< September 28	September 30 >

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:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's track players to Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets track and field athletes. --Xdamr^talk 21:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's track players to Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets track and field athletes

Nominator's rationale: per standard naming used for those listed at Category:College track and field athletes Mayumashu (talk) 23:53, 29 September 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:Daughters of dukes to Category:Daughters of British dukes
Category:Daughters of marquesses to Category:Daughters of British marquesses
Category:Daughters of earls to Category:Daughters of British earls

--Xdamr^talk 21:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Daughters of dukes, Category:Daughters of marquesses, Category:Daughters of earls to Category:Daughters of British dukes, Category:Daughters of British marquesses, Category:Daughters of British earls

The first should be renamed because the number of dukes that have lived is enormous and the number of their daughters is even bigger. The category currently includes only daughters of British dukes, but should also include every other daughter of every other duke, which means that, for example, all daughters of all Habsburg rulers should be included. There are also daughters of French, German, Spanish, Italian and Swedish dukes. The second category should be renamed for the same reason. The third category should be renamed in order to be consistent with the first two. Surtsicna (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why not populate these categories with this enormous number of people and use these as the parent categories and create sub-categories for those categories that warrant it? DoubleBlue (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, looking around a little, there seems to be at least a few folks in here that are noteworthy only for being "daughters of dukes" (or nearly only for that) and such-- if they these folks are noteworthy at all. I think it is mainly WP:OVERCAT when it becomes full of people noteworthy for otherthings-- like say, being a duchess themseves, etc. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm inclined to agree that it is overcategorisation and doesn't seem sufficiently defining. It should be mentioned in the article but not be a categorisation of the biography. I suspect some of these people do not have enough WP:Reliable sources to meet WP's notability guideline. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DoubleBlue, it would be impossible to put all articles about daughters of dukes in the category. It would require numerous subcategories (Daughters of French dukes, Daughters of Spanish dukes, Daughters of Swedish dukes, Daughters of German dukes, Daughters of Portuguese dukes, Daughters of Italian dukes, etc). It's just too much. It's way easier to just rename the category. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. see the the last discussion on this. The basis for keeping them was largely that they were a specific category in the British order of precedence, which also affects notability I think, although I don't believe just being one is sufficient notability. But that is an issue for AFD, not here. I think it is defining. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. The reason for distinguishing these ladies is that they are entitled to use the style "Lady Emma Jones". If there are ladies of other nationalities in the category they should be pruned out, or perhpas the targets should be created as subcategories and the British ladies moved into them; we can then see if there is enough left for a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:11, 2 October 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:British Columbia Lions to Category:BC Lions
Category:British Columbia Lions coaches to Category:BC Lions coaches
Category:British Columbia Lions players to Category:BC Lions players

--Xdamr^talk 21:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British Columbia Lions to Category:BC Lions

Propose renaming Category:British Columbia Lions coaches to Category:BC Lions coaches

Propose renaming Category:British Columbia Lions players to Category:BC Lions players

Nominator's rationale: Match article BC Lions and the official name of the club, http://www.bclions.com/ BC Lions Football Club Inc., DoubleBlue (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename BC Lions is the more common name so a move makes sense.--Giants 27(c|s) 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is one case where the unabbreviated name is never really used, at least in my experience.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:13, 1 October 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. The question that really needs to be answered in the discussion is wether or not Western films is ambiguous. While Western is ambiguous, it has not been established in the discussion that Western films is ambiguous. In fact I think that the case it made that this is in fact not ambiguous. Whatever case might be made for this being ambiguous needs to be considered with this being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No case has been made that Western films is ambiguous or not the primary topic. If you look at the main articles associated with this area, Western (genre), Western fiction, Westerns on television, disambiguation is only used when no other term is included to clarify the purpose of the article. I believe that principal applies here as well. Given that the lead in Western (genre) is consistant in using Western over western I believe that the categories should follow that in the naming. I'll also add that over on commons they use Category:Westerns. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Western (genre) films rename to Category:Western films
Category:1910s Western (genre) films to Category:1910s Western films
Category:1920s Western (genre) films to Category:1920s Western films
Category:1930s Western (genre) films to Category:1930s Western films
Category:1940s Western (genre) films to Category:1940s Western films
Category:1950s Western (genre) films to Category:1950s Western films
Category:1960s Western (genre) films to Category:1960s Western films
Category:1970s Western (genre) films to Category:1970s Western films
Category:1980s Western (genre) films to Category:1980s Western films
Category:1990s Western (genre) films to Category:1990s Western films
Category:2000s Western (genre) films to Category:2000s Western films
Category:2010s Western (genre) films to Category:2010s Western films
Category:Western (genre) films by genre to Category:Western films by genre
Category:Films based on Western (genre) novels to Category:Films based on Western novels
Category:Western (genre) film stubs to Category:Western film stubs
Previous consensus stated that the term Western is ambigious (which it is). However, some common sense should have been applied when nominating the above sub-categories. Per the discussion at the film project, I've listed these again to rename them back, sans the "(genre)" tag. The category Category:Western (genre) films by genre is a good (or bad) example of how poorly worded a category can be. The previous consensus passed with 3 votes and without input from the Film Project. For these categories the "(genre)" disambig simply isn't needed. Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing "(genre)" from category names. I also recommend descriptions on each category, such as "This category contains films of the Western genre released in the 1910s," if that will assuage concerns of confusion with terms related to Western world. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I believe the average user who reads this would assume the genre first opposed to geographical location. Plus we already have separated film categories for "Italian films" and "American films" so I think anyone looking at things from a glance would be able to understand. Also, no other genre cats that have been separated by decade have been subtitled with (genre) either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of disambiguator. In situations such as this, the disambiguator is always maintained in all subcategories. In fact, adding a disambiguator to an undisambiguated subcategory of a similar name is a speedy renaming criterion, and has therefore been well-established by previous consensus as the way categories will be disambiguated. A consensus by one WikiProject cannot overrule such a broad consensus. One of the reasons the discussions had low participation is probably because the proposals were relatively uncontroversial and reflective of previous consensus on disambiguating category names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as very awkward to drop "(genre)" in the middle of the category name; we certainly do not do this for article titles. In addition, "Western film" overwhelmingly refers to films of this genre. It's like thinking that Category:2000 films means that it's a category of two thousand films, frankly. Like I said, we can include descriptions on the category pages, but I really do believe that it is unlikely that category will be misapplied. Descriptions can iron out any uncertainties. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up thought... would you consider Category:Films in the Western genre and similar namings as an option? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a possibility, but there's nothing so strange about using a parenthetical disambiguation in a category name. It's done relatively frequently, and I'm not really convinced that this should be an exception to the general practice just because it's viewed as awkward by some editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me asking, what are some other examples in which parenthetical disambiguation is used, particularly inserted in between normal words? I looked at WP:NCCAT; nothing mentions disambiguation, and the guidelines say that standard article naming conventions apply. Following WP:NCDAB, no examples mention parenthetical disambiguation in the middle of a string of words. If there is a way to rename with some kind of disambiguation at the end, we could try that, but "Films in the Western genre" works better than other any naming possibility that comes to mind. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many. Category:African jazz (genre) musicians and its subcategories; Category:Brazilian jazz (genre) musicians and its subcategories; some subcategories of Category:Victoria (Australia), including Category:Victoria (Australia) society and Category:Victoria (Australia) law; some subcategories of Category:Georgia (U.S. state), Category:Washington (U.S. state), and Category:Georgia (country), including Category:Georgia (U.S. state) culture, Category:Washington (U.S. state) wineries, and Category:Georgia (country)-related lists; many "albums by artist" and "songs by artist" categories, such as Category:Black (Bangladeshi band) albums, Category:Seduction (band) songs, etc. ... I could go on, but you probably get the idea; there are probably 100s of these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal of disambiguator. If I lived in Asia, ("the East"), then I think I would consider any film made in the Western world (e.g. Europe, North America) to be a "Western film." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude (talk • contribs)

There are always going to be categories that won't make sense to us when we first encounter them. "<COUNTRY> films", for example... what does it mean to be in the category "American films"? Films about America? Like I said, descriptions will help. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but decapitalize "western." The Western (genre) article bafflingly uses the uppercase "W" in "Western" (Spaghetti Western capitalizes both words!). It's very hard to search for this, but the predominant trend on the internet suggests "western" is almost always uncapitalized in this context. By decapitalizing, we should remove any source of confusion that this means "films made in the West."--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the results of a Google Books Search? "Western" is capitalized because it refers to the American West. It's not referring to the cardinal direction but a frontier of mystique and ruggedness. Capitalization immortalizes the term. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a Google book search, in which all significant words are capitalized, will tell me whether "western" should be capitalized.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please click past the titles and see that "Western" is capitalized in the prose. Surely you're not just looking at the book titles? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is capitalized sometimes and decapitalized other times. I contend that it is more common to see it decapitalized. Just my opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal of disambiguator. I hardly think everyone living in Asia thinks a "western" film refers to any movie made in the Western hemisphere. The term "western" when applied to films is easily understood worldwide. In response to Good Olfactory, one of the reasons the discussions had low participation is probably because it wasn't posted on the discussion page of the film project like it should have been. LargoLarry (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...like it should have been." Are you suggesting there's a requirement to notify wikiprojects of every potential change that they might care about? It also wasn't posted at the talkpage of the Disambiguation Wikiproject, whose members would also have had something to say here. If you care about a category name and want to be involved when it's discussed, it should be on your watchlist. See here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and ensuing comments. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Renames I hate seeing the word "(genre)" in these category names, but I support its retention as it is part of the title of the parent article. Regardless of any clarification within the category describing its inclusion criteria, the proposed renames make it unclear as to what "Western" means in this context. Alansohn (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about a renaming in the vein of "Films in the Western genre"? The naming conventions for categories do not mention disambiguation and defer to standard article naming conventions. The naming conventions for disambiguation only show parenthetical disambiguation at the end, which is why I propose the rename. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal of "(genre)": it makes a slightly clunky set of titles, but removes ambiguity (that ambiguity probably being less apparent to US-based and other "western" editors) - but support change from "Western" to "western": we don't capitalise Category:1980s crime films etc. PamD (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there are the two previous CfDs, cited by Lugnuts above, to support keeping "(genre)". PamD (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "Western film" is not the same as a "crime film". The word "Western" is capitalized because it refers to the American West. To present it as "western film" is inaccurate. "Crime film" is fine without capitalization because there is no popular usage of "Crime". Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal of (genre) -- Disambiguating phrases are not there for explanation, they are there to disambiguate titles that would otherwise collide. Since there is no other ambiguous category Category:Western films, Category:Western (genre) films does not need the disambiguating phrase. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of (genre), I don't buy that there's a realistic possibility of confusion as to what these are supposed to contain. Postdlf (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose since it makes the category names ambiguous, and category names are not supposed to be ambiguous (or atleast not much), unless some of those supporting the removal also wish to patrol the categories to keep them clean. Since "Western film" as opposed to "Westerns as film" is also a recognized film category IRL, compared to "Asian film" or "African film" or "Middle Eastern film", the suggested names are extremely ambiguous, especially the parent category. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename "Western" in the context of films overwhelmingly refers to films of the American West, not as in Western civilization. I find the confusion argument unlikely; it's not like there's an "Eastern Films" category. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. It's generally a good idea for categories to match the names of the corresponding articles, and therefore Category:Western (genre) is correct, considering that the article is at Western (genre). The disambiguation is needed because "Western" is an ambiguous term. However, "Western film" is by no means ambiguous, and it is not disambiguated in article titles (for example, List of Western films). There is therefore no need to disambiguate it in category names either. I'm neutral about Category:Films based on Western (genre) novels, though, since it could be considered ambiguous in that context. Jafeluv (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, if Category:Western (genre) is kept as it is and the others are renamed, the newly-renamed categories immediately would be become subject to speedy rename criterion #6. One of the problems here is that when it comes to the question of disambiguation in subcategories, we have in the past taken quite a strict "all or nothing" approach. If the main parent category is disambiguated, the subcategories can be speedily disambiguated to match. That's why we have, e.g., Category:Presidents of Georgia (country), even though Category:Presidents of Georgia would probably be relatively unambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We seem to use quite different naming conventions for categories than articles, despite the guideline saying that "standard article naming conventions also apply [to categories]". If there was a separate Western film article (instead of having it as a section in the general article) there would be no need to disambiguate it with a bracketed qualifier like we do with categories. "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." (see guideline). It doesn't matter that the genre article needs to be disambiguated from Western (country subdivision), Western (airline) and other things, because we can be reasonably sure that if a reader searches for "western film" they mean the genre and not, for example, the airline or even the country subdivision. Categories, currently, don't work that way: if a parent category is disambiguated, we blindly copy the disambiguator to child categories, regardless of whether there is actual ambiguity in the name or not. According to policy, "when the unmodified term has an overwhelmingly predominant meaning, we use the simple term for that article". In other words, only add a disambiguator in article titles if it's necessary for distinguishing it from other terms. I personally think it's high time our category naming accepted that principle as well. (By the way, the main article of Category:Presidents of Georgia (country) is President of Georgia). Jafeluv (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, you are right that the standards on this point are quite different, which is not necessarily a good thing. I see it as a bit of a problem, but I think part of the reason the distinction has developed is because it's much easier to make a routine move for an article than it is for a category. If we actually had to get consensus for each disambiguating or de-disambiguating move of a category name so that the same conventions that apply to articles also apply to categories, some would "pass", but I think probably others would "fail" as well. So I think the way it has developed is we've created speedy criterion #6, which is kind of a "blind" or "routine" method of bringing standardization in disambiguation to category names, since presumably some order is better than what might otherwise be the confused results. Either way, the category names would probably not conform perfectly to the universal conventions. As long as article names can be moved using a very simple process that often times does not require a formal discussion procedure, the fact that article names and category names are treated differently in this way does make some sense to me. (One possible solution could be to change speedy criterion #6 to one that says you can speedily rename a category name in order to conform it with the universal standards of disambiguation, but obviously this will not be as easily or uncontroversially applied as #6 currently stands and in practice such proposals to apply the universal rules might be challenged based on arguments of what is appropriate in any given case, and the result would be that such renames would not be able to be speedied at all, which then leads back to the problem of categories being harder to rename than articles. This might be a good issue to raise in a broader forum, though.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename Kuralyov (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renames. Clearly, "Western" is ambiguous and the category Category:Western (genre) is clarified as such. Whether of not "Western films" is ambiguous on its own is not of matter in the category's name, it's for consistency. The subcategories should follow suit to the parent. Otherwise, they will fall in the speedy rename criteria, specifically point six, as pointed out above. If anything, this issue should be brought up at WT:CAT or WT:NCCAT. — ξ ^xplicit 02:12, 16 October 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 all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 21:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UEFA Cup 1993-94 to Category:1993–94 UEFA Cup

Propose renaming Category:UEFA Cup 2007-08 to Category:2007–08 UEFA Cup

Propose renaming Category:UEFA Cup 2008-09 to Category:2008–09 UEFA Cup

Propose renaming Category:UEFA Europa League 2009-10 to Category:2009–10 UEFA Europa League

Propose renaming Category:UEFA Europa League 2010-11 to Category:2010–11 UEFA Europa League

Propose renaming Category:UEFA Champions League 2005-06 to Category:2005–06 UEFA Champions League

Propose renaming Category:UEFA Champions League 2006-07 to Category:2006–07 UEFA Champions League

Propose renaming Category:UEFA Champions League 2007-08 to Category:2007–08 UEFA Champions League

Propose renaming Category:UEFA Champions League 2008-09 to Category:2008–09 UEFA Champions League

Propose renaming Category:UEFA Champions League 2009-10 to Category:2009–10 UEFA Champions League

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the new naming conventions for association football seasons. – Pee Jay 17:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 17:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The longer dash looks better Mayumashu (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It makes sense to have the categories follow the same format as the naming for the football seasons. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Giant Snowman 09:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent articles, all of which use the correct dash, as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After these renames are completed, redirects should be set up from the new categories' hyphen equivalents (e.g. Category:2009–10 UEFA Champions League should be redirected to from Category:2009-10 UEFA Champions League, etc.) – Pee Jay 00:20, 3 October 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 all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:College athletes to Category:Intercollegiate athletes in the United States
Category:College athletes by school to Category:Intercollegiate athletes in the United States by team
Category:Female college athletes to Category:Female intercollegiate athletes in the United States
Category:College baseball players to Category:Intercollegiate baseball players in the United States
Category:College baseball to Category:Intercollegiate baseball in the United States
Category:College coaches to Category:Intercollegiate athletic coaches in the United States
(will list the remaining 50 or so sub-cats in a separate follow up nomination, should discussion here warrant it)

Nominator's rationale: for greater clarity, that these are, as they are, solely for colleges/universities in the United States. There already is Category:Intercollegiate athletics in the United States at the top of the tree. 'athletics', 'athlete', and 'intercollegiate are the prefered, common yet formal enough American terms for 'sport(s)', 'sportspeople', and competition amoungst universities and colleges. Mayumashu (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are there any articles in Wikipedia for athletes from outside the US-- such as Canada? These might be better as subcategories. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Category:College ice hockey players has some Canadians. Occuli (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to rename these now, remove the very few links that are non-American (such as the few there for hockey), and recreate the supracategories, if needed, later (with generic international English, such as Category:University and college sport, Category:University and college sportspeople, Category:University and college football (soccer) players, etc.). We d need Category:University and college ice hockey players at any rate Mayumashu (talk) 17:11, 29 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. POV pejorative term that is already covered by Category:Convicted British sex offenders. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – what about Category:Convicted American child molesters and Category:Convicted child molesters? Category:British sex offenders does not include 'child' or 'convicted' and so is both less specific and less satisfactory. Child molester is actually a redirect so a rename might be feasible. (I don't myself see anything POV or pejorative about the present name.) Occuli (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I see nothing NPOV here. They are convicted after all, so the judgement isn't ours to make any more. Debresser (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename I agree that the current title is less than ideal, but it is a widely-used term that describes the content of the category. The proposed name does not properly describe the category. Alansohn (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if convicted, the POV is that of the court that convicted them, not of the WP editor. Sex offenders is a wider category, including rapists, and those guilty of gross indecency. In UK, homosexual intercourse is only lawful if in private; if in a public place (e.g. public toilets), they are prosecuted for gross indecency. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 2 October 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pure Reason Revolution to Category:Pure Reason Revolution albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard form for music groups is to have a category for their albums. This category should be split and further categories of Category:Pure Reason Revolution members and Category:Pure Reason Revolution songs created if desired. As there are only 2 members with articles and 2 songs with articles this seems a bit much. The template ((PRRevolution)) already links all these articles. Tassedethe (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, seems unnecessary. As you say, there are only two songs and two members with articles, so splitting it more seems unneccesary. Keeping it as it is should be fine; the fact that things are linked by a template doesn't mean that categorisation is unnecessary- see Category:Rush (band) and the template that links it all together. Ironholds (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – to Category:Pure Reason Revolution albums as all albums should be in an 'albums' category; put the songs in Category:Pure Reason Revolution songs (subcat of Category:Songs by artist). I don't know whether it is worth creating a 'members' category, subcat of Category:Musicians by band. Occuli (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems excessive since there are an entire two PRR songs that merit articles - exactly the same number as members, actually. If members don't merit a cat, neither should songs. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we have the convention stated in the intro to Category:Songs by artist: "Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded", which has not been extended to members categories, and has been thought needless for duos. (This is not a duo, of course.) Occuli (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, then. Still, it seems pointless to split this category into two sub-categories when it involves a) creating tiny categories (two albums in one, two singles in another) and b) actually losing a couple of articles at the same time. Category:Pure Reason Revolution albums and Category:Pure Reason Revolution songs as subcats of Category:Pure Reason Revolution is fine, but otherwise you're losing several articles. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 29 September 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 all. --Xdamr^talk 21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following:

Category:Railway stations in Bundelkhand Region
Category:Railway stations in Malwa Region
Category:Railway stations in Ujjain
Category:Railway stations in Saugor

Nominator's rationale: Delete - A total of eight categories exist for 11 pages. Proposal is to cull it down to one cat and one sub-cat. All the articles now exist on the cat and sub-cat. These extras at CfD are unwanted ones used to classify 1-2 pages each and in a categorization that intermixes historical regions and railway divisions, something not used by Indian railways. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nominator.Shyamsunder (talk) 09:16, 30 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ford class aircraft carriers to Category:Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article, Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to reflect the full name of the class. Maralia (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 07:16, 30 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose renaming Category:Girl members to Category:Girl (band) members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate and to match Girl (band). Potentially very confusing without the disambiguation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:12, 30 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shipwrecks of NSW to Category:Shipwrecks of New South Wales

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation for Australian state. (Expanding country abbreviations is a speedy rename criterion, but expanding sub-national entity abbreviations is not. We may want to process this one speedily anyway.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Common-sense proposal. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support As above this is a common sense proposal. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support expansion of abbreviation for less ambiguity. Maralia (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 07:17, 30 September 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: Merge:

Category:Criminal organizations to Category:Organized crime groups
Category:Criminal organizations by country to Category:Organized crime groups by country
Category:Criminal organizations by continent to Category:Organized crime groups by continent
Category:Criminal organizations in Europe to Category:Organized crime groups in Europe
Category:Criminal organizations in Africa to Category:Organized crime groups in Africa
Category:Criminal organizations in Asia to Category:Organized crime groups in Asia
Category:Criminal organizations in Latin America to Category:Organized crime groups in Latin America
Category:Criminal organizations in Italy to Category:Organized crime groups in Italy

--Xdamr^talk 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Organized crime groups to Category:Criminal organizations

Suggest merging Category:Organized crime groups by country to Category:Criminal organizations by country

Suggest merging Category:Organized crime groups by continent to Category:Criminal organizations by continent

Suggest renaming Category:Organised crime groups in Australia to Category:Criminal organisations in Australia

Suggest renaming Category:Organized crime groups in Chile to Category:Criminal organizations in Chile

Suggest renaming Category:Organized crime groups in France to Category:Criminal organizations in France

Suggest renaming Category:Organized crime groups in Russia to Category:Criminal organizations in Russia

Suggest renaming Category:Organised crime groups in the United Kingdom to Category:Criminal organisations in the United Kingdom

Suggest renaming Category:Organized crime groups in the United States to Category:Criminal organizations in the United States

Suggest renaming Category:Fictional organized crime groups to Category:Fictional criminal organizations

Suggest merging Category:Organized crime groups in Europe to Category:Criminal organizations in Europe

Suggest merging Category:Organized crime groups in Africa to Category:Criminal organizations in Africa

Suggest merging Category:Organized crime groups in Asia to Category:Criminal organizations in Asia

Suggest merging Category:Organized crime groups in Latin America to Category:Criminal organizations in Latin America

Suggest merging Category:Organized crime groups in Italy to Category:Criminal organizations in Italy

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. It seems to me that "crime groups" and "criminal organizations" are more or less the same. And so I see no reason to have two trees for them. Debresser (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are more untagged categories further down the vine. If this proposal sounds reasonable to you, please help tag them. Debresser (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Tassedethe. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge for preference, but with spelling "Organised" for all non-American categories.
Support merge as proposed. --RL0919 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge for preference, but with spelling "Organised" for all non-American categories. WHY: the underlying article to this entire category tree is Organized crime. See the entire category tree for Category:Organized crime. Hmains (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reverse merge is fine with me. As long as they are merged. Debresser (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per Hmains. There might be possible ambiguity as to what a "criminal organization" is—one that has been outlawed? But organized crime is clear. Postdlf (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE if reverse merge is accepted, there are more categories that will have to be listed and tagged. Hmains (talk) 01:44, 5 October 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: Merge Category:Sicilian kings as nominated; do not merge Category:Kings of Sicily. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Kings of Sicily to Category:Monarchs of Sicily

Suggest merging Category:Sicilian kings to Category:Monarchs of Sicily

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. This seems a case of double (triple) categorisation. Although in this case the target category is significantly smaller than the two categories nominated for merging into it, still I think the name "monarchs" is the better one, because it is more inclusive. Debresser (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Same issue as Naples below. After 1442 they were the same person, before not. The Sicilian kings are not needed - merge them. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Monarchs of Sicily -- or devise some much more clear names for the subcats. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below. What is unclear here, that the nomination will alter? It would depart from the usual scheme for no reason. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the usual scheme. You want Category:Sicilian monarchs instead?

What is unclear is why you oppose. Are Category:Kings of Sicily supposed to be different rulers than the Category:Sicilian kings? Tell me how they are different and I will tell you if anything can be more clear than just merging. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 08:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The monarchical rulers of Sicily see List of monarchs of Sicily(Category:Monarchs of Sicily) have had a number of actual titles, including Category:Kings of Sicily, Category:Monarchs of the Two Sicilies (should be kings, imo) and others like King of Italy, which aren't in any of these categories yet, & maybe don't need to be. Many European countries have similar issues, & the established category scheme is to have one category per major title, with a catch-all geographical head-cat of "Fooish monarchs" or "Monarchs of..". I admit, I thought that, following the Brish pattern, the latter was the usual one, but looking at Category:European monarchs, it is clear that "Fooish monarchs" is the norm. I would say that, as in Britain, but not France, a number of the monarchs were clearly foreign in some way, and not Sicilian in any ethnic sense, so "Monarchs of" is more appropriate here. If the Sicilian kings are merged (you seem to have completely misread my views above) and the Category:Monarchs of the Two Sicilies added to the monarchs of Sicily, this will be accomplished. There were no reigning Queens of Sicily, which helps. Have you looked at Category:French monarchs, Category:German monarchs, Category:Monarchs in the British Isles? I suggest you do. The contention in the nom that "This seems a case of double (triple) categorisation" simply misses the point - we do need two categories, but not three. You have given no explanation of why you support this. "Kings of Sicily" are needed, and one of the other two, but not both. Johnbod (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for clarifying this. It is precisely for this type of clarification that I broughtthis here. I now agree with Johnbod. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you label the three cats with instructions on what type of monarchs each should (or does) contain, it will be more clear for people-- now and in the future. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Sicilian kings into Category:Monarchs of Sicily.

Keep Category:Kings of Sicily if labled more clearly. If not labled better then I am neutral on keeping it. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Monarchs of Sicily. I think that only after 1735, when the kingdom regained Sicily (in exchange for Sardinia) did it become the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and perhaps post-1735 monarchs should be dealt with in a separate (cross-referenced) category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 2 October 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: no consensus. My impression is that this is the result, but it could also be a "do not merge". Since the practical result is the same I'm not too worried about which it is. It wasn't entirely clear if and to what extent some of those who commented were in agreement/acquiescence to Johnbod's comments made during the discussion. If they agreed with Johnbod, the merge should by consensus not proceed. If they were unconvinced, I didn't see any really good justifications that countered Johnbod's position, hence the "no consensus". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Kings of Naples to Category:Monarchs of Naples

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. This seems a case of double categorisation. And there are only two articles in this category. Debresser (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is a case for moving all pre-1442 monarchs (which is a lot) here from the monarchs; after that date it was the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, which has its own category, but before they were indeed called the King of Naples. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Monarchs of Naples-- or devise some much more clear names for the subcats. Even if all monarchs were "kings," (not Queens, Emirs, etc.), "monarchs" is a better name. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point precisely. Debresser (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how we treat other countries. See Category:French monarchs, which contains Category:French emperors, Category:Kings of France and several other categories. No justification has been advanced for departing from this scheme here. What exactly is "unclear" about the current structure? It is just that most articles are in the wrong category. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would you like to have happen instead? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are correct as they are, but most of the people with the specific title King of Sicily are in the "monarchs" category & should be moved over. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to do that? That would be a good thing. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom. I think that only after 1735, when the kingdom regained Sicily (in exchange for Sardinia) did it become the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and perhaps post-1735 monarchs should be dealt with in a separate (cross-referenced) category. Before that (when united) they were merely possessions of the crown of Aragon. I am not clear how far they were administered together. The articles could do with sorting out, as some of them are muddly. A template has 1816 instead of 1861 (when Garibaldi conquered it). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, 1442 - see Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, already linked above, although there were interuptions. You may bwe sure all the Aragonese etc used the long-established title. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 4 October 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Syriac people to Category:Assyrian/Syriac people

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. Since this nomination sounds reasonable, I decided to bring it here. Debresser (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:Assyrian people or at least to a name without any '/'s. (The second one refers to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people, which redirects to Assyrian people.) (Why has a clump of extraneous text appeared at the bottom of the edit screen separating us needlessly from useful things such an insert menus? To whom does one complain?) Occuli (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, to any name without any '/'s. Both Category:Assyrian people and Category:Assyrian and Syriac people sound fine to me. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- These categories and the related articles are a mess and are tagged ((expert)). This proposal will make it all worse. Assyrian is the preferred name for an eastern Christian denomination. However the Maronites (a subcategory) are a differnet denomination. I would prefer "Assyrian Christians" from members of that church. Nestorian is an abusinve term used by others. Syriac is an older English term for their languaage. In the Middle East, denominational distinctions have been so longstanding that they are virtually ethnicities. I do not like "Assyrian people", as this might refer to the ancient Assyrians (who are distinct). I note Hazael, the Biblical king of Aram (or KJV - Syria) is listed; this is incorrect, possibkly due to a previosu rename. I fear that this is a case of Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I would suggest that the categories all be tagged ((expert)), and that we leave well alone until an expert has eben found. The various categories need to be split according to the precise church involved, all probably becomeing subcategories of Category:Eastern Christian people, or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made this note five days ago. Have you done anything in that time to find an expert yet? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles have been in need of attention from experts for a while, as these distinctions and the terminology are very muddled and contentious. That said, Based on my knowledge, (modern) Assyrians and Syriacs are considered separate groups. As such I oppose this nom and the further ideas as factually incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 03:03, 9 October 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: Merge Category:Surface transit in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area to Category:Maryland Transit Administration. --Xdamr^talk 21:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Surface transit in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area to Category:Maryland Transit Administration

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. Since this nomination sounds reasoable, I decided to bring it here. Debresser (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unless I'm missing something. These appear to be two different topics. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. All articles in the category (except the historical United Railways and Electric Company, which can be upmerged directly to Category:Transportation in Baltimore, Maryland) are services or facilities of MTA Maryland, which despite its name exclusively serves the greater Baltimore area. I could not locate any analogous categories for any other major U.S. city.-choster (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I started my digging at United Railways and Electric Company. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:41, 29 September 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: Reverse merge to Category:Université de Moncton alumni. The only argument for merging to the "non-Frenchified" name is so that it will match the main article. The Frenchified name is certainly the university's legal name and the one that is used most commonly, at least within New Brunswick and the rest of Canada. If in process of time the proposed move of the main article is rejected, then I think it could be entirely appropriate to re-nominate this category for naming back to the non-Frenchified version. We could have held this in abeyance to await the result of the article move discussion, but that is not to be preferred since currently we have two different categories for one concept. Better to get this resolved one way or the other, even if it's only temporary. Anyway, the parent category Category:Université de Moncton and the sibling category Category:Université de Moncton faculty both use the Frenchified version, so this is at least bringing some consistency within the category system. I'm also willing to go out on a limb and say that I'm relatively confident the article will be moved. Probably. If I turn out to be wrong, you can all force me to drink motor oil. Again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Université de Moncton alumni to Category:University of Moncton alumni

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. Université de Moncton is a redirect to University of Moncton, so I think this merge is obvious. Although a comment on Category talk:University of Moncton alumni seems to indicate otherwise. Debresser (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, going on what was said, about N.B. government legislation/policy, on the talk page for the article page Mayumashu (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The university is the Université de Moncton. http://www.umoncton.ca/english/ DoubleBlue (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you shouldn't say "oppose" but "reverse merge". But our Wikipedia article is University of Moncton, and that is what counts. Unless you want to first rename that article. Debresser (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are right. I do oppose the merge as proposed but a merge is obviously desirable, just in the reverse direction. I do think the article was incorrectly moved to University of Moncton and should be moved back but there is no need for that to happen first. All other francophone universities in Canada are named in French because that is how they are known, even in English. I believe that the Université de Moncton should follow that. The university calls itself that, in English. Whatever, whoever states what on the talk page, the NB gov't legislation is the "Université de Moncton Act". DoubleBlue (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DoubleBlue. The article is not correctly titled, so this merge should be undertaken in the reverse direction. DB, are you going to propose a page move for the article? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've stated the case there but thought I might wait till this discussion was complete till formally proposing a proper move. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about doing it now? Given that the category name should flow from the article name, shouldn't a decision be made about the article first, rather than vice versa? Thoughts? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a proper discussion of the merits should be able to held here independently with the participants understanding that an article move will be proposed. I thought it would be a bit confusing to have two discussions on the same topic going on at the same time though and felt it'd be clearer to wrap up this earlier one first. I've also seen category names purposely given different names than the article name, though not in this kind of situation. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but CANSTYLE does state that the category name flows from the article, not the other way around. And if we conclude this discussion, then do an RM at the article, we may end up with conflicting results (given that I suspect that an RM discussion may attract different participants). Finally, as it stands now, we are not moving towards consensus in this discussion for either option. It would be one thing if there was a clear consensus here, which we would build upon over at the article afterwards, but there isn't. Maybe that will change, but I have my doubts. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge the categories without any connection to what might or might not be decided about a rename. Debresser (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do that? Wouldn't the more prudent thing be to hold this discussion in abeyance until we decide where the article is going to be. Once that decision has been made, then in keeping with WP:CANSTYLE, I would support making the category consistent with the article title (whatever it is). In any event, it doesn't appear that there is consensus (yet) for this move (as proposed), so what is the rush? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should obviously be merged in the proper direction now. It would be a waste of time and resources and confusing for editors to merge one way now and then rename the other way a week later. There is no reason why competent editors cannot properly evaluate the clear reasons for the direction of the merge here and now. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a UdeM student, I have never seen "University of Moncton" used in any official documentation, either inside or outside of the university, regardless of language. This is essentially the equivalent of switching École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées to National School of Bridges and Roads. Everything should be shifted to "Université de Moncton", category, article, etc... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per DoubleBlue. Université de Moncton is the common name in English. I have opened a move discussion to move the article back to Université de Moncton. Jafeluv (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match tile of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:31, 14 October 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: Merge Category:Self constructs to Category:Conceptions of self. --Xdamr^talk 21:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Self constructs to Category:Conceptions of self

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. There is an opinion about it on Category talk:Conceptions of self. Please note that 2 of the only 5 articles are in the target category already. This post is not an endorsement of the nomination, although it does not seem unreasonable to me. Debresser (talk) 02:18, 29 September 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: Merge Category:Sega Genesis game covers to Category:Mega Drive game covers. --Xdamr^talk 21:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Sega Genesis game covers to Category:Mega Drive game covers

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. There has been some discussion at Category talk:Mega Drive game covers. Since Sega Genesis is produced by Mega Drive, this is a correct nomination. On the other hand, this might be a valid attempt to remove some images of that large category (200 images) to a subcategory. So I decided to bring this to the community. Debresser (talk) 02:09, 29 September 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:Science fiction series navigational boxes to Category:Science fiction series templates. --Xdamr^talk 21:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Science fiction series navigational boxes to Category:Science fiction series templates

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. I think this is a logical nomination, since all navboxes are templates, and I see no reason to have a separate category for the navboxes. Debresser (talk) 02:01, 29 September 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: Merge Category:Roman toponymy to Category:Latin place-names. --Xdamr^talk 21:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Roman toponymy to Category:Latin names of places

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. I think "Roman toponymy" is the wrong name, since the articles are not about the "science of names" (=toponymy) as such. Also notice that these categories largely overlap. Debresser (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are Latin names of places, and then there are names assigned to places by the Roman Empire, the two are not equivalent, since Latin place names kept being invented long after the fall of the Roman Empire, afterall, Latin was the lingua franca of Europe... and we still use it to name animals and plants and such. I would say cleanup the categorization, redistribute the category tree, and rename the "Roman" category to Category:Roman Empire toponyms or Category:Roman Empire place names 76.66.197.30 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge both to Category:Latin place-names. There is a distinction between Latin and Roman here. The Latin article in Britain is largely concerned with medieval Latin names (often for post-Roman towns), whereas the Roman one with Roman Britain (many of whose names did not survive the end of the empire). However the Welsh section is inappropriately in the Latin article rather than the Roman one. Another muddle! Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 2 October 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: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 22:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Publications by interest to Category:Publications by topic

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. There has been some discussion at Category talk:Publications by topic. Since I don't really know what to think of this nomination, I decided to bring this here for the community to give its opinion. Debresser (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge There's a difference. This one contains such things as Conservative publication, Feminist publications -- publications intended for Conservatives, or feminists; the other, Criminology publications, Business publications, -- publications about business, or crime. Anarchist publications is currently in both, but it should only be in publications by interest--it's publications for anarchists, not historical or sociological studies of anarchism. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried a similar merge on a FOO by interest/topic a while back, and it was rejected. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 29 September 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: RESOLVED and WITHDRAWN. Postdlf (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Protests in the People's Republic of China to Category:Riots and civil unrest in the People's Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. There has been some discussion at Category talk:Protests in the People's Republic of China. Since I found some articles about riots in this cateory, and "protests" are often connected with "riots and civil unrest", I think this is a reasonable nomination, and decided to bring it here. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not merge These are not the same, any mis-categorized articles to the contrary notwithstanding. There are separate category trees starting down from Category:Riots and Category:Protests Hmains (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the articles, and removed five articles from the riot category, that were previously in both. I am willing to drop the nomination. Debresser (talk) 04:17, 29 September 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: Merge. Jafeluv (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Pornographic sub-genres to Category:Pornography by genre

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. Since this nomination seems very logical to me, I decided to bring it here. Debresser (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The whole idea or distinction of Category:Subgenres is dubious. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. "Foo by genre" is pretty common for category names where genres are relevant, but "sub-genre" is unusual, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about the articles to justify a different term. Several of the articles classified under "sub-genres" even describe the subject in the lead as being a "genre". --RL0919 (talk) 22:05, 2 October 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: Merge Category:Physical property to Category:Physical quantities. --Xdamr^talk 21:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Physical property to Category:Physical quantities

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. Although an article Physical property exists, I feel the articles in this category indeed are more about Physical quantities. It may even be that the articles should be merged. But that is another question. Debresser (talk) 01:29, 29 September 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Jafeluv (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Object-based programming languages to Category:Object-oriented programming languages

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. Since I simply don't understand enough about what looks like a reasonable proposal, I decided to bring it here. Debresser (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not merge Object-oriented programming languages are a proper subset of Object-based languages, as can be found in the text of the articles. Hmains (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the experts say. I am willing to drop the nomination. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 30 September 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: Merge. Jafeluv (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Neighborhoods in New Rochelle, New York to Category:New Rochelle, New York

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. It was originally a nomination for a merge into some non-existing category, but in view of the fact that there is only one article in this category, I think an upmerge would be in order. Debresser (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it was me what apparently incorrectly tagged the category back in Feb 2009. I just added a 2nd article to the category. The category could include more articles already, but is artificially constrained by conflict between a New Rochelle area banned contributor vs. some administrators. To me, though I supported limiting development to a List of New Rochelle neighborhoods article back then, it seems obvious that there are more wikipedia-notable article possibilities for the category. But, honestly, i don't see the difference, Category:New Rochelle seems okay, too. doncram (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering that the category was created by a banned user who was editing in violation of the ban, and the only other edits were Doncram's merger proposal, this one qualifies for speedy deletion (or speedy merger) under G5. --Orlady (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Too few related articles to merit a separate subcategory. No prejudice against its recreation if there are enough articles created to keep the category well populated. — ξ ^xplicit 02:17, 16 October 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 to Category:Art museums and galleries in Melbourne. Someone will need to cleanup the contents based on this rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Museums and galleries in Melbourne to Category:Museums in Melbourne

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. Although "museums and galleries" is the more encompassing name, I think the merge should be into "museums" and not the other way around, because the gallery is a museum anyway, and it is the only gallery among more than twenty musea. A reverse merge remains a possibility though, and definitely better than having two categories. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge Not all galleries are museums: see in this category, for example Melbourne Arts Precinct, & Gertrude Contemporary Art Spaces DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. I have moved 2 in each direction; the Heide Museum of Modern Art belongs in both, leaving 5 "galleries" in this cat. Many categories have this form. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Art museums and galleries in Melbourne to match the existing structure, as this is clearly used for art institutions, not museums generally. Postdlf (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea, but will involve some rearranging - at the moment the National Gallery of Victoria, the big art gallery, is in the main Category:Museums in Melbourne, not here. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to more accurately reflect the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Postlfd to match siblings under Category:Art museums and galleries by city. Jafeluv (talk) 10:22, 16 October 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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Songs written by Giorgio Moroder to Category:Giorgio Moroder songs

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. There has been some discussion at Category talk:Giorgio Moroder songs. Since the nomination makes sense, the disagreement in that discussion not withstanding, I decided to bring it here. Debresser (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As I mentioned on the talkpage before this was brought here, "Giorgio Moroder songs" means (or at least is supposed to mean, songs recorded by Giorgio Moroder, whereas "songs written by Giorgio Moroder" means precisely that. In the songs written by there are entries which Moroder did not record as a recording artist. This kind of nomination has been made at CfD before and rejected. May I remind you that, and just off the top of my head, this nomination would equally apply Sheryl Crow, Phil Collins, Jagger/Richard, Lennon/McCartney, Garth Brooks, Dolly Parton, Billy Ray Cyrus, if fact, to every performer who has also recorded their own songs. What should happen is "xxx songs" should renamed "songs recorded by xxx" and then every reader will understand the difference. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per Richhoncho, whose analysis is exemplary. Occuli (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It is precisely for this type of explanation that I brought this and other categories here. I am willing to drop the nomination. Debresser (talk) 07:23, 30 September 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: Merge Category:Military supply to Category:Military logistics. --Xdamr^talk 21:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Military supply to Category:Military logistics

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know, there has been no discussion. Since I find it a reasonable nomination, I decided to bring it here. Debresser (talk) 01:10, 29 September 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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Judaism in the Czech Republic to Category:Jews and Judaism in the Czech Republic

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. This is basically an upmerge. Since I think it has merit, in order to avoid a seemingly unnecessary layer, I decided to bring it here. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up/sidemerge to appropriate cats per nom - eg the rabbis are already in the Czech Jews sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 30 September 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Jazz rock albums to Category:Jazz fusion albums

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. Since Jazz rock is a redirect to Jazz fusion, I think it this is a good idea. Debresser (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- While the Jazz fusion article is kind of a catch all, it does suggest that not all Jazz fusion albums have to be "fused" with rock, does it not? And if that's the case, should jazz rock albums stay as a subcat to Jazz fusion? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jazz-rock is only one form of jazz fusion. There's also, for example, jazz-funk which has its own category (Category:Jazz-funk albums). The terminology varies depending on who's using it (some would put Weather Report and Mahavishnu Orchestra under jazz-rock), but I don't think an umerge is justified here. Jafeluv (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't like jazz, so I really don't know anything about it. Just bringing this nomination here to have it decided. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:33, 14 October 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 21:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I found this category with an incorrect tag for merge into Category:Immigration by country. There has been a post about this on Category talk:Immigration by continent. I think the name "Immigration by continent" can not be applied to the articles in this category, and see no reason to keep it. However, I can imagine other people might have other ideas about it, so I decided to bring this here. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep separate How can Immigration to Europe, for example, be included in Immigration by country? We could dod similar articles about other regions, and we should. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 29 September 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: Merge all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:House of la Marck to Category:House of De la Mark

Suggest merging Category:House of Mark to Category:House of De la Mark

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there has been no discussion. I propose to merge to "De la Mark" since that name seems to be the most correct and most know, based on the information I have seen. See also De la Marck. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 29 September 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: merge both into Category:Horse archer civilizations and empires. Jafeluv (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Horse archer civilizations to Category:Horse archer empires

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. There has been some discussion on Category talk:Horse archer civilizations. Apart from 1 of the 13 articles, these categories are identical, so a merge, either this way or the other way around, seems logical. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, maybe to Category:Horse archer civilizations and empires. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also an idea. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge maybe per Carlaude. Category:Nomadic Empires of Central Asia only has one article; not sure if this fits all of these, but ideally it should be tidied up too. As the editor on the category talk says, "nomadic" is perhaps the better overall term. Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 3 October 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: Merge Category:Danaidae to Category:Danainae. --Xdamr^talk 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Danaidae to Category:Danainae

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know, there is no discussion. A possible rationale for the merge may be found on the Category:Danainae page. Debresser (talk) 00:21, 29 September 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: Merge all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 21:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Heating devices to Category:Heating

Suggest merging Category:Heating methods to Category:Heating

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. This is basicaly an upmerge. As far as I know, there has been no discussion. Although I have my doubts about this nomination, I think it best to let the community decide. Debresser (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. Yuck. Upmerge but allow some new categories as needed. Even some of the articles in this tree don't need to be there. Some were merged and recreated. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 29 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Concentration camps to Category:Internment camps

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. There has been some discussion on Category talk:Internment camps. Since I think this proposal has merit, I decided to bring it here. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category:Concentration camps are a unique well defined type of internment camps. We are better served by keeping this very well populated category with many subcategories that significantly aids navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed. Very specific. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vegasikian.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is a distinction between them. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 2 October 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 22:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Chinese Canadians from Hong Kong to Category:Hong Kong Canadians

Suggest merging Category:Hong Kong immigrants to Canada to Category:Hong Kong Canadians

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. There has been some discussion on Category talk:Chinese Canadians from Hong Kong. Since it sounds reasonable, I decided to post it here. This is no endorsement for the nomination from my side. Debresser (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Not all (so-called) 'Hong Kong Canadians' are ethnically Chinese and not all immigrants to Canada become citizens of Canada. These are three distinctly different categories Mayumashu (talk) 09:23, 29 September 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: merge. Jafeluv (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Brainwashing techniques to Category:Mind control methods

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there is no discussion. Because the category is relatively small and indeed closely related to the target, I decided to leave it up to your expertise. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Brainwashing redirects to mind control, the intro of which lists the latter term as a synonym; there does not appear to be a meaningful distinction. Or perhaps that's just what I want you to think. Postdlf (talk) 03:40, 4 October 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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ancient Indian culture to Category:Ancient India

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. As far as I know there is no discussion. Because the category is relatively small and indeed closely related to the target, I decided to leave it up to your expertise. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not merge These are different subjects. Category:Ancient Indian culture is properly a subset of Category:Ancient India as is Category:Indian culture of Category:India. Hmains (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate subcategory. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 29 September 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 to Category:Scholars and academics by subject. I think that an offline discussion to consider Category:Academics and Category:Scholars and how they should be used would be helpful for future debates. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Academics by subject to Category:Scholars by subject

Nominator's rationale: I found this incorrectly tagged nomination. There has been a discussion about it on Category talk:Scholars by subject. Since I think it has merit, either this way or the other way around, I decided to post it here. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment This actually has a larger question: do we need both of the following category trees starting with Category:Academics and Category:Scholars? If not, which tree to keep and which tree to purge. If we need both, how are they to be distinguished? Hmains (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered that, but that seems correct. Debresser (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Scholars and academics by subject and similarly for all the other categories. This was Johnbod's suggestion originally, seems the most inclusive way to do it, and seems to be the consensus position at the discussions--and is also the position I took there. But looking at the discussions, they date from 2007, and probably the consensus there should be confirmed DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that? I can't see it in this debate from me - I think it was the late lamented Lquilter. Anyway, it sounds a reasonable solution, but I'll think further. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, not so much "late" as perhaps "tardy". Reports of my lateness have been greatly exaggerated. --Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The branches have come up before several times. An academic is a scholar who is affiliated with an academic institution; a researcher in the employ of the government or a think tank could be a scholar but not an academic. I am agnostic as to whether that distinction is necessary or useful for WP.-choster (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Darwin is a useful example to think about. He was never employed by a university. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so then (in theory) we would consider Category:Academics (people not subjects) a subset of Category:Scholars, I think the Category:Academics is not all that clearly about particular people only. I lean toward [Scholars and academics by subject], etc. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Category:Scholars and academics by subject or Category:Scholars by subject. Merge sub-categories to names of the agreed pattern OR not merge, on a case by case basis. It may be useful for some subjects but not others.^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Scholars and academics by subject. We recently had a discussion over a "by nationlity" categorisation, and I think that was the outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Category:Scholars and academics by subject or Category:Scholars by subject. Sub-trees would generally follow the larger tree but there might be some exceptions that need special treatment. (Now, back to my "maternity leave".) --Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 3 October 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: Recreate Category:Characters created by Grant Morrison. Jafeluv (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed recreation A precedent established by categories such as Category:Characters created by Stan Lee and Category:Characters created by Jack Kirby have rendered the reason for this category's deletion outdated, i.e. categories for characters created by a comics creator can include characters only co-created.--Marcus Brute (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note previous discussion is here Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support recreation. Definitely do that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Recreation as proposed. Alansohn (talk) 23:35, 14 October 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:Film based Batman arcade and video games to Category:Arcade and video games based on Batman films. --Xdamr^talk 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Film based Batman arcade and video games to Category:Arcade and video games based on Batman films

Nominator's rationale: Rename - current name is malformed. The rename could be "Film-based..." but I think my proposal is more elegant and clearer. In the alternatives this could be viewed as a narrow triple intersection of "video games" "based on films" "about Batman" and upmerged to its parents, neither of which is overly large. Otto4711 (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The new name is less muddled.--Marcus Brute (talk) 00:51, 29 September 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.

September 29

Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets track players

Category:Daughters of dukes; Category:Daughters of marquesses; Category:Daughters of earls

Category:British Columbia Lions

Western (genre) films

Category:UEFA Cup 1993-94

Category:College athletics

Category:Convicted British child molesters

Category:Pure Reason Revolution

Category:Railway stations in Baghelkhand Region

Category:Ford class aircraft carriers

Category:Girl albums

Category:Shipwrecks of NSW

Category:Organized crime groups

Category:Kings of Sicily

Category:Kings of Naples

Category:Syriac people

Category:Surface transit in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area

Category:Université de Moncton alumni

Category:Self constructs

Category:Sega Genesis game covers

Category:Science fiction series navigational boxes

Category:Roman toponymy

Category:Publications by interest

Category:Protests in the People's Republic of China

Category:Pornographic sub-genres

Category:Physical property

Category:Object-based programming languages

Category:Neighborhoods in New Rochelle, New York

Category:Museums and galleries in Melbourne

Category:Songs written by Giorgio Moroder

Category:Military supply

Category:Judaism in the Czech Republic

Category:Jazz rock albums

Category:Immigration by continent

Category:House of la Marck

Category:Horse archer civilizations

Category:Danaidae

Category:Heating devices

Category:Concentration camps

Category:Chinese Canadians from Hong Kong

Category:Brainwashing techniques

Category:Ancient Indian culture

Category:Academics by subject

Category:Characters created by Grant Morrison

Category:Film based Batman arcade and video games