< January 13	January 15 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kim Campbell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete One constituent article can (and is now) linked in main article Kim Campbell. Person was prime minister of Canada for less than 5 months and there's not much prospect of expanding category. Snocrates 23:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary eponymous category. Main article serves as appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maralia (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chris Dodd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two constituent articles are linked to in main article Christopher Dodd. Not much potential for expansion now that he has dropped out of race for U.S. president. Snocrates 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unwarranted eponymous category. Main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was relisted on jan 22. Kbdank71 17:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Four Star Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete performer by performance, here actors who appeared in tv series produced by Four Star. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification. It is not merely "actors" who appeared but series stars and the series who are listed. It's not "guest stars". Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as performer by performance. Maralia (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. There is a category "TV shows by Aaron Spelling". Why wouldn't there be one on a major studio such as Four Star from 1956-1968? There should also be one for Warner Brothers. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and purge - rename in line with other series by production company categories and purge the actors. Otto4711 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete people get killed off regularly in fiction, many are married leaving widowers and widows, not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would swear we deleted these once before but I'm not finding it in the logs. But yes, delete per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it would be defining for some characters... though it would be hard to keep out the ones where it would be non-defining. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No need of such category. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete people get killed off regularly in fiction, many are married leaving widowers and widows, not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would swear we deleted these once before but I'm not finding it in the logs. But yes, delete per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename Category:Dealership albums to Category:Dealership (band) albums. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dealership albums to Category:Dealership (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the article's name Dealership (band). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge Category:Trading card games to Category:Collectible card games. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trading card games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for the 1 article that's there; if kept, some parent cats need to be found. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the parent or one of its many sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename to Category:P.O.V. (TV series) films to eliminate ambiguity. Kbdank71 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:P.O.V. films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete variation of performer by performance, here it's film by what program it has been broadcast as part of. What's next Category:Books made into films as part of Masterpiece Theater?. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak, shading toward regular old, keep - this strikes me as akin to a television episodes by series category. I haven't checked every article but a few chosen more or less at random indicate that many of these films were created specifically for the P.O.V. series. Listification may be a solution as well. Otto4711 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on deletion, but if kept, expand "POV" Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The name of the show is P.O.V. and so should not be expanded. Otto4711 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Does some good and little if any harm. But the name should be changed to "Category:Films featured on P.O.V."; "P.O.V. films" could be misunderstood as referring to films shot from a character's point-of-view -- and while I don't know it's the case, I would be surprised if there is not a film studio called "P.O.V.". I don't fancy disambigging catpages. --7Kim (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at least rename, confusing. (I too thought it meant Point of View, and came here because of that thought. Chet Ubetcha (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:P.O.V. (TV series) films then? Otto4711 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This seems no different than the episode of series category, it just needs to be renamed to eliminate the ambiguity. Either of the above rename suggestions seem appropriate. Sarilox (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Category:Melchizedek albums to Category:Melchizedek (band) albums. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Melchizedek albums to Category:Melchizedek (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. to match the article at Melchizedek (band). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 17:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Khalistan ideologues to Category:Khalistan movement people

Nominator's rationale: Rename, or Delete; it seems almost a people by opinion but if these are the activists for the movement then retaining or renaming the category is in order because "ideologues" is POV and either "people" or "activists" is more normal neutral WP style. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Joe McGinniss Jr. novel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete another category created exclusively for the to-be-issued book by the guy; the book's article is at afd, the author's eponymous category at cfd below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Joe McGinniss Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary eponymous cat for nn author's new book (comes out on 1/15/08) which is at Afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete without prejudice to recreating as a genre-related category. Kbdank71 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railroad songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete meant to contain any train song, folk song, etc... by its creator; suffers from all the ills of "songs about" categories; how much about railroads must the song be and what RSes tell us it's at least that much about them. Here, we have the further mess of basically any song that mentions a railroad seems to merit inclusion which makes this even more problematic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. LeSnail (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is such a standard for folksongs that the song "Folksingers are Boring" parodies the concept. Besides the obvious ones now listed, there is a train raga by Ravi Shankar , used in the movie Ghandi, and a percussion piece by Olatungi. The sounds of a moving (steam) train are often mimicked by the music, as in the two pieces I just mentioned.Pustelnik (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a genre of railroad / train songs, but this category as defined is not that genre, but rather a "theme/subject"-based category. If deleted, it should be without prejudice for creating a genre-related category. If kept, it should be repurposed so it's not about theme or subject of the songs, but collects songs in that genre -- and then it needs to be weeded and repopulated correctly. --Lquilter (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about that when I looked at the contents. As long as the genre can be clearly identified in the introduction, I would not object to the recreation you are suggesting. I'm not convinced that we need it, but if there is a consensus... Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know if it's needed either -- I'm not familiar enough with the genre to check and see if those songs are here, and it doesn't appear to be in Category:Songs by genre or Category:Folk songs. Maybe we could ping someone at some relevant music project? Is there a folk or western music project? --Lquilter (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Bduke (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in Botswana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Can some explain why these articles exist. I looked at two an the only source was a government report which essentially lists all villages in the country.

See Bere, Botswana Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep First, villages are inherently notable per WP standards of inclusion. Second, sourcing from a government source is reliable for whether a village exists, where it is, its population and the like - in fact some of the best sourcing one may expect. Third, even if you don't trust the government of Botswana, for whatever reason, the fact that the articles in a category are unsourced is no reason to delete the category. See WP:DELETE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Carlossuarez46. I expect any reputable map would yield further sourcing. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Carlossuarez46. Lol, per roundhouse. Snocrates 22:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• with drawnPhatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Associations in the United States by state to Category:Organizations based in the United States by state

• Category:Associations in Alabama to Category:Organizations based in Alabama
• Category:Associations in Alaska to Category:Organizations based in Alaska
• Category:Associations in Arizona to Category:Organizations based in Arizona
• Category:Associations in Arkansas to Category:Organizations based in Arkansas
• Category:Associations in California to Category:Organizations based in California
• Category:Associations in Colorado to Category:Organizations based in Colorado
• Category:Associations in Connecticut to Category:Organizations based in Connecticut
• Category:Associations in Delaware to Category:Organizations based in Delaware
• Category:Associations in Florida to Category:Organizations based in Florida
• Category:Associations in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Organizations based in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Associations in Hawaii to Category:Organizations based in Hawaii
• Category:Associations in Idaho to Category:Organizations based in Idaho
• Category:Associations in Illinois to Category:Organizations based in Illinois
• Category:Associations in Indiana to Category:Organizations based in Indiana
• Category:Associations in Iowa to Category:Organizations based in Iowa
• Category:Associations in Kansas to Category:Organizations based in Kansas
• Category:Associations in Kentucky to Category:Organizations based in Kentucky
• Category:Associations in Louisiana to Category:Organizations based in Louisiana
• Category:Associations in Maine to Category:Organizations based in Maine
• Category:Associations in Maryland to Category:Organizations based in Maryland
• Category:Associations in Massachusetts to Category:Organizations based in Massachusetts
• Category:Associations in Michigan to Category:Organizations based in Michigan
• Category:Associations in Minnesota to Category:Organizations based in Minnesota
• Category:Associations in Mississippi to Category:Organizations based in Mississippi
• Category:Associations in Missouri to Category:Organizations based in Missouri
• Category:Associations in Montana to Category:Organizations based in Montana
• Category:Associations in Nebraska to Category:Organizations based in Nebraska
• merge Category:Associations in Nevada to Category:Organizations based in Nevada
• Category:Associations in New Hampshire to Category:Organizations based in New Hampshire
• Category:Associations in New Jersey to Category:Organizations based in New Jersey
• Category:Associations in New Mexico to Category:Organizations based in New Mexico
• Category:Associations in New York to Category:Organizations based in New York
• Category:Associations in North Carolina to Category:Organizations based in North Carolina
• Category:Associations in North Dakota to Category:Organizations based in North Dakota
• Category:Associations in Ohio to Category:Organizations based in Ohio
• Category:Associations in Oklahoma to Category:Organizations based in Oklahoma
• Category:Associations in Oregon to Category:Organizations based in Oregon
• Category:Associations in Pennsylvania to Category:Organizations based in Pennsylvania
• Category:Associations in Rhode Island to Category:Organizations based in Rhode Island
• Category:Associations in South Carolina to Category:Organizations based in South Carolina
• Category:Associations in South Dakota to Category:Organizations based in South Dakota
• Category:Associations in Tennessee to Category:Organizations based in Tennessee
• Category:Associations in Texas to Category:Organizations based in Texas
• Category:Associations in Utah to Category:Organizations based in Utah
• Category:Associations in Vermont to Category:Organizations based in Vermont
• Category:Associations in Virginia to Category:Organizations based in Virginia
• Category:Associations in Washington to Category:Organizations based in Washington
• Category:Associations in Washington, D.C. to Category:Organizations based in Washington, D.C.
• Category:Associations in West Virginia to Category:Organizations based in West Virginia
• Category:Associations in Wisconsin to Category:Organizations based in Wisconsin
• Category:Associations in Wyoming to Category:Organizations based in Wyoming

Nominator's rationale: Rename and repurpose. These categories seem to be intended to hold non-profit organizations. However, the name "associations" is confusing, and does not obviously refer to non-profits. The categories seem to have been often used without regard for non-profit status, and a couple categories for "non-profit organizations..." also exist as subcategories of these. The name "organizations" is really used to cover this topic in many, many other categories. These categories should therefore be emptied into new ones covering "organizations" in general, and specific "non-profit" categories should be created in instances where there is need for subcategories. --Eliyak T·C 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Organizations also includes companies. I'm not so sure that we want to do this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay to include companies as a subset of organizations; companies can still also be categorized in the top-level of the state as desired. Is there a downside to that? --Lquilter (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename - "Organizations" is a good generic term. "Associations" has a slightly different set of meanings, and while one of them is synonymous with "organizations", other meanings are slightly different -- for instance, looser "associations" that are not, per se, organizations. See Association for a sense of the various terms. --Lquilter (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename - Associations conveys professional associations and voluntary associations, which are all non-profit or not-for-profit (which is slightly different, but more or less the same, would all mostly have fairly public-minded purposes and engage in the same causes. Organizations is vague and would naturally include all for-profit businesses, not be a useful category. doncram (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Companies is a subcat of organizations. How is that a problem? (And I'm not sure that "associations" doesn't include commercial -- there are certainly for-profit associations and legal structures that are associations for-profit.) --Lquilter (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposer seems to be saying that the categories appear to have been created to list non-profits mainly. Seems proposer would prefer some name like Non-profits, but that may not be so simple, because in fact there are many public-minded associations that are not-for-profits or technically mutual benefit corporations that are technically different than charitable nonprofits. Associations does group together a lot of pretty similar organizations, and excludes the very different for-profit companies. It doesn't seem logical or helpful to go to Organizations, contrary to apparent purpose of the categories. I am not really that interested, shouldn't have entered in at all. doncram (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't go away just when it's getting interesting! For more organization fun see Category talk:Non-profit organizations and the 12/31 CFD. Substantively -- I agree that associations feels squishier, but when you start picking it apart, it turns out that both orgs and assns are relatively squishy and have a set of overlapping implications and associations. I've tended to go for "organizations" rather than "associations" as the generic, because it seems there are while both assns and orgs have squishy meanings, assns has several non-squishy meanings, but it's not clear which of them would apply at any time. So Orgs as top, with subcats for legal/profit status, purpose, and so on. --Lquilter (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Associations are a type of organization. If you do any digging in the sub cats there you will find a mess. This is group probably is a valid subcat for Category:Organizations. Other areas need attention. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this is certainly a lower-priority task in the mess that is Category:Organizations .... --Lquilter (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/Merge per nom; yes an association is a form of organization but alas so is a society, a partnership, a corporation, a band, a sewing circle, an investment club, and myriad others. Other than businesses (generically) really is there sufficient distinction to make that distinction notable between association and organization? I think not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/Merge/Repurpose per nom. In some cases the Association categories have been populated because there was no Organization category for the state. Also set up full set of state sub-cats of Category:Non-profit organizations based in the United States as sub-cats of the renamed categories, & label ((popcat)).- Fayenatic (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/Merge per nom. For example, if you look in Category:Associations in Illinois you will see its subcat Category:Organizations based in Chicago. These run the gamut from street gangs to churches, from charities to chambers of commerce and from professional associations to political organizations. Chet Ubetcha (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Given that the trend appears to be for the rename, someone needs to check the introductions after the rename. They probably will all need to be modified. This would also be a good time to make sure that all of them have the same parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge Category:Maharashtra, India to Category:Maharashtra. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Maharashtra, India to Category:Maharashtra

Nominator's rationale: ", India" is not needed, nor standard. Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename Category:Clubs in Egypt to Category:Clubs and societies in Egypt. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clubs in Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Clubs and societies in Egypt, convention of Category:Clubs and societies by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge Category:Alumni of the University of Ohio to Category:Ohio University alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Alumni of the University of Ohio to Category:Ohio University alumni

Nominator's rationale: Convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States and correct name of the university. See main article Ohio University to which University of Ohio redirects. LeSnail (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It's fine with me to have it merged, I actually was meaning to link to Ohio University alumni instead of Alumni of the University of Ohio. It was a mistake on my part. CoolKid1993 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my quixotic but perpetual belief that alumni categories are almost never defining. I'd like to propose them all for deletion, but that would be a hell of a job. Snocrates 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename to Category:Skyscrapers in Jacksonville, Florida. Kbdank71 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tallest buildings in Jacksonville, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Better dealt with by a list. Only one building will ever be the tallest, unless I suppose there is a tie. Is this category going to hold the top 5, the top 10. the top 13? How do we decide whether a building is a "tallest building" in a non-arbitrary way? Also, some of the tallest buildings probably don't have articles, which again suggests listifying as a better alternative. LeSnail (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Skyscrapers in Jacksonville, Florida. This would be a more appropriate title, and is much more consistent with other city building categories: Category:Skyscrapers in Boston, Massachusetts, Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai. Cheers, Rai-me 20:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Raime. Or delete and create a skyscrapers category from scratch. Snocrates 22:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with using a list. Most buildings will not have articles. Mgreason (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge all into Category:Organizations based in Vermont. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations based in Vermont receiving state support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Organisations based in Vermont receiving state support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Organisations based in Vermont with state support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge all to Category:Organizations based in Vermont, more appropriate name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all - Not a good idea to categorize based on funding sources -- many orgs get both private and public funds. --Lquilter (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for sure. Chet Ubetcha (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victims of psychological abuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. How do we define this? And even if we can, I would expect this is so widespread in societies that it is not defining. Snocrates 09:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no possible objective standard, far too broad. Otto4711 (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• RenameDelete per nom, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:BLP along with Otto's objectives. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unworkably subjective. Maralia (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are so many varieties of psychological mistreatment that could be considered abusive, and so many degrees of such abuse (ranging from very slight to very severe) that this is far too broad to be a useful category. In all seriousness, is there anybody alive who wouldn't qualify? Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename to Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in England and Wales per scottish precedent. Kbdank71 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pre-Reformation UK bishops to Category:Pre-Reformation British bishops

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Pre-Reformation there was no entity known as the United Kingdom. Use of "British" is supported by category definition, in that it states it is including bishops in England, Wales, and Scotland. Snocrates 09:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Certainly UK will not do, but there are difficulties with British too. (Category:Bishops of Clogher (in Ireland) is included but could be removed.) There is also Category:Post-Reformation UK Catholic bishops ... the UK arrived some decades after the Reformation. Pre-Reformation bishops in Great Britain might work. (British now includes Northern Ireland; eg my passport is British; but this can be disputed.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are a number of problems here. Firstly, neither the Catholic nor post-Reformation churches combined England (and Wales), Scotland or Ireland as provinces. Given all the dozens of categories that split the UK very inconveniently between the nations it seems crazy to have these joining them together for no advantage. The parent cats for them are all split by England & Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Secondly, nearly all the sub-cats contain pre- and post Reformation bishops together for a diocese, so the name is fundamentally misleading. Split to Category:Bishops of English pre-Reformation dioceses (or "medieval" or "old") plus Scottish & Irish categories (the Scots are all already in Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in Scotland & only one Irish diocese is included here). Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split as Johnbod suggests, this has been an anomaly. Jaraalbe (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support split and Rename as suggested by Johnbod. Even Britain was not a single polity at the Reformation. Perhaps it should be Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in England and Wales, according to the Scottish precedent. The post Reformation Catholic category presents no difficulty because there were none until the mid 19th century. The one Irish item should be removed to a similar Irish category, which probably needs to be populated, or possibly merged with another existing Irish one. All of these could conveniently be subcategories of British bishops (possibly except the Irish one), and that could conventiently also include post-Reformation Anglican dioceses. Sorry, I have not investigated in detail what categories exist already. However, I supect the whole categfory tree needs some tidying up. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Hong Kong to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Catholic Church only has one cathedral in Hong Kong, but it has a number of parish churches that are currently not properly categorized. By renaming the cat, they can be included in the existing category, and we won't have a category that can only have one member article. Gentgeen (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redo as suggested, with correct parent cats etc. Just as quick. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename Category:Nagoya Railroad to Category:Stations of Nagoya Railroad. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nagoya Railroad to Category:Stations of Nagoya Railroad

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category name should be used for a parent category of Category:Lines of Nagoya Railroad and Category:Stations of Nagoya Railroad like other categories in Category:Railway companies of Japan. Fortunately the category contains only stations of Nagoya Railroad so the renaming may be the most efficient way to do this. After the completion of the renaming the categories should be edited to create a parent-child relationship. Sushiya (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - The current name should eventually be a parent to the proposed name, also containing articles about the company, equipment, etc; but, since the only articles so far belong in the proposed (sub)cat, a rename makes sense. Neier (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename Category:City districts and microdistricts built in the Soviet Union to Category:City districts and microdistricts of the Soviet Union. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:City districts and microdistricts built in the Soviet Union to Category:City districts and microdistricts of the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per usual naming format. Snocrates 04:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge Category:Neighborhoods in Mumbai to Category:Neighbourhoods in Mumbai. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Neighborhoods in Mumbai to Category:Neighbourhoods in Mumbai

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Categories are duplicates. "Neighborhoods" contains only one article and "Neighbourhoods" is the spelling used for other categories of Category:Neighbourhoods in India. Snocrates 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename usually we don't tinker with various forms of English spelling, but we ought to use the spelling used in Mumbai for the word, so the -ourhoods is OK to change to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. We do not need duplicates. I would not oppose a reverse merge, but consistency is important. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge Category:Guntur Countryside to Category:Villages in Guntur district. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Guntur Countryside to Category:Villages in Guntur district

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per category definition, "countryside" category is for small villages and towns in the district. Snocrates 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename Category:Train Transit in Guntur to Category:Rail transport in Guntur district. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Train Transit in Guntur to Category:Rail transport in Guntur district

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change to usual naming convention. Category seems to apply to entire district of Guntur, not just the city of Guntur. Snocrates 04:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename Category:Guntur Tourism to Category:Visitor attractions in Guntur district. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Guntur Tourism to Category:Visitor attractions in Guntur district

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change to usual naming convention for tourism sites. Category seems to apply to entire district, not just the city of Guntur. Snocrates 04:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.