< December 15	December 17 >

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. Tiptoety ^talk 01:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Non-category-worthy award; not defining for recipients. Award has no article; it is awarded by the Northern Rock Foundation, but the award is not mentioned in the relevant article at all. If desired and thought to be notable, a list could be created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and Delete - as ususal for minor award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2008 (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 ones in England as nominated; no action on rest. (Note: w.r.t. Peterkingiron's comment, please re-nominate Winchester for reversion to the original name if it's determined that this is indeed an inappropriate name for this one.) I'm closing the rest as a purely technical close because of the difficult of discussing them all together. In other words, this close is without any prejudice to future discussions on them. Clearly, these need to be discussed individually on a by-county (or at least by-region) basis, so re-nomination on this basis is encouraged. Rather than me relisting them all, I think things would go smoother if users research the usage in a particular area and then decide whether or not to re-nominate for a name change. Because of the nature of the close, no notation recording this nomination will be placed on the category talk pages. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Europe to Category:Civil parishes in Europe

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Andorra to Category:Civil parishes in Andorra

Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Asturias to Category:Civil parishes in Asturias

Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Gijón to Category:Civil parishes in Gijón

Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Oviedo to Category:Civil parishes in Oviedo

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the Channel Islands to Category:Civil parishes in the Channel Islands

Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Guernsey to Category:Civil parishes in Guernsey

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Jersey to Category:Civil parishes in Jersey

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Denmark to Category:Civil parishes in Denmark

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Ireland to Category:Civil parishes in Ireland

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Northern Ireland to Category:Civil parishes in Northern Ireland

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the Republic of Ireland to Category:Civil parishes in the Republic of Ireland

Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Latvia to Category:Civil parishes in Latvia

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Portugal to Category:Civil parishes in Portugal

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the United Kingdom to Category:Civil parishes in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Scotland to Category:Civil parishes in Scotland

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Wales to Category:Civil parishes in Wales

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Ceredigion to Category:Civil parishes in Ceredigion

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of England to Category:Civil parishes in England

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Bedfordshire to Category:Civil parishes in Bedfordshire

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Buckinghamshire to Category:Civil parishes in Buckinghamshire

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Cheshire to Category:Civil parishes in Cheshire

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Cumbria to Category:Civil parishes in Cumbria

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Derbyshire to Category:Civil parishes in Derbyshire

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Devon to Category:Civil parishes in Devon

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the East Riding of Yorkshire to Category:Civil parishes in the East Riding of Yorkshire

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Essex to Category:Civil parishes in Essex

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Gloucestershire to Category:Civil parishes in Gloucestershire

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Hampshire to Category:Civil parishes in Hampshire

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the Isle of Wight to Category:Civil parishes in the Isle of Wight

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Lancashire to Category:Civil parishes in Lancashire

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of North Yorkshire to Category:Civil parishes in North Yorkshire

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Suffolk to Category:Civil parishes in Suffolk

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Tyne and Wear to Category:Civil parishes in Tyne and Wear

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Winchester to Category:Civil parishes in Winchester

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of North America to Category:Civil parishes in North America

Propose renaming Category:Townships and parishes of Canada to Category:Townships and civil parishes in Canada

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of New Brunswick to Category:Civil parishes in New Brunswick

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Prince Edward Island to Category:Civil parishes in Prince Edward Island

Propose renaming Category:Louisiana parishes to Category:Civil parishes in Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Mexico to Category:Civil parishes in Mexico

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of the Caribbean to Category:Civil parishes in the Caribbean

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Antigua and Barbuda to Category:Civil parishes in Antigua and Barbuda

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Barbados to Category:Civil parishes in Barbados

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Dominica to Category:Civil parishes in Dominica

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Grenada to Category:Civil parishes in Grenada

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Jamaica to Category:Civil parishes in Jamaica

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Montserrat to Category:Civil parishes in Montserrat

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Saint Kitts and Nevis to Category:Civil parishes in Saint Kitts and Nevis

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to Category:Civil parishes in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of South America to Category:Civil parishes in South America

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Ecuador to Category:Civil parishes in Ecuador

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Asia to Category:Civil parishes in Asia

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Australasia to Category:Church parishes in Oceania

Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Australia to Category:Church parishes in Australia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. The word "in" is preferred in Wikipedia category names. (See also this discussion.) --Carlaude ^(talk) 20:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support they should be refered to as "civil parishes", not "parishes"! Jolly Ω Janner 22:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a broad assumption, not all of these are actually civil Parishes. E.g. Barbados doesn't have actual local government at the Parish level any longer and thus they are not Civil Parishes any longer. Civil Parishes historical went hand in hand with the Vestry system (e.g. with a Parish Church etc.) but I think many smaller islands in the Caribbean have abolished this form of local governance because they are so small there's hardly a need to have a whole lower tier of government. Jamaica I believe still has Civil Parish style governance but I can't imagine for example Montserrat still having Civil Parishes with all kinds of elected officials when they only have something like 3 parishes to cover their whole island. Nevis is small too, and would need tons of elected people to cover such a small island. About Civil Parishes CaribDigita (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:These are not assumptions-- these are actually civil parishes. Please read the articles before making these Oppose votes.
Reading Parishes of Barbados will show that "The country of Barbados is currently subdivided into administrative sub-regions known as parishes." These articles are about civil parishes -- not a church parishes nor parish churches. But if you think that there is a better word that "civil" let us know.

Likewise Montserrat is indeed "divided into three parishes" they are "administrative parishes" Your outside link is for Civil Parishes in Britain. These islands use the name parish but need not use the same system. --Carlaude ^(talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Montserrat is indeed "divided into three parishes" they are "administrative parishes" Your outside link is for Civil Parishes in Britain. These islands use the name parish but need not use the same system. --Carlaude ^(talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:"Actually Barbados, Montserrat, Jamaica etc. and others are based on the British system. As are most of the other English Speaking islands. Source. All I'm merely saying is that a "Civil parish" system of government has been removed long ago. They are now just simple Parish areas. But if you want to name them Civil parishes which is totally a horse of a different colour and different meaning. Go ahead, I was merely trying to inform the wikipedian community that a Civil parish is something completely different.

Reply about "administrative sub-regions: Furthermore "administrative sub-regions" was yet another vote taken on Wikipedia during a mass rename. That is a clear example of what happens when misinformation is peddled during mass rename votes. It cascades on into the future. The Barbados government says the Parishes system in Barbados are not "administrative sub-regions" but I left this mis-information alone because it was by vote. I just did a quick search and found one site which still has this note from the Government of Barbados to the United States government regarding this misinformation. [1] CaribDigita (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have stated this much clearer now, and while I still disagree, you also seem to have no objections to cite for the parish systems in Asia, Europe, South America, and the rest of North America. --Carlaude ^(talk) 16:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for accuracy and consistency. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. DuncanHill (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (certainly as far as English civil parishes go) Andy F (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Techical closure is needed. This nomination is much too broad, and needs to be dealt with in a series of separate discussions. The original English system was of ecclesiatical parishes that took on civil fucntions. In the 1890s, church vestries were deprived of their civil powers, which were conferred on Parish Councils. I therefore Support all nominations relating to England (except Winchester - which proably refers to the diocese). I Oppose the nominations for Wales, where the target should be "communities". For Louisiana, Parishes are the equivalent of counties in the other states, and so should be retained unchanged. In countries where the parish is a mere geographical designation, the plain "Parish" should probably be retained. For the rest, Oppose: there should be a no consensus or otehr technical closure, as I think that most of us discussing this do not have the requisite knowledge. From the discussion above, it is clear that the West Indies need separate discussion, as do those in the rest of Asia, Europe, South America, and the rest of North America. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Parishes of North America and sub categories, Rename Category:Parishes of England to Category:Civil parishes in England and the sub categories, and relist the remaining. The relisting is best done in smaller related groups. I think there is consensus for the rename and clearly the North America ones are not civil parishes. No need to reach a no consensus decision on the entire lot. I think that facts support this as a concensus action. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2008 (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. Tiptoety ^talk 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one category, one template, and one article. The latter two are up for deletion as well for being empty. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – insufficient material. Occuli (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Content does not sufficiently merit separate category. ggt500 15:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Everything useful can be covered in the bio-article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2008 (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. Tiptoety ^talk 02:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Useless category; the two singles are linked to each other on each of the article pages. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the blurb on the parent category that states "Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded." Lugnuts (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Lugnuts is right. Occuli (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per precedent. Songs are always free to be categorized by artist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:52, 16 December 2008 (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. Tiptoety ^talk 03:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization—we don't need an entire category for the gameplay of one video game series. Pagra shtak 15:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and move the only article to parent cat. Sole article in cat is also considered for merging.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:49, 17 December 2008 (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) 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Richmond, California ships to Category:Ships built in Richmond, California

Nominator's rationale: Despite the inclusion criteria specified on the category page itself, the category seems to only include articles on ships that were built in Richmond, California. Proposed rename will bring the category in line with naming style of categories in Category:Ships by country of construction, and, more specifically, the subcategories in Category:Ships built in the United States. Bellhalla (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and change inclusion criteria. (It is placed as a subcat of Category:Ships built in California.) Occuli (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom. - Stepheng3 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Seems straight forward to me. --Jackyd101 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Brad (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2008 (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. Vegaswikian's rationale is compelling. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is ill-defined: what does it means by "losing"? It seems to exclude those who won the presidency but then lost a re-election bid (e.g. Carter, GHWB) and also excludes those who lost an election but then later won (e.g. Nixon). It seems to only look at Democrats and Republicans, and ignore past major parties (e.g. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney the Federalist, Hugh Lawson White the Whig). It seems to exclude third-party candidates got a large vote and had a major effect (e.g. Perot in 1992). The category is thus not useful in understanding U.S. presidential elections. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Consider Rename It appears to me that this category is intended to include people who came in second (and not better) while running for President of the United States. Coming in second in the race for President of the United States is a pretty strong defining characteristic, and for most of the individuals listed in this category it is their most defining characteristic. I've heard of this John McCain guy and I knew about what George McGovern and Walter Mondale did other than run for President, but most people couldn't describe Al Smith, Adlai Stevenson, Samuel J. Tilden or Wendell Willkie other than that guy who lost the Presidency (if there's any recognition) and I'd probably say the same for Michael Dukakis. This is a US category, and the country should be mentioned, and I agree that there is no reason that this should be limited to Republicans and Democrats (or why those categories should be in this category at all) and exclude Whigs and Federalists. I have no issue with excluding winning candidates and excluding candidates from most third parties. I agree that some wording should reflect candidates such as John B. Anderson, George Wallace and Ross Perot, exemplars of third-party candidates who made significant impacts on their presidential races, though I'm not sure how that can be included without setting an arbitrary cutoff. While I agree with many of the issues raised in the nomination, this is still a defining and useful category even if a better name and definition would improve it. Alansohn (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary if any implementable definition could even be set. To limit it to the person who finished with the second-highest number of electoral college votes would be arbitrary, and also relatively "modernist", since the habit of only two candidates winning electoral votes is a new one that has not even been adhered to fairly recently (George Wallace). If we instead chose to limit this to candidates who won a certain percentage of the popular vote (so as to incorporate Perot and Anderson, for example), the selection of the cut-off percentage would again be arbitrary, and it would also pose problems again for the early presidential elections when electoral votes were not determined by popular vote totals in all states, and there are some elections for which popular vote totals are not even available. The suggestion to limit it to second-place finishers and "third-party candidates who made significant impacts on their presidential races", is, of course, inherently problematic for definitional problems, as acknowledged. I think, in the end, the concept that this category is trying to capture is well-covered by the well-organized and fairly comprehensive subcategories of Category:United States presidential candidates (arranged by election year and party), so there's no significant data being lost here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename Category:Losing major party US presidential candidates. "US" must be included as many other countries have elective predidential systems. It is difficult to know what to do about people like George Wallace and Ross Perot. They gave the two major party candidates a serious challenge. I suspect the answer may be to include them but define the category more precisely in a headnote on the category page, possibly that the candidate needs to be been on the ballot paper in at least 30 states (I am neutral as to the precise number). This will exclude the hopeless and joke candidates. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is everyone who could be listed defined by losing? If not, this would be OCAT. Is dropping out of the nomination process before the first primary losing? The category parents imply that it is for republican and democrats only, were there no other major parties? Has abritary inclusion criteria. Presidential elections already has an ample categorization scheme. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per numerous comments above and as inferior to the existing candidates scheme. It can be deduced that any presidential candidate who is not also in Category:Presidents of the United States is a losing candidate and it is potentially confusing to have one-term presidents like Jimmy Carter categorized both as a president and as a losing candidate. Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename. This seems a bit obscure for a category; currently it only contains one article, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. At the very least it needs to be renamed to Category:Films set in Tuticorin per other categories in Category:Films by city of setting, or better still Category:Films set in Thoothukudi, as that's the name for the city we're using here on Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2008 (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; requested by creator and no opposition. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Indian district templates to Category:India district templates

Nominator's rationale: creator asking to delete the cats and merge to cat:India district templates -- Tinu Cherian - 07:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge Category:India district templates though it sounds odd to my ear, is more in keeping with the other subcategories of Category:District templates such as Category:Turkey district templates. - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2008 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Based on the category introduction, this would include just about every corporation. It is not a defining enough characteristic for it to be mentioned in affected company articles. Is open to POV issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of accuracy & NPOV, possible Rename to Category:Corporate piracy?? Cgingold (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's not piracy, either.-choster (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eeks, I'm sure glad you didn't endorse my "suggestion", because then I would have had to explain that I was joking... :) Cgingold (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Many people are angry when they find out that some company or other received a tax break or incentive that seems hard to understand or justify. But one would be hardpressed to find any company that has a Wikipedia article that has not received some sort of government Corporate welfare grant or benefit, thus making this characteristic not defining. Category:Corporate welfare non-recipients would be a far more interesting category. Alansohn (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point. But of course, it's awfully hard to prove a negative... Cgingold (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2008 (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) 22:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IHF Awards to Category:International Handball Federation awards

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Spell out the initialism to avoid ambiguity. Also, awards should be all lowercase per WP:MOS. Stepheng3 (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support no one should have to guess the initials. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2008 (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) 22:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hillsong to Category:Hillsong Church

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article name and remove any ambiguity. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and Hillsong Church. Occuli (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 17 December 2008 (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 all to Category:North American desert flora. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of the Mojave Desert
Category:Flora of the Yuma Desert
Category:Flora of the Colorado Desert
Category:Flora of the Sonoran Desert
Category:Flora of the Madrean Sky Islands region
Category:Flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley

Nominator's rationale: a mish-mash of flora categories covering a collection of nested and overlapping geographical features within a small area, none of which appear to be floristically significant. This is overcategorisation; delete, listify (if anyone is so inclined) and upmerge to ~~Category:Flora of North America~~ Category:North American desert flora. Hesperian 05:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:North American desert flora, which would appear to capture most of the environments in one common category, though Category:Flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley may not fit in as snugly. That these are all desert flora is a strong defining characteristic, and there appears no reason to bypass the existing parent Category:North American desert flora and lump them all in with Category:Flora of North America. Some expert botany input might inform us if there are important and defining differences between these deserts and their flora that would justify separating the categories. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's a better merge. But I would argue that categorisation is the wrong approach for this kind of thing even if they were floristically distinct areas. Hesperian 02:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the number of flora and fauna discussions it would be nice to devise a solution to fix the issues in this area. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ... With respect to flora distribution categories, a very large part of the solution would seem to be to follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, a categorisation scheme created by real botanists in the real world. The Flora of Australasia category tree already follows it, and I am very slowing bringing more and more categories into line with it. Hesperian 03:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle These flora categories (and those for fauna) do not fit neatly into the political divisions that we use for other purposes. On the pther hand if the paretn category becomes too big, it may be useful to split off those that ONLY occur in one desertinot seoparate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2008 (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/merge (see also immediately below). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Misfits to Category:Misfits (band)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate and match main article. See also the following nomination. Stepheng3 (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/merge Category:The Misfits to Category:Misfits (band) as there are quite a few other ways of interpreting Misfits. Occuli (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge together with Category:Misfits to form Category:Misfits (band).--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 17 December 2008 (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 (see also immediately above). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Misfits to Category:Misfits (band)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate and match the main article. Stepheng3 (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a potential other category by the name of Misfits? Because otherwise I don't think any disambiguation is necessary. Category titles don't have to match the article title by necessity, as there is generally much less need for disambiguation between category names than there is between article names. As for "The Misfits" category, it should just be depopulated and all articles moved into this cat. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge Category:Misfits to Category:Misfits (band) as there are quite a few other ways of interpreting Misfits. (IMO there is more need for categories to be clearly named than articles as redirects work in a different way.) Occuli (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Misfits (band) per nom to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge together with Category:The Misfits to form Category:Misfits (band).--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (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) 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Post-apocalyptic science fiction films to Category:Post-apocalyptic films

Nominator's rationale: Not all post-apocalyptic films are science fiction. The corresponding article was also renamed for the same reason. The other categories in Category:Post-apocalyptic fiction also omit the "science fiction" part. Also, overcategorization - narrow intersection. - kollision (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match parent article and cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, I find the rationale persuasive. Cgingold (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2008 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Alcoholism to Category:Alcohol abuse

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Redundant categories. Gilliam (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Much of the article at alcoholism (and the introduction to alcohol abuse) is devoted to explaining how problematic a term it is. On some level I think most of us would differentiate alcoholism and alcohol abuse, but there appears to be no general consensus, and as such we ought to default to the broader term— as we have, for the most part: Category:Alcohol abuse is more populated, better integrated, and much older than Category:Alcoholism, which appears to have been created to house the single article List of songs about recovering or former alcoholics.-choster (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per choster.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:41, 18 December 2008 (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. Tiptoety ^talk 03:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Was previously discussed and deleted. No new rationale for creation. . Kolindigo (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm guessing that the "rationale" that was being implicitly used was the recent DRV for other African American sportspeople categories. This was not one of the categories in question, however (this one was deleted several months before the other ones), hence the confusion. In light of all the goings-on, it's probably worth having a new CfD for this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wow, that was fast -- I should have started a betting pool on how long it would take! (of course, I would have lost -- I mean, 1 hour, 53 minutes??) Well, Good Ol’factory beat me to the punch. He's quite right about the recent DRV, which unanimously restored all sub-categories of Category:African American sportspeople -- which had been deleted en masse last year in a CFD that was closed against concensus for keeping. The only reason Category:African American figure skaters wasn't among them is because it had already been picked off a few months before. As the US Supreme Court would say, the penumbra of the recent DRV should be construed to extend to other closely related categories. Cgingold (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what "rationale" was needed, other than the fact that this is a defining characteristic and one in which numerous reliable and verifiable sources support the definingness of African American participation in the sport. Famous African American Figure Skaters at About.com provides a decent overview. "Obituaries; Mabel Fairbanks, 85; Black Ice Skater", a 2001 obituary from the Los Angeles Times covers Mabel Fairbanks, who was literally kept off of the ice because of her race. "Adding Color to Red, White and Blue" from The Washington Post in 2006 discusses the growth of minority athletes in winter sports, mentioning how Debi Thomas's bronze in Calgary in 1988 made her the first black person to win an Olympic medal. I have no idea what objective criteria are being used to determine why this category was nominated for deletion, and I wish that one day we would get something far better than the obligatory WP:OCAT, but if I read WP:CAT correctly -- that categories help users navigate through Wikipedia via multiple taxonomies and are for defining characteristics that are specific, neutral and inclusive -- then this is exactly what categories are for. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hadn't been aware of the DRV regarding a similar issue. I only saw an old deleted cat being recreated without any reason for re-creation of deleted content. :) Kolindigo (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, entirely understandable. If you're so inclined, you're free to withdraw the nomination. Cgingold (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh, and I forgot to say keep, because of Cgingold's penumbra thingy. I think most A-A sportspeople categories are probably defining. Except maybe Category:African American Negro Leagues players. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Though Category:Non-African American Negro Leagues players might be an interesting category. Alansohn (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes indeed (!). Though perhaps it would be too small to be viable, if any exist at all? I have no idea if there are ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – consensus seems to have reversed markedly on this issue. Occuli (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/delete/upmerge per the following. The problem with this one is that it is a subcategory of Category:American figure skaters, which only has other subcategories for figure skating coaches and for olympic skaters. Many of the articles included in Category:African American figure skaters will therefore have no other category linking their profession to their nationality (contrast with Category:African American ice hockey players, whose entries are also categorized by nationality/profession through team position categories). So those articles could be categorized only by Category:African American figure skaters, which segregates those entries from American figure skaters generally, presenting some kind of message that their race defines the capacity in which they are figure skaters. Or they could be categorized by both Category:African American figure skaters and Category:American figure skaters, which is redundant, and as such will have the instability of editors adding and removing Category:American figure skaters. This all leads me to conclude that this particular category is overly narrow because it does not function within the category structure, and such information should instead be documented through a list. Postdlf (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through all of the articles to make sure they're all included in both categories -- and I added the following "invisible note" for editors: "Please leave in both of the following categories." Cgingold (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (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) 04:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Montenegro border crossings to Category:Border crossings of Montenegro

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Please consider this as a "test case". Right now, the subcategories of Category:International border crossings mostly use the form "Fooian border crossings". To conform, this one would be Category:Montenegrin border crossings. I find the current usage of "fooian" kind of weird; Category:Border crossings of Montenegro would make more sense to me. They are all subcategories of the categories "Geography of Foo", not "Fooian geography". Subcategories of these categories that intersect two countries' borders use "Foo-Goo border crossings", not "Fooian-Gooian border crossings". So here I'm tentatively suggesting a rename to the "Border crossings of Foo" format for all of the subcategories of Category:International border crossings. If there is consensus here for that change, then I will nominate all of them after this nomination has closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Unless somebody has a good counter-argument, this makes better grammatical sense to me. Cgingold (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2008 (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. Tiptoety ^talk 03:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Holy cow—what a category! There's no doubt about this being a fairly pure example of a "triple intersection". These are not prohibited in an inherent way, but are generally discouraged because they are usually quite narrow. Right now Tiger Woods is the only article in the category; perhaps it was created especially for him? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, s/he left one out... perhaps it should be renamed to "People of mixed Asian-Black African-Native American-European ethnicity. (heh heh) Cgingold (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon. Charles Mingus has been added too. Really, I think we need to limit these ethnicity intersections to two maximum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - holy cow, indeed. (Looks like being 'Americans of mixed Asian-Black African-European ethnicity' which is arguably a quadruple intersection. Also Asian-Black African-European doesn't parse elegantly.) Occuli (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2008 (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 was no opposition and the caps need fixing so renaming makes sense. As to the 'é', generally there has been support to avoid the use of these characters so it is reasonable to make this change, again, given the lack of opposition. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Monégasque Orchestras to Category:Monegasque orchestras

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I tried once to get a consensus to spell "Monégasque" correctly in category names, but failed, so this category should conform to the diacritic-less spelling. The caps also needs fixed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One could finesse the diacritics by making it Category:Orchestras of Monte Carlo, though I do recognize that the standard appears to be Fooian orchestras. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think in the previous discussion there was some mention of using that approach (using "of Monaco", mind you, since that's the name of the country). It's a good idea I think and perhaps an idea that someone could propose in a nomination. But then (ominous music), once this format was accepted for one country, we might run into trouble of how to decide that a country's adjective is weird enough to convert to the "Foo of ..." usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 17 December 2008 (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) 04:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dominican volleyball clubs to ~~Category:Domincan Republic volleyball clubs~~ Category:Dominican Republic volleyball clubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. We generally use "Dominican Republic" as the adjective for that country due to the super-ambiguity of "Dominican". Much precedent for this. (Just imagine—a volleyball club for Dominican friars and nuns!) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename per nom. - Stepheng3 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match title of parent country and avoid confusion with Dominica. (P.S. Remeber that the country name needs two of the letter "i"). Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoop, thank you very much for pointing out that typo. I've fixed it now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 17 December 2008 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Night-Sky Photography to Category:Astrophotography

Nominator's rationale: Merge/delete. Essentially duplicates: Category:Night-Sky Photography contains only Astrophotography, which is already in category of the same name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 17 December 2008 (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.

December 16

Category:Northern Rock Foundation Writers Award Winners

Category:Parishes

Category:Alexandra Burke

Category:Alexandra Burke songs

Category:Pokémon video game mechanics

Category:Richmond, California ships

Category:Losing major party presidential nominees

Category:Movies based on Tuticorin

Category:Indian district templates

Category:Corporate welfare recipients

Category:IHF Awards

Category:Hillsong

Lower Colorado River Valley flora categories

Category:The Misfits

Category:Misfits

Category:Post-apocalyptic science fiction films

Category:Alcoholism

Category:African American figure skaters

Category:Montenegro border crossings

Category:People of mixed Asian-Black African-European ethnicity

Category:Monégasque Orchestras

Category:Dominican volleyball clubs

Category:Night-Sky Photography