< May 3	May 5 >

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. Kbdank71 16:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Country tours to ~~Category:Country music tours~~ Category:Country music concert tours

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity and to mirror parent Category:Country music. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for clarity why not Category:Country music concert tours to mirror both parents? Otherwise this can look like it is tours of a country by a musical group. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, better. I'll change the nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Much clearer - I certainly didn't realise what it meant when I first saw it. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "concert tours" is indeed the norm, should the sub-categories likewise be renamed? — CharlotteWebb 18:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 16:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bahá'í individuals to Category:Bahá'ís

Nominator's rationale: Conformity with other such categories (e.g. ~~Category:Christians~~ Category:Muslims, Category:Hindus, etc. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Category:Bahá'í people by nationality to Category:Bahá'ís by nationality and Category:Bahá'í Faith poets to Category:Bahá'í poets. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually Category:Christians redirects to Category:Christian people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - We have a great number of categories for individual people, most of which use the word "people", an ambiguous term that can be misconstrued and has proven problematic in a number of cases. There are currently a number of other open CFDs aiming to rename quite a few existing categories using the word "people", to impose conformity with other similar categories -- but this move is not being greeted with universal approval. The word "individuals", on the other hand, is clear and precise, leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the category, and doesn't have the "semantic baggage" of the word "people". Cgingold (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right You realize that I am not proposing to add the word "people," correct? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

undecided - I don't really like calling it "Baha'is", and I think it's a little odd saying "Baha'i individuals", but I don't have a better solution. BTW I'm a Baha'i. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we have Category:Bahá'í individuals, which includes Category:Bahá'í people by nationality which in turn includes consistently named fooian Bahá'ís such as Category:German Bahá'ís. So changing everything to Bahá'ís would be the simplest. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom and related categories etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative rename (or merge as it may be) to Bahá'í people. I just don t get how 'people' is in any way ambiguous?? A universal naming scheme for all cat pages for people by nationality, ethnicity, and religious groups, in part because the lines between these three classifications can be fuzzy, and the issue with using the plural noun is that a few groups don t have a plural noun form besides adding 'people' (Dutch, French, English, and likely -ese ending ones like Chinese) Use of 'individuals' sounds to me as nothing more than an avoidance of the word 'people', which again is not ambiguous or otherwise problematic Mayumashu (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People vs. persons People is an ethnic group, persons is a group of more than person. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. I see nothing wrong with simply adding an "s" to the term. This avoids the "people" vs. "individuals" debate altogether. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bábí individuals to Category:Bábís

Nominator's rationale: Conformity with other such categories (e.g. ~~Category:Christians~~ Category:Muslims, Category:Hindus, etc.-Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually Category:Christians redirects to Category:Christian people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - We have a great number of categories for individual people, most of which use the word "people", an ambiguous term that can be misconstrued and has proven problematic in a number of cases. There are currently a number of other open CFDs aiming to rename quite a few existing categories using the word "people", to impose conformity with other similar categories -- but this move is not being greeted with universal approval. The word "individuals", on the other hand, is clear and precise, leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the category, and doesn't have the "semantic baggage" of the word "people". Cgingold (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right You realize that I am not proposing to add the word "people," correct? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Bábí people as per comments in the immediate above nom. discussion Mayumashu (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. I see nothing wrong with simply adding an "s" to the term. This avoids the "people" vs. "individuals" debate altogether. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete diaspora cat, no consensus on the rest. Kbdank71 16:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: "Swiss-German diaspora" gets zero hits in Google, Google news, Google scholar and Google books. Not definitive proof, but strongly indicates that the notion of a "Swiss-German diaspora" is original research. There is no article Swiss-German diaspora, nor is such a diaspora mentioned at List of diasporas, at Swiss diaspora or at Ethnic Germans (although that article does mention that Switzerland has a majority German population). Suggest we delete Category:Swiss-German diaspora, delete Category:People of Swiss-German descent and merge Category:Americans of Swiss-German descent and Category:Swiss-German Americans to Category:People of Swiss descent and Category:Swiss Americans respectively. Otto4711 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / merge per nom. It looks like a case of WP:OR based on the "German-ness" of the names of Swiss citizens. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly different; Category:Americans of Swiss-German descent and Category:Swiss-German Americans are in fact little different and should be merged to the former, but I see no reason not to keep them as a seperate sub-cat of Category:Swiss Americans. The diaspora category should be deleted, per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the Foo1-Foo2 Foothreeians sets a terrible precedent. Very few people are "thoroughbreds" and categorizing by every intersection of nationality is going to lead to atrocities like Category:French-Welsh-Irish-British-German-Jewish Americans (to which I would belong were the category not strangled in its crib). Otto4711 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss-German is a linguistic as well as an "ethnic" difference. Some of these are Jewish. In the particular circumstances of Switzerland, "Swiss-German" is one national/ethnic category. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you suggesting categorizing people by nationality and language? Otto4711 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not in most cases, but here Swiss-German is a single defining quality, not an intersection (for avoidance of doubt, Swiss-Germans are not actually German). Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Category:Swiss-Americans. Can we not put these people in touch? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - more holes than cheese here. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as Swiss German legitimately constitute an ethnic group and the term diaspora can be used to described the migration and its legacy of any ethnic group. I agree with Johnbod that Cat:Swiss-German Americans should be merged into Cat:Americans of Swiss-German descent but not in this nomination. there needs to be an across the board nomination if any to change Cat:Fooians Booian to Cat:Booians of Fooian descent Mayumashu (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using the term "diaspora" to describe Swiss German migration on Wikipedia is that no one outside Wikipedia appears use the term. There are exactly zero hits for the term. With no reliable secondary sources, use of the term here violates our ban on original research. Otto4711 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but to insist on outside referencing/sourcing for this group seems very much to be a misunderstanding what the term means as it is defined elsewhere and here - a diaspora is simply those of an ethnic or national group who have em/immigrated and their descendants. I don t seeing how applying an already defined term discriptively can be regarded as original research Mayumashu (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not insisting on outside referencing as to the existence of the group. I want secondary sourcing for the concept Swiss-German diaspora. The lack of such sourcing indicates that "Swiss-German diaspora" is an invention of the editor who created the category, which is disallowed under WP:OR. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As i've said above, I agree with Otto on this aspect, but in any case, how does the category differ from its only content: Category:People of Swiss-German descent ? Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again, its taking two apparently legitimate descriptive terms 'Swiss-German' and 'diaspora' and combining them, which results in a further description. (Diaspora are any ethnic groups' migrants and their descendants and Swiss German is a recognized ethnic group.) To provide description is not to do Original Research as OR requires analysis of some kind, which providing mere description is not. The only question therefore is whether the description provided by the category is significant or trivial, which brings me to Johnbod's question. As a sub-national ethnic group, the two, S-G diaspora and people of S-G descent don t differ (I wasn t really aware of it till now). national ethnic groups as such also have emigrants and expats listed under diaspora, as diaspora cover any and all forms of those who leave and their descendants. I (or at least I believe it was me) created it I guess because other sub-national ethnic groups (for instance Basques and Kurds) tend to have their diaspora more readily described surely due to their higher profile (and perhaps greater dispersal), although my thinking when creating the page was simply that there wasn t a page for yet there are S-G diaspora. In short, having Category:Swiss-German diaspora is important for having a list at Category:Diasporas without omissions. Mayumashu (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking one descriptive term and combining it with another descriptive term to create a new term that is not in use outside of Wikipedia is synthesis, in other words original research. Otto4711 (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. And taking the term synthesis into consideration, which I see is discussed on WP:OR, I can see now, I think, how what I ve presented involves not analysis but deduction (or is it inducation?), which is an element of doing research. I change my vote to a delete for Category:Swiss-German diaspora but a keep for the rest' Mayumashu (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — CharlotteWebb 19:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Too many reasons to even mention Garion96 (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly subjective and absolutely non-defining. The personal sexual tastes of individual editors regarding the fuckability of actresses is no basis for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It also presents a mind numbing precedent. If actors/actresses are categorized by each sub-genre that they work(ed) in then the number of categories could number in the hundreds for a single article. Dismas|^(talk) 21:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. Category practically begs for subjective analysis of whether an actress falls into this category. Tabercil (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and some sort of award for Otto for probably being the first to legitimately use "fuckability" in a CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a fuckability barnstar? ;-) Otto4711 (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How long has the category been empty? Can I speedy delete as empty? Yea, I looked to see who was listed ;-) Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since a couple of hours. See Special:Contributions/Koavf for the list. :) Search for MILF. Garion96 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective and NPOV.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inappropriate use of first-person ("I'd" is undefined on Wikipedia). Powers ^T 01:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the category has been repopulated until this discussion is completed. --Kbdank71 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Delete per nomination. Kelly ^hi! 15:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too subjective and undefining.--Beloved Freak 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Feel free to split apart the faculty articles at your leisure. Kbdank71 16:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni and faculty of Saint Petersburg Technological Institute to Category:Saint Petersburg Technological Institute alumni

Nominator's rationale: Split and rename. Seven of the 11 subcats of Category:Alumni by university or college in Russia follow this naming format and all of the rest are now nominated for renaming. The faculty articles should be split into a separate Category:Saint Petersburg Technological Institute faculty category and the alumni should remain in the renamed category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split and rename per nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of South Ural State University to Category:South Ural State University alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Seven of the 11 sub-cats of Category:Alumni by university or college in Russia follow this naming format. Two more are up for renaming below. All should follow the same naming convention for consistency . Otto4711 (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for consistency. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 16:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for Banjax Studios, containing only that one article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to the 2 parents, Category:Animation studios and Category:Companies of Northern Ireland. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Those categories really belonged in the studio article and have been moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University alumni. Kbdank71 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of St. Petersburg Polytechnical University to Category:Alumni of Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University

Nominator's rationale: The current category name doesn't follow naming conventions; the name of the city and institutions is "Saint Petersburg". I believe this would be a candidate for speedy renaming, but am unsure how to request that. Россавиа ^Диалог 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University alumni per nom, per Category:Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University and per mystery person below. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry about that, I'd have sworn I signed that. Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University alumni - 7 of the 11 sub-cats of Category:Alumni by university or college in Russia follow this naming convention (and the other three should be renamed for consistency). Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency: shortening by 2 chars does not worth the surprise for the users. I was the original creator of the category Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Saint Petersburg State University alumni. Kbdank71 16:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of St. Petersburg State University to Category:Alumni of Saint Petersburg State University

Nominator's rationale: The current category name doesn't follow naming conventions; the name of the city and institutions is "Saint Petersburg". I believe this would be a candidate for speedy renaming, but am unsure how to request that. Россавиа ^Диалог 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Saint Petersburg State University alumni per nom, per Saint Petersburg State University and per mystery person below. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Saint Petersburg State University alumni - 7 of the 11 sub-cats of Category:Alumni by university or college in Russia follow this naming convention (and the other three should be renamed for consistency). 19:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Rename per the consistency Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:St. Petersburg State University to Category:Saint Petersburg State University

Nominator's rationale: The current category name doesn't follow naming conventions; the name of the city and institutions is "Saint Petersburg". I believe this would be a candidate for speedy renaming, but am unsure how to request that. Россавиа ^Диалог 15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per Saint Petersburg State University. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 16:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:United States federal commerce legislation to Category:United States federal commercial legislation

Nominator's rationale: Merge, two cats with the same domain, proposing merge into the one with more articles. Powers ^T 13:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge - this appears to be for legislation enacted under Congress's Commerce Clause power so including the word "commerce" in the category name makes better sense to me. Otto4711 (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In general, this is probably a valid inference, but strictly speaking I'm doubtful that we know for certain with respect to any given piece of legislation what authority may have been cited, without perhaps reading the text of the legislation or the Congressional Record. So I think it probably wouldn't be a usable criterion on which to base a category. Cgingold (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Attractions in Indianapolis to Category:Visitor attractions in Indianapolis, Indiana

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A two-birds-one-stone nomination, aligning this category with both parent cats Category:Visitor attractions by city and Category:Indianapolis, Indiana along with other recent similar discussions about "Attractions in ..." categories and categories of cities without states. Neier (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per my nom. Neier (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Adding the state is pretty uncontroversial, and 'visitor' brings it in line with its siblings. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with parent categories.--Beloved Freak 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to match all others. — CharlotteWebb 10:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Polish borders to Category:Borders of Poland

Nominator's rationale: Rename per other members of Category:Borders by country. Tim! (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I'd say this could actually be Speedy renamed per Speedy Criteria #4: Non-conformance with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions. Cgingold (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename - as Cgingold says, this falls under CSD #4 - non-conformance with naming conventions. Should be "... of country".--Beloved Freak 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename. - Darwinek (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 16:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National field hockey teams to Category:Men's national field hockey teams

Nominator's rationale: A Category:Women's national field hockey teams was created for sometime ago, so i just want to rename this category as independent use for men national field hockey team. Aleen f1 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if this proposal is approved the womens' teams in it will need to be recategorized, but I tend to see this as an unnecessary sex-based categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 16:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Image galleries to Category:Wikipedia image galleries

Nominator's rationale: Seems kinda redundant. Rocket000 (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. Not redundant. The first category is for article-space galleries; the second category is for Wikipedia- or User-space galleries. Powers ^T

Really? It doesn't look like it. I think this was one of those "let's put Wikipedia in name" things that never finished. I mean it is a subcategory. A lot of pages in Category:Wikipedia image galleries are in the mainspace. Rocket000 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a lot of pages are in the wrong category then. =) Note that Category:Wikipedia image galleries is in the Category:Wikipedia administration tree. Also note that Category:Image galleries is fairly empty; most of those gallery pages (and subcats as well) have just been miscategorized. Powers ^T 02:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, then. I guess it just appears to be redundant. But still not sure what to do with Category:Image galleries. It's a subcat of a maintenance category and supposedly could be for external "image galleries", an equivalent (or should be a parent cat) of Category:Free image galleries. Maybe a rename would be good. Rocket000 (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll agree the whole area is a mess. Theoretically, we shouldn't really have any article-space galleries, because Wikipedia is not an image repository; that's what Commons is for. Encyclopedia topics that would benefit from a display of related media should use the ((Commons)) or ((Commonscat)) templates to direct users there. However, I'm not prepared yet to say that all such galleries should necessarily be transwikied; there may be a use for them of which I'm not aware. Any such galleries not transwikied to Commons should be in Category:Image galleries. Now, of course, the categorization of Category:Image galleries should be reconsidered; it should definitely not be in a Wikipedia-specific category tree. (In fact, a lot of Category:Wikipedia image galleries subcats are miscategorized themselves.) But that's a separate issue. Powers ^T 13:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 16:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Defunct Canadian football (soccer) competitions to Category:Defunct Canadian soccer competitions
Category:Canadian football (soccer) competitions to Category:Canadian soccer competitions
Category:Football (soccer) in Canada to Category:Soccer in Canada (to match article Soccer in Canada)
Category:Canadian football (soccer) clubs to Category:Canadian soccer clubs
Category:Canadian women's football (soccer) clubs to Category:Canadian women's soccer clubs
Category:Canadian football squad templates to Category:Canadian soccer squad templates

Nominator's rationale: 'soccer' is the standard term for the association football in Canada, as in the States and most cat pages reflect this local usage - these are the ones do not Mayumashu (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category has two articles in it, the rest are redirects. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm afraid I simply don't have the time to properly research each of the CFDs in this group of six. Please see my remarks supporting deletion of #Category:Chieftains of the Dúnedain. Cgingold (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or reorganise - see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Redirects pointing at list articles are one of the five possibilities mentioned at that guideline (please note that others supported that guideline, even thought I was the one that started it). These redirects are, in any case categorised at Category:Middle-earth redirects. One possibility, if these categories are considered unsuitable for readers, is to move them to be subcategories of Category:Middle-earth redirects, just so that the editors of the encyclopedia can see the redirects organised by topic. Please note that this system (of categorising the redirects pointing at a list article) was set up before it became possible to select "redirects" on "what links here" for an article, in this case a list article (previously you had to scan the "what links here" list to find the redirects). Others have adopted this system as well, especially for categorising articles that have been merged to list articles, so in some sense this is a fairly widespread practice (eg. Category:Dynasty characters, with many redirects to Dynasty minor characters). If there is disagreement with this general practice, it should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects and/or other places. I agree that categories where everything other than the list is a redirect, or where there are only redirects, probably need to be dealt with another way. If deletion is the result, I will move the category to be a subcategory of Category:Middle-earth redirects (which is an administrative category, not part of the main category structure, hence this effectively removes the category from the view of readers), rather than have the bot remove the category from the redirects. Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is alright with others, I'd be cool with that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An elegant method of categorising articles and in particular sections of articles. (I don't see that the reader is in any way disadvantaged by a variety of browsing possibilities.) The proportion of redirects seems immaterial - some may in future be fleshed out into articles. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. It is unlikely that any of these individual orcs could be fleshed out into articles that would pass the relevant policies and guidelines for writing about fiction, and the list article serves as a repository for the information related to the redirected articles. The category serves no navigational function. Otto4711 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you oppose the category being moved to be a subcategory of Category:Middle-earth redirects, thus keeping an organised category structure for editors, rather than readers, to scan and decide whether any redirects are missing or could be expanded? Carcharoth (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two existing articles would need to be removed before any merge/move. Otto4711 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a subcategory of Middle-earth redirects as proposed by Carcharoth. As a background for this discussion, one should notice that this category has already been deleted once (after the list article had been created and stubs turned into redirects) and please see an old discussion at Category talk:Middle-earth Orcs. Following the latter, me and Carcharoth virtually established a practice that (as I understood it) every Middle-earth character, item etc. should have a redirect present in a subcategory of Category:Middle-earth so that a full image is visible. I am aware of all the redundancies of such a system, and so won't oppose replacing it by a better one. My chief concern is that it should be readily visible for editors which of the redirects (for characters with several names etc) is the "main" one, that is which preserves edit history and should be used for linking; thus, moving all categories that duplicate lists to an administrative subcat seems quite reasonable. Possibly they should even be subcats of Category:Middle-earth redirects to sections, with Template:MER to section removed from them. For convenience, common articles can remain in these cats, just stuck ((hiddencat)) to it. BTW, it would be better to rename Category:Middle-earth redirects with all subcats to Cat:WikiProject Middle-earth redirects; and also notice that there's a bundle of cats that hopefully will also be depopulated and should share the ultimate fate. Súrendil (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 17:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in this category, the rest are redirects Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm afraid I simply don't have the time to properly research each of the CFDs in this group of six. Please see my remarks supporting deletion of #Category:Chieftains of the Dúnedain. Cgingold (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please see here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. The single article in the category serves as an appropriate repository for the information connected to the redirects, which all redirect to it. Otto4711 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to be a subcat of Category:Middle-earth redirects to sections per my comments above. Súrendil (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 17:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All but one of these articles are redirects. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I presume that's the proposal). If the redirects went to multiple articles I might support keeping this category. But since all of them are to the very same article, I don't see a good rationale for keeping it. Cgingold (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please see here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Chieftains of the Dúnedain is itself a redirect and I strongly oppose the notion of naming a category after a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to be a subcat of Category:Middle-earth redirects to sections per my comments above. Súrendil (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category has one article in it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm afraid I simply don't have the time to properly research each of the CFDs in this group of six. Please see my remarks supporting deletion of #Category:Chieftains of the Dúnedain. Cgingold (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please see here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OCAT#small category with little or no growth potential. Even if the redirect were turned into an article that would make a grand total of two. Otto4711 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to be a subcat of Category:Middle-earth redirects to sections per my comments above. Súrendil (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There are only two articles in this category, the rest are redirects. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm afraid I simply don't have the time to properly research each of the CFDs in this group of six. Please see my remarks supporting deletion of #Category:Chieftains of the Dúnedain. Cgingold (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please see here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OCAT#Small category with little or no growth potential. All of the redirects point back to the same article Ent which serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the main article and its single existing sub-article. Otto4711 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to be a subcat of Category:Middle-earth redirects to sections per my comments above. Súrendil (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is empty, it is all redirects to the List of Middle earth Horses article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm afraid I simply don't have the time to properly research each of the CFDs in this group of six. Please see my remarks supporting deletion of #Category:Chieftains of the Dúnedain. Cgingold (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please see here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. (The nom could have grouped these together - this reader is inconvenienced more by the inelegant nom than by the elegant categories.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what amounts to an empty category with no lead article. Anyone interested in one or more of these horses is most likely going to type its name in the search box and be taken to List of Middle-earth animals where it appears information on all the redirected horses exists. The category serves no navigational purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to be a subcat of Category:Middle-earth redirects to sections per my comments above. Súrendil (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: in case of this particular category, possibly it would be better simply to merge it with Category:Middle-earth animals. Súrendil (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a category is for redirects, one wonders how it is not OCAT. If you want to Merge per Súrendilm then I would not have a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 10 May 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.

May 4

Category:Country tours

Category:Bahá'í individuals

Category:Bábí individuals

Swiss-German diaspora

Category:MILF Actress

Category:Alumni and faculty of Saint Petersburg Technological Institute

Category:Alumni of South Ural State University

Category:Banjax Studios

Category:Alumni of St. Petersburg Polytechnical University

Category:Alumni of St. Petersburg State University

Category:St. Petersburg State University

Category:United States federal commerce legislation

Category:Attractions in Indianapolis

Category:Polish borders

Category:National field hockey teams

Category:Image galleries

Categories for Canadian soccer

Category:Middle-earth Orcs

Category:Kings of Dale

Category:Chieftains of the Dúnedain

Category:Middle-earth materials

Category:Ents

Category:Middle-earth horses