< January 21	January 23 >

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 'political advocacy groups in foo'. Kbdank71 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Advocacy groups by country to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Rename.

• Category:Political pressure groups in Estonia
• Category:Political pressure groups of England
• Category:Pressure groups of Jersey
• Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States
• Category:Advocacy groups in France

These categories represent the forms of naming given to the subcats of Category:Advocacy groups by country. We should pick one and implement it across the board. I recommend, for brevity, "Advocacy groups of foo" or "Advocacy organizations of foo". --Lquilter (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I'm not sure about this naming? I'm thinking these might be better described as "Lobby" groups? See Lobbying as Advocacy isn't just restricted to political advocacy. I see advocacy groups such as those who advocate for people with disabilities. There are childrens advocacy groups too. Or are these sorted somewhere else? Sting au Buzz Me... 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Category:Lobbying organizations. But not all "advocacy groups" lobby -- they may do grassroots advocacy. --Lquilter (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as subjective: advocacy of what? Most groups advocate something, sometimes, in some circumstances, whether political, religious, social, grass roots, trade groups, parties, mass marketers, what have you. What's a political pressure group is also in the eye of the beholder: the chamber of commerce, the National Rifle Association, the Roman Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, the Red Cross, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Ku Klux Klan, Organized Crime, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Berrigan brothers, NAACP, GLAAD, and millions of others are all political pressure groups at some level or another in the US, for example, and have nothing in common. Were these types of categories fully populated their uselessness would be more apparent, but why wait for the effort to be expended then delete them; save everyone the trouble by axing them now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not looking at what groups might occasionally do; we're looking at defining characteristics. And some organizations are defined by their advocacy activities, and many other organizations are not. I'm just curious how you would categorize organizations that lobby or do other activities typically considered "advocacy". Just by subject alone and not by activity? --Lquilter (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and rename to the US pattern: 'political advocacy groups in foo'. In fact, the contents of Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States is exactly what one expects from a category of this name and shows what a useful grouping this is. If anything is missing, work to improve it. Hmains (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Hmains. So far that seems to define things best. Not a lot of comment here so far. Perhaps as it came in on the end of a days noms most missed it? Possibly relist to get more discussion going? Sting au Buzz Me... 13:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

relist seems the way to go to me, too. --Lquilter (talk) 17:53, 28 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. Kbdank71 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete category; already listified. This is an eponymous category for an organization, and it is overcategorization for members of organizations to be categorized by their membership, as a general rule. The members here are already listed in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Lquilter (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:24, 24 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/merge per nom. Kbdank71 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Swansea Institute of Higher Education to Category:Swansea Metropolitan University

Propose renaming Category:People associated with Swansea Institute of Higher Education to Category:People associated with Swansea Metropolitan University

Propose renaming Category:Academics of Swansea Institute of Higher Education to Category:Academics of Swansea Metropolitan University

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Swansea Institute of Higher Education to Category:Alumni of Swansea Metropolitan University

Nominator's rationale: Rename/Merge all as appropriate. Under changes to the University of Wales, SIHE has become Swansea Metropolitan University. The main article has already been moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/merge per nom and precedent (although my understanding is that SIHE was not part of the UoW and it's effectively coincidence that it's becoming a university just as the UoW is splitting into its constituent parts). Bencherlite^Talk 21:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's academic to this discussion but the articles on both the University of Wales and Swansea Metropolitan University imply otherwise and SIHE (by the old name) appears on the list on Wales's website. http://www.wales.ac.uk/defaultpage.asp?page=E14 Timrollpickering (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I appear to have misunderstood! Bencherlite^Talk 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. — mholland (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. - SamHampton (talk) 10:36, 23 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 no consensus. Kbdank71 17:48, 28 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]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to category:Television series by Four Star Television and purge all actors.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:10, 22 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 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian Aboriginal words and phrases to Category:Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Some editors have apparently misinterpretted the category as being for "words used by Aborigines" or "words for Aboriginal things" (e.g. bush medicine, honeypot ant have been added to the category). Ptcamn (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' as categorization by name. I have no problem with a category of things from Australian Aboriginal culture, but a category for things that happen to be called in English by names derived from one of the Australian Aboriginal languages is improper categorization. These topics have no more in common with each other than they do with, say, bush medicine or honeypot ant. LeSnail (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So are you saying that the parent cats: Category:Australian Aboriginal languages or Category:Words and phrases by language will cater for the words and phrases subcats? Three of those subcats will have no parent cat if this is deleted? Sting_au Talk 06:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Not really. I'd like to see them deleted too. A quokka is not a Nyungar word or phrase; it is a small, brown, fuzzy animal. The fact the the word quokka comes from Nyungar is not a defining aspect of quokkas. If their name happened to be derived from Dharuk, they would not then have more in common with koalas. LeSnail (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per LeSnail, the origin of various words makes good articles, but a poor basis of categorization of items. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I see no reason to deprive Category:Words and phrases by language of an Australian Aboriginal sub-cat. Discuss that head category as a whole, but don't pick off its sub-cats one by one.

The origin of the word quokka is a defining aspect of the word quokka, and I would expect Category:Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin to be on the article quokka. I'm not sure that the sub-cats e.g. Category:Nyungar words and phrases are worth keeping, as they are so small; listify them in the relevant language articles and nominate them for upmerging instead. But keep the nominated category, and remove articles whose titles are English or Latin words. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update on sub-cats: I have populated the sub-cats as much as I can from internal links. Category:Yagara words and phrases only has two and I suggest nominating it for upmerging, along with Category:Nyungar words and phrases with three. Yagara doesn't even have an article so I've added it at WP:RA. Category:Dharuk words and phrases has eleven now; seems worth keeping, especially as several are well-known words. In case anyone disagrees and wants to nominate it for deletion too, I have also listified it. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. also agree with above comment of not to deprive the parent cat of what I see as a useful subcat. Sting_au Talk 12:12, 15 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 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and Fayenatic etc. The whole tree should be challenged, not one of the most obscure members. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 28 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 28. Kbdank71 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California Golden Bears football coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Cal Bears football coaches, convention of Category:Cal Bears football, or the reverse, to match California Golden Bears football ... one should be become a redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge to match California Golden Bears football. VegaDark (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge as above and rename Category:Cal Bears football to Category:California Golden Bears football. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:53, 21 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 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge all the Cal Bears categories to their California Golden Bears equivalents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:04, 22 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 keep. Kbdank71 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Theoretical biology to Category:Biology theories

Nominator's rationale: seem to be duplicate categories. Tstrobaugh (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose They both have the word "biology" and a word starting "theor-", bu they are completely different things. Category:Theoretical biology is for Theoretical biology, which is biology based on mathematical modeling and computation. Category:Biology theories is for theories and hypotheses in the field of biology, most of which have nothing to do with mathematical modeling. Look for instance at RNA world hypothesis. Category:Biology theories should, however, probably be renamed to Category:Biology theories and hypotheses, as many of the things in it are not accepted as theories. LeSnail (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposed rename - Biology theories is a plural category for individual theories. "Theoretical biology" is a specific discipline. --Lquilter (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Theoretical biology is a quite specific method of approach to biology, having jurnals of that name, and is not the same as "all theories dealing with biological subjects".DGG (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. They are different things. --Bduke (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 23 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 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ball culture to Category:Drag ball culture

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Existing name is ambiguous. What sort of ball? Otto4711 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:14, 23 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, non-notable intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish AFL Players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into both Category:Australian rules footballers, and Category:Jewish footballers, or at least Rename to Category:Jewish Australian Football League players. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Jewish Australian rules footballers to match other similar categories. Cannot be merged to Category:Jewish footballers since Australian rules football is not football/soccer as we know it. --Eliyak T·C 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Jewish Australian Football League players. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary ethnic/religious category. Do they play any different than their non-Jewish teammates? no. So why is this defining? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - irrelevant intersection of religion and occupation. Otto4711 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Eliyak. Is it any different to this - Category:Indigenous Australian rules footballers. If so, why? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's different. AFL is a League. Australian Rules Football is the code. So all AFL players play ARF but not all ARF's play in the AFL. Hence Category:Jewish Australian Football League players is the better renaming. Remember the category to be renamed specifys "AFL" players. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "AFL" is used as a synonym in over half of Australia for the sport of Australian football. Further Ian Synman never played in the AFL. Australian rules footballers is the better and more inclusive name change. -- Mattinbgn\^talk

• Delete per Otto4711. If the question is why are Jewish Players not in a category while Indigenous Australian players are, the reason is the latter are notable. They come to the game from a different background, some play in a separate league on Melville Island and there are specific Aboriginal All-Stars teams that, for example, play a pre-season game in darwin against one of the AFL teams. In short they are a notable category. Jewish players are not a notable category. --Bduke (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And Jewish people don't come from a different background? There are clubs based around Jewish comminuty groups such as AJAX Football Club in the Victorian Amateur Football Association. Observant Jews face significant barriers to entry with most Australian football played on Saturdays. I would suggest that Jewish Australian rules footballers are just as notable (or not-notable) as indigenous footballers. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per carlos and otto. --Kbdank71 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussions above. The delete logic appears stronger then what is offer for keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:30, 30 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 28. Kbdank71 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rawang-Seremban Line stations to Category:Rawang-Seremban Route stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the actual name used by KTM Komuter

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 all. Kbdank71 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Runestones, Bohuslän to Category:Runestones in Bohuslän

Category:Runestones, Medelpad to Category:Runestones in Medelpad

Category:Runestones, Öland to Category:Runestones in Öland

Category:Runestones, Östergötland to Category:Runestones in Östergötland

Category:Runestones, Jämtland to Category:Runestones in Jämtland

Category:Runestones, Värmland to Category:Runestones in Värmland

Category:Runestones, Södermanland to Category:Runestones in Södermanland

Category:Runestones, Uppland to Category:Runestones in Uppland

Category:Runestones, Västergötland to Category:Runestones in Västergötland

Category:Runestones, Västmanland to Category:Runestones in Västmanland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All need the word "in" added rather than a comma. Snocrates 08:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per discussions of Aug 22nd and Nov 15th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, much clearer. --Lquilter (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and convention. Maralia (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 23 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 28. Kbdank71 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sentul-Port Klang Line stations to Category:Sentul-Port Klang Route stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the actual name used by KTM Komuter.

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/rename per nom. Kbdank71 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people

Category:People of the Democratic Republic of the Congo stubs to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people stubs

Category:People of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by occupation to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people by occupation

Category:Sportspeople of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo sportspeople

Category:Athletes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo athletes

Category:Basketball players of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo basketball players

Category:Singers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo singers

Merge Category:Writers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo writers

Merge Category:Musicians of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo musicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Brings these categories into conformity with other nationalities (where "Fooian Foo" is used) and other related DRC people categories. I don't think there's anything wrong with using "DRC" as an adjective when it works and no confusion results. See a recent related CFD where this form was chosen as the rename. This also seems to be the developing trend for categories involving nationalities with similar problems, such as Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people. (If these proposals go forward, I won't mind nominating the other non-people DRC categories for renaming which should use the "Fooian Foo" structure, like Category:Culture of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but I won't do them all right now in case there is no consensus for the conformity changes proposed here. Ditto for changes to Category:People of the Republic of the Congo.) Snocrates 06:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename this and the Republic of the Congo categories in line with the Bosnia precedent.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename and merge per nom A good way to handle this situation of nationalities/countries without a good adjective form. Hmains (talk) 04:02, 23 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. Kbdank71 17:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Cyclopes to Category:Cyclopses

Category:Fictional cyclopes to Category:Fictional cyclopses

Nominator's rationale: Merge both to older categories, Without discussion, an editor manually emptied Category:Cyclopses and Category:Fictional cyclopses and transferred them to the newly-created categories. The OED says either "cyclopses" or "cyclopes" is an acceptable plural. Some less comprehensive dictionaries exclude "cyclopses". I think we should stick with what existed previously, which was "cyclopses", since (1) it existed first and generally when two acceptable spellings exist for the same concept, we go with what existed first; and (2) it's (probably) more likely to be understood by laypeople as the plural of "cyclops". (But If there is a consensus to rename to the new names, the old categories could be deleted.) Snocrates 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Cyclopses is much more intuitive.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and add category redirect When there are two valid plurals, we should use the more naturally English one because it is what most people will think of. LeSnail (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there anything other than a fictional cyclops? I'm unaware of some animal that is characterized as a cyclops. Should not the category just be Category:Cyclopses? (But I would agree with the spelling "cyclopses" in any event.) --Craw-daddy | T | 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, and others (fiction & mythology are rightly distinguished though). Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you have to admit that the construction "fictional cyclopses" gives one a start. --Lquilter (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nominator). It looks like Category:Cyclopes was speedily deleted as the contribution of a banned user. Someone manually changed the categorization of the articles back to Category:Cyclopses. The same seems to have not been done with the fictional category, so I'll keep the nomination open. Snocrates 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename reminds me of the Octopuses, Octopodes, Octopi discussion... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 23 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 all. Kbdank71 17:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fauna of Arab States to Category:Fauna of the Arab World

Category:Birds of Arab States to Category:Birds of the Arab World

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm unsure if this form of classification should be deleted or not, so I'm being conservative and suggesting at least a rename to match Arab World article. (We generally classify animals by continent and by country, but not by other bicontinental regions. However, that's not to say it couldn't be done.) Snocrates 03:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both We should be categorizing wildlife by bioregion, or if necessary country, but not by the ethnicity of the people living there. If kept for some reason, rename is better than nothing. LeSnail (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Lesnail. Categorize by bioregion or country is much better format. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per LeSnail. This has been discussed couple of years ago and remains unsolved. See fresh example of misuse of categorization by modern state. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:14, 26 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 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Raleigh-Durham to Category:Radio stations in The Triangle, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the parent category. There was a previous nomination for this category that was closed as no consensus after being nominated with a different suggested name. I believe there is support for this name in the previous discussion. I'm not sure if it should be 'The' or 'the' in the proposed name. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - "The" looks best. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:23, 23 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. Kbdank71 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge into Category:Collectible card games, or Rename to Category:Trading or collectible card games, see also discussion of January 14th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. "Collectible" includes "trading", since presumably one wouldn't be trading if one wasn't collecting. Snocrates 03:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, these are not the same thing. There are many players of these games who are not collectors/completists. Such a player trades for only those cards that he uses in the play of the game. Contrariwise there are collectable card games that do not require trading - limited editions which come as a set rather than requiring trading to make a set. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a player is "trad[ing] for only those cards that he uses in the play of the game", he's still "collecting" those cards, even if he's not a "completionist". That was my point. Snocrates 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I've helped design many of these, and there is absolutely no difference between the two terms. It is unthinkable for a licensing company to make two exclusive sublicenses, one for TCGs and one for CCGs, because the two sublicensors would have no idea what the other was exclusively allowed to do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 23 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 no consensus, save for a consensus against deleting. Reluctant as I am to invoke the "no consensus" result, no-one has commented in the last four days and opinion is still more-or-less equally divided between "keep as is" and "double up-merge". I discount "delete" as an option, as there is clearly a consensus to maintain categorization of female racecar drivers in some way; the question upon which opinion is divided is whether to have sub-cats for different forms of races. The merits of the arguments are also equally divided (effectively "if you're dividing racecar drivers by types of race, then you need a female drivers sub-cat" vs "the CATGRS argument applies only to racing per se, not each type of race"). If anyone has any different points to make, we'll see them next time... Bencherlite^Talk 18:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Female dragster drivers
• Category:Female Formula One drivers
• Category:Female Formula Three drivers
• Category:Female Indy 500 drivers
• Category:Female NASCAR drivers
• Category:Female rally drivers
• Merge The main category (Female racecar drivers) has all of these subcategories with very few entries, and the number of those entries is unlikely to grow. It just makes sense to have them all under the same category. 00:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs)

• Keep The subcategories are not that small (at least 5 articles each) and are certain to grow (unless females have been banned from these pursuits). There are a further 27 articles in the top category, some of which might belong in one or other subcat. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Roundhouse and because having them split this way lets them be subcategories of Category:NASCAR drivers, Category:Formula One drivers, etc. LeSnail (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per LeSnail. DH85868993 (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Female racecar drivers are an important an well-known subgroup of racecar drivers. The current approach shows the intersection of female plus the racing division of the driver, which eliminates each having a second category. Royalbroil 03:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per those above. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary intersection by sex and occupation/event. OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all to the equivalently-named parent category (e.g. Female NASCAR drivers to NASCAR drivers). Overcategorization by sex. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Keep only if we have companion "Male racecar drivers" categories. Inverted prejudice! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CATGRS, this is not about "prejudice" or "favoring" one gender over the other in the categories; it's about recognizing whether the categorical concept -- the gender/occupation intersection -- is a useful concept that wikipedia readers might expect to find. --Lquilter (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see how merging them into one category would help locating the appropriate articles. Dimadick (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• partial merge together - race driving is generally a macho male occupation. The result is that there are very few women drivers in the sport. This makes those that ther are notable. I suspect that there may be enough female rally drivers for a category, but would suggest that all the track-based categories should be amalgamated. Alternatively keep all (or most). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very helpful & nuanced response that helps bridge the divide between the all-or-nothing responses that are too common on these categories. tx. --Lquilter (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per OCAT or at the very least, upmerge. --Kbdank71 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• partial keep, partial upmerge/delete - I would upmerge all the specific subcategories to Category:Female racecar drivers. I believe an encyclopedic article could be written about women in racecar driving that would serve as an appropriate head article to the category, per WP:CATGRS. Certainly there are relatively few women now and historically, and they have and continue to face discrimination in the field. But, like peterkingiron, I don't think it's necessary to track the category system all the way down for a completely parallel set of categories. If you look at the WP:CATGRS examples, this kind of thing is expressly contemplated, with a "GRS" category as an upper-level occupation, and more detailed occupations not needing the additional GRS. --Lquilter (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge to Category:Female racecar drivers and the parent car type category. Based on the discussion this appears to be a good consensus point. They clearly belong in both categories, but the car categories don't need them broken out by sex. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 30 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.