a Republican if you are gay" implicit in Ferrell Blount's remarks here, and on the other side there are LGBT people who criticise gay Republicans for supporting a party which opposes LGBT rights. Exactly the same thing happens to LGBT christians, caught on the frontline of the culture wars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Religion is relevant & interesting in the context of LGBT issues and vice versa. Belovedfreak 15:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep with strong reluctance as I have a feeling this has been misused in the past. For example if a historical Christian ever expressed anything faintly homoerotic, even in a poem, they might end up here even if it has no bearing on their life. Still there are denominations where this matters.--T. Anthony 17:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment surely that concern about misuse also applies to the parent category, Category:LGBT people. I don't see that it is a particular problem for the intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Sleep On It 21:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BrownHairedGirl and we have articles Homosexuality and Christianity, Homosexuality and Islam, Homosexuality and Judaism demonstrating that the intersection is not random but encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 00:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization, quintessential Bulldog123 10:29, 7 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose splitup into Category:Extraterrestrial life and Category:Extraterrestrials in Ufology for hopefully self-evident reasons. It's not a good idea to group Back-contamination and Greys together. --Pjacobi 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not all self-evident to me I'm afraid, extraterrestrial being something I know little about. Can you explain? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls read the linked examples. Back-contamination is something the NASA is afraid of. Greys are something believers in Ufology are afraid of. --Pjacobi 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had read them, but wanted to know your interpretation of their relevance to this discussion. Thanks for the explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - whats grey or black about any of these articles? If you apply WP:RS then we can say something happened, but can't prove either way that Extraterrestrials exist. Hence my conclusion would be they are all grey incidents, and the mix is therefore more dark grey on light grey, and hence makes sence. Rgds, --Trident13 21:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would expect research on back-contamination to receive substantial government funding and to be published in peer-reviewed journals, whereas I would expect research on greys to be largely ignored or disapproved of by government agencies and to not be published in peer-reviewed journals. Maybe it would be appropriate to diffuse the articles into subcategories rather than deleting Category:Extraterrestrials at this time. (Also note that Category:Astrobiology can be used for some peer-reviewed scientific research on extraterrestrial life.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Extraterrestrial life and create sub-categories as needed, including Category:Extraterrestrials in Ufology and other scientific and ufology categories if appropriate. Category:Extraterrestrial life is the best name for a parent category, and it seems to me that the best way to achieve that is to start by renaming this one. Category:Fictional extraterrestrials, Category:Extraterrestrials in Ufology etc should be subcats of the broader Category:Extraterrestrial life, rather than in some separate hierarchy. --10:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • PS Category:Astrobiology could also be a subcat of Category:Extraterrestrial life. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree this category has a poor name, and a rename to Category:Extraterrestrial life seems an improvement. However, this category already contains Category:UFOs and its myriad subcategories for articles like Greys. I see Category:Astrobiology already contains most of the science content. Would this (or something like Category:Extraterrestrial science, to include articles like Fermi paradox) allow all articles currently in the parent category to be placed in one or more subcats? Gimmetrow 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Extraterrestrial life and merge contents into appropriate categories as needed. -Sean Curtin 00:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename this gives off the idea that there are nonfictional extraterrestrials to be categorized. Bulldog123 10:32, 7 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian referendums to Category:Referendums in Australia
Category:Referenda in Iran to Category:Referendums in Iran
Category:Referenda in Luxembourg to Category:Referendums in Luxembourg
Category:Referenda in Poland to Category:Referendums in Poland
Category:Referenda in the United Kingdom to Category:Referendums in the United Kingdom

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to use the consistent English-language plural, referendums. See related CfDs at:

• CfD April 30#Category:Referenda in the United States
• Cfd May 3, Category:Referendums --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 5 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British rugby league clubs to Category:British rugby league teams

Also

• Category:American rugby league clubs to Category:American rugby league teams
• Category:Australian rugby league clubs to Category:Australian rugby league teams
• Category:French rugby league clubs to Category:French rugby league teams
• Category:New Zealand rugby league clubs to Category:New Zealand rugby league teams
• Category:Russian rugby league clubs to Category:Russian rugby league teams

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Following the decision to upmerge Category:Rugby league clubs into Category:Rugby league teams, this name no longer follows the pattern. In addition, the category at present contains articles on academy teams which are different teams from their parent club but not a different club. It would be better to have the broader category. GordyB 10:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and for consistency with the decision at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April_27#Category:Rugby_league_clubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 5 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional universes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Recreation of deleted category. Category:Fictional universes was renamed to Category:Fictional settings[2] prior to being deleted[3]. -Sean Curtin 06:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - recreated content. Otto4711 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and so tagged. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 20:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but then Category:Fictional settings was also deleted, so where do these articles go then? My brain hurts... Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:29, 8 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Defunct department stores based in Hartford, Connecticut
• Category:Defunct department stores based in Hartford, Conneticut
• Category:Defunct department stores Syracuse, New York
• Category:Defunct department stores based in Syracuse, New York

Merge all into Category:Defunct department stores of the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. These are the only geographical subcats of Category:Defunct department stores of the United States, and only contain a total of 4 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Johnbod 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 21:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• question to interested persons. Currently, there is a category for each US state in Category:Companies of the United States by state showing which companies are based in each state. Should these defunct companies be included in these state Company categories or might there be categories for defunct categories by state? (not to level of department stores, however). Hmains 04:44, 9 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Beatles with Tony Sheridan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category with no likelihood of growth. The song and album subcats are housed in the appropriate category trees and the articles are interlinked through the Beatles and Sheridan articles and elsewhere. Otto4711 03:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pointless overcategorization. Doczilla 20:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 21:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Pontificake 21:29, 5 May 2007 (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. >Radiant< 08:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Peak to Category:Victoria peak

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "The peak" is unclear which peak while "Victoria peak" is specific. RJFJR 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Victoria Peak per correct capitalization, although I'm not 100% convinced that the category is needed and would support deletion. Otto4711 04:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Otto, although I don't share his doubts about the category in general. Johnbod 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity. Belovedfreak 15:33, 6 May 2007 (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.