< August 12	August 14 >

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. --Xdamr^talk 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category not needed to just hold a category for albums and the main article. If kept, needs to be disambiguated to Category:Libido (band) or (more correctly but containing the dreaded diacritic)—Category:Líbido (band), since the more common meaning of the word is not disambiguated at libido. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename if kept. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - small eponymous category, not needed for this amount of material. If kept, rename to disambiguate. Otto4711 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2009 (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. Mondalor (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mountain bike films to Category:Mountain biking films

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found as an incomplete nomination doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename as the film is about biking, not bikes. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Alansohn. YobMod 11:50, 18 August 2009 (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 Category:Mountain biking venues and trails in the United Kingdom to Category:Mountain biking venues in the United Kingdom. --Xdamr^talk 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mountain biking venues and trails in the United Kingdom to Category:Mountain biking resorts, venues and trails in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found doing cleanup as an incomplete nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Mountain biking venues in the United Kingdom. See discussion in the earlier nominations. This is a good example why adding resorts and trails to the name is a bad idea since it can have the effect of creating an ever changing category by country name for a category as different classes of venues are added. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Vegaswikian: proposal is much too long. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. --Xdamr^talk 14:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mountain biking in Australia to Category:Mountain biking resorts, venues and trails in Australia

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found as an incomplete nomination doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the country level category and create any subcategories as needed. The proposed name is to cumbersome and functions as a catchall. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Vegaswikian: proposal is much too long. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current name. Country level is fine for a broad parent cat.YobMod 11:51, 18 August 2009 (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 Category:Mountain biking venues and trails to Category:Mountain biking venues. --Xdamr^talk 14:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mountain biking venues and trails to Category:Mountain biking venues

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found while doing cleanup as a speedy to Category:Mountain biking resorts, venues and trails. Since trails are a venue, why do we need to include that in the title? Likewise, if the resort is a venue, it can be included in the proposed category name. For sub categories, especially at the country level, it makes sense to have subcategories for the tails and any dedicated venues. So if this is renamed as proposed, it does not mean with need to rename every subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support present name is too long. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2009 (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 Category:Documentary plays to Category:Docudrama plays. --Xdamr^talk 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging renaming Category:Documentary plays toCategory:Plays based on actual events Category:Docudrama plays

Nominator's rationale: Merge "Documentary plays" is a neologism and the target category name is at least more self-explanatory. I do believe we don't need both categories. If others agree but prefer a reverse merge, we'll need to adapt the definition of the top-level Category:Documentaries to reflect the fact that there is a new fourth "form" of documentary, that of theatre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to rename per Johnbod's suggestion below. We need a name to describe a "documentary" play, but it cannot be "documentary" since it must entail some form of dramatization to be a play, I would agree that Category:Docudrama plays, as a subcategory of Category:Plays based on actual events, is the best solution available. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Docudrama plays, after Docudrama. This is rather more specific than the proposed name, which would include all Shakespeare's history plays & many of his tragedies, & half of all traditional drama. I removed Mad Forest as, eg none of the characters are real people, which seems an essential requirement. There are plenty more that could be added. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. But surely we do need some way to distinguish between, say, a work like My Name Is Rachel Corrie and Shakespeare's history plays, which often made freewheeling use of historical figures and events -- mixing history, fables and the playwright's own invention -- for dramatic and political effect in Shakespeare's own time. No one accords them "documentary" status. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was asked to comment on my talk page. There may need to be several distinct levels. Pace Shakespeare, the term "History plays" may be appropriate. Perhaps Mad Forest should be classified in that same way, although from what I understand it is much more factual than Shakespeare's histories. And My Name Is Rachel Corrie would seem to me to be as much a documentary as any documentary film. - Jmabel | Talk 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, my only concern was that the nominated category was a WP:NEO. We do need a category for works that claim to dramatize actual events, as distinct from a far broader range of works that are in one way or another inspired by them.If "Documentary plays" is indeed the best term for this, as a subcategory Category:Plays based on actual events, fine. I'll happily withdraw the nom, or let the CfD play out and let consensus decide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 14:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communist genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Endemic POV cat. This is a re-creation of a category deleted on August 6. The main article, Communist genocide, recently went through a highly contested and polemic AFD, which ended in no consensus. Clearly this is unsuitable, bordering pointish, categorization. Soman (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 1) Survived AFD 2) Communist genocide is WP:NOTE 3) Not right forum, first talk page 4) Nomination for deletion is WP:POINT. Peltimikko (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: 1) 'Survived', not 'keep'. Also, not all articles that have an article should have a category by the same name. Judging from the AFD, it seems very unlikely that any consensus could emerge on how such a category could be used in a NPOV way. 2) This is not a notability discussion. 3) This is re-posting of deleted material. It could have been tagged for speedy deletion, I decided to open a CFD instead. As per usage of talk pages, when reposting a deleted category, it would have been customary to seek a consensus on the reposting before recreating the deleted category. 4) No it isn't. I really want the category deleted. --Soman (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not only is it POV, it is also based on a WP:SYN violation as currently being discussed on the talk page of the main article Communist genocide. And Peltimikko, who created the category, seems to even admit that the category was created to make a point, as I pointed out here. There is no reliable source that suggests that all these things belong in such a category. The phrase is a neologism that is not backed up by any scholarly literature. csloat (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world is he "admitting" to creating this to make a point?!? The fact that you're accusing him of it does not directly and immediately translate into the fact that he's guilty of it.radek (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He says that the category is "part of" the discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure how else to read that. Categories should be taxonomical, not attempts to intervene in a discussion on a talk page. csloat (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. I should let him speak for himself but it looks like you're misrepresenting his comment. He doesn't say that the category is "part of" the discussion, rather that your comment is "part of the discussion". Big difference.radek (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what it looks like to me at all; if he wanted to say that, he certainly could have. Moreover, when I challenged him on the issue, his only response was a non sequitur. I don't think he actually understands WP:POINT, but I could be wrong. csloat (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - Blatantly POV move in light of merge discussion and serious concerns about WP:SYNTH, as well as a recreated category first put up by the indefinitely blocked troll who also brought us Category:Communist human experimentation. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This category was not created by a blocked troll but by someone else. Who "originally" created the cat/article is irrelevant and not a serious argument for deletion. Otherwise an editor could create an account, pre-preemptively create a host of cats/articles s/he does not wish to have a place on Wiki and then act in a way to get themselves blocked for trolling - basically acting as an agent provocateur. This is why we discuss present content, overall utility and policy driven reasons for or against, rather than discussing editors, past or present.radek (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most bizarre justification I've ever heard for allowing blocked trolls to continue to infect Wikipedia long after they have been perma-banned. csloat (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how you feel about it, Wikipedia policy is to discuss content and merits, not editors. The fact that an article or a category was originally created by some particular user is simply not grounds for deletion on Wikipedia.radek (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it was "grounds for deletion." It does, however, help put the article in context -- we at least know now that it was created as a troll, whether or not it remains a troll is perhaps another question. csloat (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope you're not calling the user who created this category "a troll" as that would constitute a personal attack.radek (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The category was originally created by Joklolk (talk · contribs), an account now blocked indefinately from wikipedia. Looking at his/her contributions, they all had they same POV-pushing purpose. There were little indications of good faith editing, in fact it seems the account was a sock puppet. 'Troll' is not an inaccurate label in that context. 2) Who originally created an article/category does matter in the wiki process. If one wants to re-create an article or category previously deleted, it is advisable to consult Wikipedia:Deletion review or other venue to seek a wider agreement on re-creation of the deleted material. Simply re-creating the exact same material can be seem as an endorsement of the trollish behaviour of the blocked user. --Soman (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Category is POV-driven misnomer. Adjectives specifying genocide refer to the victims, not the perpetrators, e.g. Armenian genocide means Armenians were killed, not did kill. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the first sentence but I think you do have the point in the second. Perhaps the reason for what looks like awkward phrasing is that whoever created this cat has English as second language. Would you vote to keep "Genocide by communists"?radek (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would have to explain to me what specific "genus"(people/ethnic group) was targeted. As far as I know, "anti-communist" is not an ethnic group, and neither are "democratic" or "libertarian." Seb az86556 (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article on Genocide and the UN definition given there a "genocide" does not necessarily involve an "ethnic group" (though there were instances of communists targeting these) but also religious and national groups. Additionaly, per Genocide definitions in many uses "genocide" involves a "class of people", or it is a "the deliberate destruction of physical life of individual human beings by reason of their membership of any human collectivity as such", or it is the successful attempt by a "dominant group" to reduce a less powerful group (these groups not nec. being ethnic), or it could be a "a structural and systematic destruction of innocent people by a state bureaucratic apparatus", or, noting the complexities, it involves the attempt to liquidating or exterminatory actions against" political groups, and so on. Perhaps the best one I think from purely NPOV point of view is this:

Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator. (my emphasis).

Insisting on a super-narrow definition here (more narrow than the one adopted by UN and far far more narrow than adopted by many respectable scholars) simply in an attempt to get rid of this uncomfortable category violates Wiki policy on NPOV - NPOV is supposed to represent the spectrum of mainstream opinion, not the (narrow) extreme.radek (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UN finds the idea of talking about "communist genocide" as politically motivated and "abbhorent": [1]. Your interpretation here is an attempt to turn black into white. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom.Anonimu (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peltmikko. Yes some people consider the existence of the article SYNTH but this is by no means a consensus view. Furthermore, even if the article were somehow deleted, this does not imply that the same should happen with the category. Although I think I would prefer "Genocide by communists" (I'd say "...by communist governments" but then we'd get into a discussion of when a particular movement can be considered a legit gov and all that). But there's nothing inherently POV or SYNTH about the category itself.radek (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seb would seem to have hit the central point's nail on its head. For emphasis, and in case someone decides to make another category to mean what its creator intended, the definition of genocide is "acts committed with intent to destroy" a group. There is no evidence of intent for the "Communist genocide", but 384 Google Books that show that there are 384 authors who do not know or do not care about this defining aspect of common and international law, and a great deal of editors here who should not be further misled by a careless application of WP policy, as they have been misled by these authors. Anarchangel (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peltmikko. Valid category. May need some minor title adjustment as per Radeksz.--Jacurek (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Terribly POV. Colipon+(Talk) 14:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There were numerous genocides/ethnic cleansings by communist regimes, most notably the entire Category:Forced migration in the Soviet Union.Biophys (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE I am shocked as to how the things listed in this category can even be considered genocide. Blatant POV pushing. Triplestop x3 15:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category, as it is named now, is making a point that is obviously controversial. Categories shouldn't be used in that way. It should be formulated in a way that would make it a factual categorisation of the content of the articles. Category:Mass killings under communist regimes might be a candidate. --Anderssl (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For many of the reason mentioned above. The article also should have been deleted. This is essentially a POV fork. People throw around the term "genocide" without knowing what it really means. As mentioned above, it technically requires a dolus specialis—an intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Many of the incidents here included—as horrible as they are—are not properly called "genocide". Crimes against humanity, yes—but not genocide. For example, according to the case law, "ethnic cleansing" is often a crime against humanity but not genocide. And despite what some would prefer, according to the widely-accepted legal definition adhered to by 140-odd states, genocide cannot be committed against groups that are solely political. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Somehow when I was making this prediction I totally forgot about possibility of the war over categorization of that article. (Igny (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No, keep. There are 400+ Google books hits for the term: [2]. Biophys (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also 700+ Google books hits for the term "hilarious comedy", and a similar number for "regurgitated food". We don't have corresponding categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The repressions in Tibet and Cambodia by the communist regimes are widely regarded as a genocide. Same thing with "Population transfer in the Soviet Union (see Category:Forced migration in the Soviet Union). During these "population transfer" people were targeted and exterminated based on their ethnicity. Hence the term is appropriate.Biophys (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, except for the points raised above about naming. We usually name genocides after the victims, not the political persuasion of the perpetrators. References to the "Cambodian Genocide" are vastly more commonly encountered than "Communist genocide in Cambodia". Tibet—I don't know—I doubt a dolus specialis could be proven there. Just my opinion, but it does demonstrate that membership in this category is not "self-evident", as categories should be as suggested WP:CLN: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." If kept, all articles that can't unambiguously and uncontroversially be labelled "genocide" would need to be removed, which would leave not many articles in it, IMO. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is not a neologism, it is a reality and the term is used in scholarly sources and is therefore appropriate as a category. Charges that people "throw around" the word "genocide" not knowing what it means (per Good Ol’factory) are quite frankly degrading, offensive, and insulting. I have yet to read anything contending "delete" which is not a red herring or WP:IDONTLIKE it gussied up to look more substantial than it is. The bottom line is that scholars use the term "communist genoocide", that makes it notable and good enough. Let's please move on. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presenting a legal analysis of a legal term is hardly "degrading, offensive, and insulting". Unless you are suggesting that you have a vested interest in expanding the definition, or something, in which case I can see why you might feel affronted. But I don't think making an assumption that many people don't understand what a dolus specialis is can be seen as an offensive underestimation of the general population or of certain authors. (By the way, "notability" is not the standard for categories—it's the standard for articles—which is why we are having a new discussion for the category after the discussion for the article.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, companion category to the article Communist genocide which was kept in a recent AfD. Apparently there is some discussion of a name change on the article talk page, presumably if it comes to pass it will be applicable to the category name too. Therefore deletion is inappropriate. --Martintg (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - would trigger infinite edit wars, inheritently non-neutral Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept I would recommend a name change to plural, because at the very least there was no single Communist genocide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV-pushing. Arguments by nom, csloat, Good Ol'factory are conclusive. NSH001 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a compromise? Let's rename it to Category:Democide in Communist countries? Biophys (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete this is blatant PoV pushing and nothing else.Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reasonable explanations above whatsoever how is this category a POV cat. And if it is a POV cat, than of what category exactly? The communist regimes killed around 60-100 million people (see *Valentino, Benjamin A (2005). "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. pp. 91–151. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)) and there are more than enough articles on Wikipedia that should be categorized under this unfortunate chapter in human history.--Termer (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, magnet for the warriors. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly recreate if a precise definition of genocide is given in the category description. Not every situation in which a large number of people are dying is a mass murder, and not every mass murder is a genocide. For example, the Russian famine of 1921, which is categorized as a "Communist genocide" at this moment, was primarily caused by the war and foreign intervention. The Russian government at the time confiscated grain in order to feed soldiers and the urban people. The intent, however, was not to kill people, and certainly not to kill people of a specific nationality or tribe. Nor was there the intent to destroy cultural traditions. Soviet famine of 1932–1933 should not be in this category, but the article Holodomor may be included there (this is, however, a subject of international controversy).  Cs32en  12:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My only reason is because the name "genocide" is not an adequate description of the subject of most of the articles in this category. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inaccurate and POV.YobMod 11:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. --Xdamr^talk 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aqueducts in Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found as incomplete doing cleanup. Apparently emptied out of process by creating sub categories based on category text. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – it has been effectively renamed to Category:Navigable aqueducts in Scotland. I suppose this is reasonable if there are are no non-navigable aqueducts in Scotland. Occuli (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that's what happened. In that case, I'll say Keep to match the parenting in Category:Aqueducts in England and the naming of the subcategories in Category:Aqueducts in the United Kingdom. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This ought to have an article on the Loch Katrine water supply system to Glasgow, but the content is currently split between Loch Katrine and Milngavie water treatment works, with nothing on the pipeline except that it is 26 miles long. I expect there are similar systems for other cities, just as Birmingham, England is supplied by the Elan aqueduct from the Elan Valley Reservoirs. These are pipelines and thus a distinct class of aqueduct. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There is no category tree for 'Navigable aqueducts in foo'--they are loner subcats exiting only in for Wales, England, and Scotland, and not even the United Kingdom--and must be subcats of the 'aqueducts of foo' cats for Wales, England and Scotland for which a category tree exists. Having said that, maybe there should be a category tree for 'Navigable aqueducts in foo', always as subcats of 'Aqueducts in foo', which I could certainly create and populate. The problem I see is what happens when an aqueduct falls into disrepair and is no longer navigable. Does the aqueduct remain in the navigable cat regardless, as having once been designed/used for navigation? Hmains (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2009 (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 Category:Shipwrecks of the St. Lawrence River to Category:Shipwrecks of the Saint Lawrence River. --Xdamr^talk 14:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shipwrecks of the St. Lawrence River to Category:Shipwrecks of the Saint Lawrence River

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found as an incomplete speedy while doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Shipwrecks in the Saint Lawrence River: better describes subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename of nominator (using "of") per Saint Lawrence River. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom to match the parent cat and article Category:Saint Lawrence River and Saint Lawrence River. Hmains (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2009 (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 Category:Maccabiah golden medalists to Category:Maccabiah gold medalists.

No action for Category:Maccabiah medalists by sport - suggest renomination. I would suggest that it is generally a bad idea for other editors to append categories to already existing nominations. --Xdamr^talk 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Maccabiah golden medalists to Category:Maccabiah gold medalists

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found as incomplete doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADDED by Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC):[reply]

Propose Deleting Category:Maccabiah medalists by sport

Propose Deleting Category:Maccabiah medals

Nominator's rationale: Category:Maccabiah medalists by sport is redundant as all categories are in Category:Maccabiah medalists. Category:Maccabiah medals contains only the first item nominated and thus serves no purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Nb Category:Maccabiah medals is redundant. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete (lists probably in fact already exist) -- This is a sporting award category for medallists at the Maccabiah Games. List are usually a more satisfactory means of handling award categories, since they can provide extra information such as date. There are a lot of associated categories, which are duplicating others, which I have added to the nomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For completeness, it should be noted that Category:Maccabiah medals is nominated for an upmerge here. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Category:Maccabiah medalists by sport is not tagged. Neither was the medals category which is probably why I nominated it later without realizing that it was listed here. I'd suggest striking the medals category here since there is a separate discussion on that one. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2009 (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 Erik9 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parents of people on the autistic spectrum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per the recent deletion of Category:Parents of people with Down syndrome. All the same arguments against that category apply to this one as well. Otto4711 (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom or we are to see Category:Grandparents of people on the autistic spectrum soon. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having an autistic child (which is what I suppose is meant by "people on the autistic spectrum") is for sure very important in the lives of these parents, but is hardly relevant for anything notable hat might happen to this parent. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being related to someone with a condition is not the major part of most peoples ntability. Better as a list, if at all.YobMod 11:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I wouldn't downplay the struggles of raising a special-needs child, this is not a defining characteristic for the people in this category. We don't have categories for "parents of baseball players", for example. szyslak (t) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not that autism is a crime, but there's a distant notion of Sippenhaft creeping up in me. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2009 (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: Administrative close: Immediate repeat nominations are generally not a good idea unless the previous discussion was closed "no consensus". Previous closer stated that "Consensus is broadly in favour of retention" of the category, so a new nomination to delete is probably inappropriate here. If the nominator disagrees with the results of the previous discussion, inquiries should be directed to the closer. WP:DRV can also be used if the issue cannot otherwise be resolved. (I note also that due to template application of the category, the old category has not even finished its merge to the new category. Perhaps we could wait for that to finish before further action is taken so we can have an accurate picture of what the category actually contains.) Done now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious BLP concerns. Who wants to be labeled a "conspiracy theorist", as if his or her life would revolve about making things up, if he or she is notable for one or a number of other achievements and is just actively and publicly advocating a certain viewpoint about the September 11 attacks?   Cs32en  04:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists was just changed to this name per the outcome of a previous CFD. This nomination seems a bit on the pointy side. Otto4711 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as Improper Forum I agree with the nominator, as the close of the previous CfD appears to have disregarded clear consensus to keep as is. The proper forum to address this is WP:DRV. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the rename in the previous cfd seems perfectly well argued. Occuli (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I had nominated it for deletion and it was kept just days ago. The nominator for this latest CfD is also the original category creator. He voted to keep at that time, under his name of choice, "Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories." I guess the nominator so dislikes the new name he now wants to delete the whole category. I don't see a world of difference between being labelled a "conspiracy theorist" and a "proponent of a conspiracy theory." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2009 (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 per nom Erik9 (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming several categories relating to the Tasman Region from "Foo of/in/from Tasman, New Zealand" to "Foo of/in/from the Tasman Region"

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand and per recent similar changes to categories relating to the Northland Region. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Tasman, New Zealand → Category:Tasman Region
• Category:Buildings and structures in Tasman, New Zealand → Category:Buildings and structures in the Tasman Region
• Category:People from Tasman, New Zealand → Category:People from the Tasman Region
• Category:Schools in Tasman, New Zealand → Category:Schools in the Tasman Region

• Support rename, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand#Regional categories and articles.-gadfium 03:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming several categories relating to the city of Gisborne, New Zealand from "Foo of/in/from Gisborne" to "Foo of/in/from Gisborne, New Zealand"

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, Gisborne, New Zealand (Gisborne is a dab page). Grutness...wha? 01:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Gisborne → Category:Gisborne, New Zealand
• Category:Buildings and structures in Gisborne → Category:Buildings and structures in Gisborne, New Zealand
• Category:People from Gisborne → Category:People from Gisborne, New Zealand
• Category:Schools in Gisborne → Category:Schools in Gisborne, New Zealand
• Category:Suburbs of Gisborne → Category:Suburbs of Gisborne, New Zealand

• Ok. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 14:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Football League free agents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A player's contract status is not defining.TM 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed. A temporary situation for a player of no long term significance. Resolute 13:55, 14 August 2009 (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.