< September 4	September 6 >

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 10:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging and then deletion Category:Ecology of Africa to Category:Natural history of Africa

Nominator's rationale: Inapprop category name. Not likely to be populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Africa is not a political unit. The arguments for the others doesn't seem to apply at all See the examples below for America. book titles Wild Africa : exploring the African habitats. Ecology of African pastoralist societies, Man's environmental predicament: an introduction to human ecology in tropical Africa, and, finally, the journal title African journal of ecology. There are a few thousand more. DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say Africa is a political unit?? Admittedly ecologyat a continent scale is better than a country, state or territory scale. You are equating books with WP categories. This is a bit of a long bow. Categories are the equivalent to the Dewey or LC classifications. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If hundreds of books are written about a general topic,iit shows , first, that there is a strong probability of there being a great number of smaller topics within it that probably could have articles, and that there is a common distinctive theme. One book doesn't show it, but when there are enough to show that it's an entire field of study & writing, both popular and scientific, then they do. And, speaking of LC classification, LC has subject headings such as "ecology--Brazil" and many others DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all – I get the impression that the nom merely objects to the word ecology. Occuli (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What??!! Lets keep our eye on the ball rather than making assumptions about whether I object to the word ecology. I do object to the word being used incorrectly. WP must be very careful about the use of words. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all There are different uses of the term "ecology" (which, perhaps thanks to the nom, are not properly explained at that article) and this is a POV effort to suppress use of one of them. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are different uses of the word ecology and here at WP we must spell out in which context it is being used. WP categories should use the most prevalent use of the word (ie ecology). As for the being POV I have no idea what you mean. And how can I suppress stuff on WP. It is open editng, consensus driven with all page histories being able to be viewed. Please use debate and discussion rather than dubious demeanor!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as these both categorize different defining characteristics. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are different, then why is one the parent of the other? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two reasons 1. category contains only 1 subcategory 2. all argumets mentioned before to keep "per coutry" categories don't apply. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 7 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. --Xdamr^talk 10:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Ecology is the study of ecosystems and does not end at political borders. Ecology has often been confused with environment (biophysical) or environmental issues. WP should avoid confusing readers. The contents of the category can be moved to more appropriate categories. The category is not likely to be populated since the more approp Category:Environment of the United States, Category:Natural history of the United States exist.

See also:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_8#Category:Ecology_of_Hong_Kong
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_27#merge_Category:Environment_into_Category:Environmentalism
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_29#Category:Ecology_by_country -- Alan Liefting
Keep all It may not not at political borders, but it can be studied that way. DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure "it can be studied that way" but it does not have to be categorised that way. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - this is a repeat cfd by the same nom. See June 2009. The last time the nom had personally emptied and disorganised the categories before the cfd. Occuli (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are different uses of the term "ecology" (which, perhaps thanks to the nom, are not properly explained at that article) and this is a POV effort to suppress use of one of them. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are different uses of the word ecology and here at WP we must spell out in which context it is being used. WP categories should use the most prevalent use of the word (ie ecology). As for the being POV I have no idea what you mean. And how can I suppress stuff on WP. It is open editng, consensus driven with all page histories being able to be viewed. Please use debate and discussion rather than dubious demeanor!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-defined category for a defining characteristic that serves a different purpose from the environment and natural history cats. Alansohn (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the subject of ecology is covered by natioanl media and treated by national governments. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 7 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This doesn't have enough articles to require a full category. TTN (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Donkey Kong. I agree with TTN's assessment of the need for this category, but we should upmerge so that the articles remain in the Donkey Kong category tree. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge since with 2 articles is too small. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 7 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:Anime and manga about music to Category:Music-themed anime and manga. --Xdamr^talk 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anime and manga about music to Category:Musical anime and manga

Nominator's rationale: In order to agree with the naming of similar xxx anime and manga categories viewable in Category:Anime and manga by genre. --十八 21:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the argument, but I find the proposed name syntactically ambiguous. A "music anime" does not convey the same thing that, say, "anime about music" does, and makes me wonder whether "musical" was intended, or "music from", or something else. "Music manga" is even worse. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or to put it another way, there is no genre of "music anime", the way there are other genres in Category:Anime and manga by genre, such as "sports anime" and "mystery anime". —Quasirandom (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay then, Musical anime and manga then, or we can just delete the category altogether.--十八 03:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opoose per Quasirandom, suggested alternate names are confusing. A "musical anime" should be a musical. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that sounds to close to the musical genre then what about Category:Music themed anime and manag or Category:Musically themed anime and manag?陣内_Jinnai 08:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Music themed" is better. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:Music themed anime and manga (am I the only one who feels like there should be a dash in music-themed, though?). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, just go ahead and make that a support for Category:Music-themed anime and manga. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:Music-themed anime and manga, adding the Dino's hyphen. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, "the Dino"? Never heard that one before... =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it was better than "D-guy". —Quasirandom (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I have been known as DG or DG1000 (or DG1k or DGM) before, if you're looking for abbreviations... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With or without the hyphen is fine.陣内 _Jinnai 08:27, 10 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: Speedy Delete. WP:CSD#G7 - At author's request. --Xdamr^talk 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:Living museums in New York was broken down into too many sub categories that are no longer needed. There are not enough museums to populate each sub category. I proposed the deletion of the following sub categories:

Category:Living museums in Erie County, New York

Category:Living museums in Essex County, New York

Category:Living museums in Monroe County, New York

Category:Living museums in Montgomery County, New York

Category:Living museums in Nassau County, New York

Category:Living museums in Onondaga County, New York

Category:Living museums in Staten Island

I apologize if this is not correct format for this discussion topic. Jllm06 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- all categories are now empty, presumably as a result of an out-of-process merge to the parent catgory. Otherwise I would have said merge as nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created most if not all of these in a good faith, but poorly planned design. Jlim06 and I had talk page conversations about just this point, and I agree moving them up to the "Living museums in New York" page is the correct action. I just put db-author on them so hopefully we can speed these up.... dm (talk) 00:58, 6 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 discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was 'Keep'. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - if the only commonality between these films is that they happen to be the first film by a director then I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value of it. The first film by, say, a freelance Lithuanian director in 1932 seems to have nothing in common with a first film by for instance a contracted Hollywood director in 1951 or a self-financed independent Canadian director in 2003. Otto4711 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The parent category Category:Debuts by medium has not been CFDed, and until a broader discussion happens, I'm loathe to support singling out the film category for deletion. Also, I do believe there is a commonality between all the examples offered: and it is simply that it is their first (professional, we have a student film cat, now) film. And whether one is a Baltic director in '32 or a freelance filmmaker in Toronto today, I do believe that's a pretty big and defining deal. I guess your point about a Hollywood contract director in the studio system days is that it's less "his" (or her) film and that's likely very true, but still doesn't sway me to delete. There's no easy way to listify this, so deleting the category would be a real loss, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The easy way of listing it would just be to list the category contents, if such a list is deemed desirable. I'm still not seeing what links Bambi II to Filth and Wisdom to The Natural History of Parking Lots to The Goddess to Journey's End (some of which are in the category; others not). What does knowing that each of these is the first film by a director (whose name is unknown from the category) tell us about any of the films, any of the directors or any supposed relationship of the films or the directors to one another? Otto4711 (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel the same way about Category:Debut novels? Is there any particular reason why you decided to start with the film category? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started with this category because it was added to a couple of articles on my watchlist. I didn't realize there were other debut categories, but yeah, I think I feel the same way about them too. Otto4711 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow this discussion to see if there is anything that decisively tips the scales for me towards changing my vote. And if this category is deleted, I'll nominate the others, just on a procedural basis if nothing else. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but consider listifying to Talk:List of directorial debuts/Category list. It seems to me that this category exists more to present information within articles, something that categories are not intended for, rather than to create a meaningful grouping for purposes of navigation between articles. However, I believe that the information could be incorporated into the existing list. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 02:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the first professional works by various creative artists strikes me as very interesting way to group a set. I can see wanting to datamine to find what the commonalities and differences between debut works are. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting suggestion, but I don't think that deletion of the category would prevent someone from datamining, since they could do the same using content from the list of directorial debuts. Also, while the category function can be used to create groupings on the basis of any characteristic, Wikipedia categories are supposed to reflect established and logical groupings for the purpose of facilitating navigation between related articles, not to provide raw data for research. In any case, any such research done by an editor would be inappropriate for the encyclopedia (Wikipedia:No original research). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining attirbute to each film. To use Otto's rationale - a Lithuanian film from 1932 would have nothing in common with a Hollywood film of the same year, so why keep Category:1932 films, for example? We do, because it's defining. Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is the link between films made decades apart with no people in common, just because it is a first film? To answer your question, films made in the same year can share cultural and technological features, something that debut films do not. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant category, important in the study of film. The study of film by director is one of the basic theoretical approaches. Useful for browsing, also. "The first movies someone makes" seems a very reasonable idea. Should be a list also-- they're complementary. DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the evidence that directorial debuts without anything else in common is a theoretical approach, basic or otherwise. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on Amazon finds the books My First Movie: Twenty Celebrated Directors Talk about Their First Film, First Films: Illustrious, Obscure, and Embarrassing Movie Debuts... And I know I've seen film critics compare where different directors were at the same stage in their career to compare and contrast their development (of Godard's A Bout de Souffle, for example, Ebert said No debut film since "Citizen Kane" in 1942 has been as influential."). Postdlf (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; directorial debuts are significant and defining, IMO. The same could not be said for, e.g., swan songs (a director's final film), except perhaps for those directors who knew that it would be their final film. =) Powers ^T 13:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A first film, just as a Category:Debut novels, is a strong defining characteristic that is used in the real world as a means of categorizing films. Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shawn in Montreal. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, defining of the films and a common comparison to make in film studies and reviews. Postdlf (talk) 15:56, 8 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:Dragon Ball episodes to Category:Dragon Ball episode lists. --Xdamr^talk 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dragon Ball episodes to Category:Dragon Ball episode lists

Nominator's rationale: More correct name for the category as all entries are lists; mirrors Category:Bleach episode lists -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - only categorizes lists, and I don't see any valid articles on individual episodes being created any time soon. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:19, 8 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 six—the categories are empty and nothing needs to be merged. Ruslik_Zero 07:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This kind of detail for a category is ridiculously unnecessary. Sorting by position AND century? Why? A player's article indicated what century he lived in. It's just unnecessary. ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have combined 3 identical nominations, which needd to be discussed together. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to position/nationality -- categorisation by century is itterly unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are, as you know, also master cats Category:Gridiron football running backs by century and Category:American football running backs by century. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and Category:Canadian football running backs by century. I think that's all of them. I wonder if the closing admin can merge/delete all six categories, depending upon the consensus? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to position/nationality. I don't know why user:Mayumashu is so insistent on creating these unnecessary categories and cluttering up cfd in the process; unfortunately they can be created more quickly than they can be removed. Occuli (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If these are unnecessary, as most users who have talked about them here of late feel, it seems, then there needs to be nomination/discussion on Category:People by occupation and century. As long as that supercategory page exists, each bio should have some link to it. I put the detail in thinking the lists would be too long, but now see, again from recent comments, that likely the long lists are more popular (eg. Category:20th-century sportspeople and not Category:20th-century male football (soccer) forwards etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem seems to be overcategorization at the position level. I generally don't have an issue with the top-level categories and have no interest in nominating or discussing those. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The soccer project guys are trying to see them removed at the by sport level with the following nomination [1], so I don t know. There should be consistency amoungst different sports on at what level these cats are refined or kept broad Mayumashu (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all categories listed above to position/nationality. These century categories are perfect examples of overcategorisation. So what if an individual lived sometime in one arbitrary hundred year period as opposed to another. Is there any difference between a player who played in the 1990s and one who played in the 2000s? None whatsoever. There's much more difference between one who played in the 1920s and one who played in the 1990s. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 9 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:Graduates of Oxford School of Drama to Category:Alumni of the Oxford School of Drama. --Xdamr^talk 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Graduates of Oxford School of Drama to Category:Alumni of the Oxford School of Drama

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard category naming, cf. Category:People by educational institution in England or Category:Alumni by university or college in England. Tassedethe (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to consistently use "alumni". Alansohn (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nominator per speedy criteria #4. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 9 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:Grade B listed churches in London to Category:Grade II* listed churches in London. --Xdamr^talk 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Grade B listed churches in London to Category:Grade II* listed churches in London

Nominator's rationale: Merge. As explained in the listed building article grade B, in the context of English Anglican churches, is a now defunct grading scheme equivalent to grade II*. I suggest upmerging to Category:Grade II* listed churches in London (which also explains the old grade B rating). Tassedethe (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. GRade B is obsolete. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. It's unnecessary to make a distinction between the obsolete Grade B and the current Grade II*. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 9 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:Philippine political scandals to Category:Political scandals in the Philippines. --Xdamr^talk 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Philippine political scandals to Category:Political scandals in the Philippines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming per Category:Political scandals by country. Tassedethe (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match entries in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nominator. This is speedy criteria #4. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 7 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:Gotra to Category:Gotras. --Xdamr^talk 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Gotra to Category:Gotras

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Redundant cat, examples of Gotra should under the correct plural cat. Tassedethe (talk) 14:39, 5 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:Poland–Czech Republic relations to Category:Czech Republic – Poland relations
Category:Czech Republic–Poland relations to Category:Czech Republic – Poland relations

--Xdamr^talk 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Poland–Czech Republic relations to Category:Czech Republic–Poland relations

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Standard naming for bilateral relations categories is alphabetical by state. See below and earlier discussion. Tassedethe (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:Czech Republic – Poland relations (spaces reqd per WP:DASH). Also consider renaming Poland – Czech Republic relations to Czech Republic – Poland relations. Occuli (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the same principle applies re spacing a standard dash – Poland-Czech Republic sounds like a republic owned in some joint way by 2 entities. Occuli (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to alphabetical order, oppose use of non-standard keyboard character in category names as a barrier to navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to alphabetical order, oppose use of non-standard keyboard character in category names as a barrier to navigation. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge to alphabetical order, Support matching titles of parent articles, even where non-standard keyboard characters are used, as an aid to consistent matching of categories and associated articles in category names. Despite the often proffered claim that non-standard characters are "a barrier to navigation", no one types category names other than those who create and edit articles and the fact that we have no issues with other special characters. Alansohn (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Occuli (include space per WP:DASH). I also agree with Alansohn here. (Can somebody bronze this statement for me, please?) There may be some merit to banning all non-standard characters from categories, but until we do, I don't see a good reason to single out the en-dash. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to alphabetical order, oppose use of non-standard keyboard character in category names as a barrier to navigation. Garion96 (talk) 17:35, 7 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:Bolivia-Peru relations to Category:Bolivia – Peru relations
Category:Bolivia-Paraguay relations to Category:Bolivia – Paraguay relations
Category:Colombia-Peru relations to Category:Colombia – Peru relations
Category:Colombia-United States relations to Category:Colombia – United States relations
Category:Germany–Belarus relations to Category:Belarus – Germany relations
Category:Germany-Namibia relations to Category:Germany – Namibia relations
Category:Germany–The Netherlands relations to Category:Germany – Netherlands relations
Category:Germany-United States relations to Category:Germany – United States relations
Category:Greco–Bulgarian relations to Category:Bulgaria – Greece relations
Category:Greek–Serbian relations to Category:Greece – Serbia relations
Category:Haiti–Dominican Republic relations to Category:Dominican Republic – Haiti relations
Category:India–Bangladesh relations to Category:Bangladesh – India relations
Category:Morocco-Spain relations to Category:Morocco – Spain relations
Category:Peru-United States relations to Category:Peru – United States relations
Category:Poland–Belarus relations to Category:Belarus – Poland relations
Category:Portugal-Spain relations to Category:Portugal – Spain relations

Consensus for use of nouns and alphabetical ordering of country names - no consensus on fraught, vexed, and tedious question of use of non-standard keyboard characters. Therefore I have decided to set all WP:DASH issues aside and rename all categories to be consistent with Category:Czech Republic – Poland relations above. Editors who continue to feel strongly about the dash issue are advised to make this specific point the subject of a group nomination. --Xdamr^talk 18:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Bolivia-Peru relations to Category:Bolivia–Peru relations
Category:Bolivia-Paraguay relations to Category:Bolivia–Paraguay relations
Category:Colombia-Peru relations to Category:Colombia–Peru relations
Category:Colombia-United States relations to Category:Colombia–United States relations
Category:Germany–Belarus relations to Category:Belarus–Germany relations
Category:Germany-Namibia relations to Category:Germany–Namibia relations
Category:Germany–The Netherlands relations to Category:Germany–Netherlands relations
Category:Germany-United States relations to Category:Germany–United States relations
Category:Greco–Bulgarian relations to Category:Bulgaria–Greece relations
Category:Greek–Serbian relations to Category:Greece–Serbia relations
Category:Haiti–Dominican Republic relations to Category:Dominican Republic–Haiti relations
Category:India–Bangladesh relations to Category:Bangladesh–India relations
Category:Morocco-Spain relations to Category:Morocco–Spain relations
Category:Peru-United States relations to Category:Peru–United States relations
Category:Poland–Belarus relations to Category:Belarus–Poland relations
Category:Portugal-Spain relations to Category:Portugal–Spain relations
Category:Republic of China – United States relations to Category:Republic of China–United States relations
Category:Russia – South Ossetia relations to Category:Russia–South Ossetia relations
Category:Russia – United Arab Emirates relations to Category:Russia–United Arab Emirates relations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is to achieve consistency in the naming of bilateral relations categories and follows a much larger renaming last year (see here). The renaming follows the principles laid out there: 1) The use of longdash (–) (per WP:NDASH), 2) alphabetical ordering of states, and 3) the use of noun forms for the states rather than adjectives (e.g. Greece not Greco or Greek). Tassedethe (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the last 3 already conform to WP:NDASH ('all disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items'), and some of the others need spaces. Otherwise I agree with the alphabetical idea, and also with the en-dash (as the associated article is thus named, if it has survived various afds on these). Occuli (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, now you've pointed that out it seems that pretty much all the United States and United Kingdom (and more) categories are incorrectly spaced. Tassedethe (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may just be best to speedy close this as make all correct, since there isn't really anything to debate. (Though this doesn't seem to be covered under the "Speedy criteria" section on the CfD page, just do it per IAR and SNOW.) They should all be changed to en dashes – spaced as necessary – per our dash guideline, and the alphabetical order seems to be established precedent. I would close it myself, but I don't know how we go about getting the bots to move things. ÷seresin 16:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There has long been an exemption from using those confusing dashes in some names, the first for images and the second for categories. Renaming to remove a character that is on the keyboard to be replaced by one that is not is generally not going to be approved. The changes need a full discussion and are clearly not allowed by any logic of the speedy criteria. Clearly there is something to debate. There is a reason that some types of renames are not included under the speedy criteria. Yes there is a difference between '- –' that many editors will miss unless they are right next to each other. Why do we need to make category names harder to enter? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think we should completely dispose of standard typographical practice because some people don't know how to type en dashes? And you'll have to direct me to where this exemption from WP:MOSDASH for categories is written. ÷seresin 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a choice between adhering to some arbitrary rule about using a character that the average person can't discern with the naked eye and making it easier for people to navigate categories through the search box, I'll go for ease of use every time. Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my computer at least (using Firefox, on a Mac) en dashes, while clearly discernible in the editing pane, appear identical to hyphens when typed in the search window. Don't know why that is, but it's a tricky one that can't be blamed solely on 'some people' being careless or ignorant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, ÷seresin's comment is a little ironic, in light of his user page which states: "I was initially named Alcemáe. But the acute made it difficult to type, as for some reason I can't use Alt codes on my laptop." Boy, some people. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose use of non-standard keyboard characters in category names as a barrier to navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per regulars and ample precedent. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use of em-dashes, but support alphabetisation of country pairs. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use of special dashes in category titles as an impediment to searching. Also oppose alphabetisation of country pairs at this time in order to preserve consistency with article titles (e.g. Greco-Bulgarian relations). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment struck in favor of initiating a general discussion here. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' - Too many problems could come when renamed for very little gain. Garion96 (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – editors seem perfectly happy to leave say Category:FK Blāzma Rēzekne players (cfd 4 Sept 09) alone (although I personally have no idea how to create (or pronounce) an 'ā' other than by copying and pasting) yet seem intent upon the usual quibbling about en-dashes, which are easy to produce via the standard wikipedia 'insert' edit window. And there can be category redirects with the dashes, just as there are article redirects. (There are also eg Category:Gençlerbirliği OFTAŞ footballers and Category:ŁKS Łódź.) Occuli (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I do not perceive the two situations to be comparable. In the case of Category:FK Blāzma Rēzekne players, we are ensuring that the category title reflects the correct spelling spelling of an organization's name. In the case of Category:Bolivia–Peru relations, we are pursuing a minor grammar correction that I expect most users would not even notice unless they were looking for it. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Occuli, "ā" is no more or less difficult to produce than an en dash. Simply select Latin from the pull down menu. That said, I do agree that redirects are probably the way to go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, unless we broadly ban all non-standard characters from categories, which we haven't. I don't see a reason to single out en-dashes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It should match the title. But I think the entire rule is misguided in the MOS, I'm not happy with this either. The basic style convention should balance normal entry with proper display: an accent mark is part of correct spelling , and significant . An en dash instead of a hypen is a mere typographic convention. On my mac too, using standard fonts for Safari, the difference is invisible DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 9 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. --Xdamr^talk 19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains redirects to theatre-related articles. While categories that only contain redirects are allowed, they are normally used to categorize redirects by type of redirect, not by type of target article. The normal categorization scheme for redirects includes categories such as Redirects from abbreviation, Redirects from full names and Redirects from misspellings. Cases similar to this one are Category:Dance redirects, Category:Performing arts redirects, and Category:Arts redirects, all created by the same editor. All of these are currently at CfD (link). Others, such as Category:Artist redirects and Category:Opera redirects, have already been deleted. There is also a Category:Ballet redirects, but due to the enormous number of subcategories in that one I'm nominating this one first, to confirm consensus to delete this kind of categories. Jafeluv (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Another pointless category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom, although redirects can be categorized they don't need their own separate category.. any topic having to do with Theatre can be categorized under Category:Theatre, doesn't matter if it's a redirect. Just as ((Wikipedia category)) says, Redirects should be categorized by project status rather than content. For the sake of consistency I agree to delete all these types of categories and recategorize any redirects in them under their main topic. I posted a notice at WikiProject Redirect for more input regarding this. -- œ ^™ 18:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator (and didn't we have such a nomination two weeks ago?) Debresser (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Completely unnecessary. We don't usually do this and there's no need to start now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 9 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: Speedy Rename:

Category:England International rugby union footballers to Category:England international rugby union footballers
Category:Scotland International rugby union footballers to Category:Scotland international rugby union footballers
Category:Irish rugby union international footballers to Category:Ireland international rugby union footballers
Category:Ireland rugby union international footballers to Category:Ireland international rugby union footballers

Per WP:CSD#C2. --Xdamr^talk 14:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:England International rugby union footballers to Category:England international rugby union footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need for capitalisation. Should presumably be set out like Category:England international footballers. Jevansen (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency, I also propose renaming:

Category:Scotland International rugby union footballers to Category:Scotland international rugby union footballers
Category:Irish rugby union international footballers to Category:Ireland international rugby union footballers
Category:Ireland rugby union international footballers to Category:Ireland international rugby union footballers

Support renaming of the categories and any other similarly-named RU cats - no need for capitalisation of "international". The two Irish ones ought to be replaced by a single one and for consistency "Ireland..." would be better. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:25, 5 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:Communist Party of Russia members to Category:Communist Party of the Russian Federation members. --Xdamr^talk 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Communist Party of Russia members to Communist Party of the Russian Federation members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the official name of the party - Communist Party of the Russian Federation. There are many different communist parties in Russia with similar names (any one could be called a Russian Communist Party or Communist Party of Russia, although this is usually applied to the CPRF), and the Communist Party of Russia was also one of the historical names for the Soviet Bolsheviks during the 1920s. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per correct argument of nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which is much better English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 9 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:Godspeed You Black Emperor albums to Category:Godspeed You! Black Emperor albums. --Xdamr^talk 18:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Godspeed You Black Emperor albums to Category:Godspeed You! Black Emperor albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article Godspeed You! Black Emperor. Tassedethe (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 08:49, 5 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: Speedy Delete. WP:CSD#G5 - creation of banned user in violation of ban. --Xdamr^talk 14:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category made by banned user MascotGuy in evasion of community ban. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:31, 5 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 all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 18:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Swedes of Arab descent to Category:Swedish people of Arab descent (over redirect)
Category:Swedes of Algerian descent to Category:Swedish people of Algerian descent
Category:Swedes of Egyptian descent to Category:Swedish people of Egyptian descent
Category:Swedes of Albanian descent to Category:Swedish people of Albanian descent
Category:Swedes of American descent to Category:Swedish people of American descent
Category:Swedes of Argentine descent to Category:Swedish people of Argentine descent
Category:Swedes of Armenian descent to Category:Swedish people of Armenian descent
Category:Swedes of Assyrian descent to Category:Swedish people of Assyrian descent
Category:Swedes of Austrian descent to Category:Swedish people of Austrian descent
Category:Swedes of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent to Category:Swedish people of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent
Category:Swedes of Brazilian descent to Category:Swedish people of Brazilian descent
Category:Swedes of British descent to Category:Swedish people of British descent
Category:Swedes of Burundian descent to Category:Swedish people of Burundian descent
Category:Swedes of Canadian descent to Category:Swedish people of Canadian descent
Category:Swedes of Cape Verdean descent to Category:Swedish people of Cape Verdean descent
Category:Swedes of Chilean descent to Category:Swedish people of Chilean descent
Category:Swedes of Colombian descent to Category:Swedish people of Colombian descent
Category:Swedes of Croatian descent to Category:Swedish people of Croatian descent
Category:Swedes of Czech descent to Category:Swedish people of Czech descent
Category:Swedes of Danish descent to Category:Swedish people of Danish descent
Category:Swedes of English descent to Category:Swedish people of English descent
Category:Swedes of Eritrean descent to Category:Swedish people of Eritrean descent
Category:Swedes of Estonian descent to Category:Swedish people of Estonian descent
Category:Swedes of Ethiopian descent to Category:Swedish people of Ethiopian descent
Category:Swedes of Finnish descent to Category:Swedish people of Finnish descent
Category:Swedes of French descent to Category:Swedish people of French descent
Category:Swedes of Gambian descent to Category:Swedish people of Gambian descent
Category:Swedes of German descent to Category:Swedish people of German descent
Category:Swedes of Ghanaian descent to Category:Swedish people of Ghanaian descent
Category:Swedes of Hungarian descent to Category:Swedish people of Hungarian descent
Category:Swedes of Indian descent to Category:Swedish people of Indian descent
Category:Swedes of Iraqi descent to Category:Swedish people of Iraqi descent
Category:Swedes of Japanese descent to Category:Swedish people of Japanese descent
Category:Swedes of Kenyan descent to Category:Swedish people of Kenyan descent
Category:Swedes of Kosovar descent to Category:Swedish people of Kosovar descent
Category:Swedes of Kurdish descent to Category:Swedish people of Kurdish descent
Category:Swedes of Macedonian descent to Category:Swedish people of Macedonian descent
Category:Swedes of Mexican descent to Category:Swedish people of Mexican descent
Category:Swedes of Montenegrin descent to Category:Swedish people of Montenegrin descent
Category:Swedes of Nigerian descent to Category:Swedish people of Nigerian descent
Category:Swedes of Norwegian descent to Category:Swedish people of Norwegian descent
Category:Swedes of Palestinian descent to Category:Swedish people of Palestinian descent
Category:Swedes of Peruvian descent to Category:Swedish people of Peruvian descent
Category:Swedes of Polish descent to Category:Swedish people of Polish descent
Category:Swedes of Scottish descent to Category:Swedish people of Scottish descent
Category:Swedes of Senegalese descent to Category:Swedish people of Senegalese descent
Category:Swedes of Slovene descent to Category:Swedish people of Slovene descent
Category:Swedes of Somali descent to Category:Swedish people of Somali descent
Category:Swedes of Filipino descent to Category:Swedish people of Filipino descent
Category:Swedes of Syriac descent to Category:Swedish people of Syriac descent
Category:Swedes of Turkish descent to Category:Swedish people of Turkish descent
Category:Swedes of Uruguayan descent to Category:Swedish people of Uruguayan descent
Category:Swedes of Venezuelan descent to Category:Swedish people of Venezuelan descent
Category:Dutch-Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Dutch descent
Category:Greek-Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Greek descent
Category:Iranian-Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Iranian descent
Category:Italian-Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Italian descent
Category:Pakistani-Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Pakistani descent
Category:Russian Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Russian descent
Category:Serbian Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Serbian descent
Category:Spanish Swedes to Category:Swedish people of Spanish descent
Category:Lists of Swedes to Category:Lists of Swedish people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is one in a series of similar proposals. Propose changing "Swedes" to "Swedish people" in order to conform with the parents Category:Swedish people and Category:Swedish people by ethnic or national origin. Not all nationalities have an appropriate "noun-form" that can be used, so using "Fooian people" is able to bring cross-category and cross-nationality consistency in these categories. I realise "Swedes" is shorter than "Swedish people", but in my opinion this benefit is outweighed by the greater benefit brought by inter-category constistencies. (Also note that Swede is ambiguous and often refers to rutabagas, as well as people from Sweden.) See previous discussion for more information. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom and previous precedent of Poles. Occuli (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, agree with nom, makes sense. Consistency is good. -- œ ^™ 18:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The correct English noun for a person of Swedish nationality (or descent) is a Swede. The addition of Person/People is redundant and should be deleted. It is the parents which should be renamed to conform to the majority. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not redundant if we change "Swede" to "Swedish". "Swedish" is an adjective; "people" a noun. No redundancy. Or do you mean it unnecessarily uses two words instead of one? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per precedents. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominators explaination. --Judo112 (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per many precedents. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 9 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:Lists of films by technical issue to Category:Lists of films by technology. --Xdamr^talk 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of films by technical issue to Category:Lists of films by technology

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent category Category:Films by technology. My issue is with the use of the word "issue." It makes it sound, to me anyway, as if it's a list of films with technical problems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent category and to more clearly describe its content. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 7 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: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Category:LGBT models already covers this. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 00:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just a meaningless intersection, but already covered. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of subcat scheme for Category:Bisexual people. If not kept it should (obviously) be upmerged to its 2 parents Category:LGBT models and Category:Bisexual people. Occuli (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Keep, then. With Occuli's unearthing of this category tree I guess the nominated category belong as a subcat of both Category:Bisexual people and Category:LGBT models. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus this means, gentlemen, that We Have a Shot at all these bisexual models. At least in theory. Know hope. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like Occuli. Debresser (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems like a pointless intersection to me. Could someone explain why the fact that it has parent categories is relevant? Powers ^T 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep part of an established pattern of subcats in Category:Bisexual people Hmains (talk) 19:37, 7 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 all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:George Cross recipients to Category:Recipients of the George Cross
Category:Australian George Cross recipients to Category:Australian recipients of the George Cross
Category:British George Cross recipients to Category:British recipients of the George Cross
Category:Canadian George Cross recipients to Category:Canadian recipients of the George Cross
Category:Collective George Cross recipients to Category:Collective recipients of the George Cross
Category:French George Cross recipients to Category:French recipients of the George Cross
Category:Indian George Cross recipients to Category:Indian recipients of the George Cross
Category:Irish George Cross recipients to Category:Irish recipients of the George Cross
Category:New Zealand George Cross recipients to Category:New Zealand recipients of the George Cross
Category:South African George Cross recipients to Category:South African recipients of the George Cross

Category:Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Fictional Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Fictional recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Victoria Cross and Bar recipients to Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross and Bar
Category:Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Air Force to Category:Royal Air Force recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy to Category:Royal Navy recipients of the Victoria Cross

Category:Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by conflict to Category:Lists of recipients of the Victoria Cross by conflict
Category:Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality to Category:Lists of recipients of the Victoria Cross by nationality
Category:Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by name to Category:Lists of recipients of the Victoria Cross by name

Category:Victoria Cross recipients by nation to Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross by nation
Category:American Victoria Cross recipients to Category:American recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Australian Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Australian recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Australian World War I Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Australian World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Australian World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Australian World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:British Victoria Cross recipients to Category:British recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:British World War I Victoria Cross recipients to Category:British World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:British World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:British World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:British West Indies Victoria Cross recipients to Category:British West Indies recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Canadian Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Canadian recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Canadian World War I Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Canadian World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Canadian World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Canadian World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Newfoundland World War I Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Newfoundland World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Danish Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Danish recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Fijian Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Fijian recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Fijian World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Fijian World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Grenadian Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Grenadian recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Indian Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Indian recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Indian World War I Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Indian World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Indian World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Indian World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Irish Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Irish recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Irish World War I Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Irish World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Irish World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Irish World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Kenyan Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Kenyan recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Kenyan World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Kenyan World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Nepalese Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Nepalese recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Nepalese World War I Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Nepalese World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Nepalese World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Nepalese World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Rhodesian Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Rhodesian recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Rhodesian World War I Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Rhodesian World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Rhodesian World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Rhodesian World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:South African Victoria Cross recipients to Category:South African recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:South African World War I Victoria Cross recipients to Category:South African World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:South African World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:South African World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:New Zealand Victoria Cross recipients to Category:New Zealand recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:New Zealand World War I Victoria Cross recipients to Category:New Zealand World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:New Zealand World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:New Zealand World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross

Category:Victoria Cross recipients by conflict to Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross by conflict
Category:Afghanistan War (2001-present) Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Afghanistan War (2001-present) recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Second Anglo-Afghan War Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Second Anglo-Afghan War recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Anglo-Zulu War Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Anglo-Zulu War recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Crimean War recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Indian Rebellion of 1857 Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Indian Rebellion of 1857 recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Matabeleland Rebellion Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Matabeleland Rebellion recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:New Zealand Wars Victoria Cross recipients to Category:New Zealand Wars recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Second Boer War Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Second Boer War recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Vietnam War Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Vietnam War recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:World War I Victoria Cross recipients to Category:World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:World War II Victoria Cross recipients to Category:World War II recipients of the Victoria Cross

Category:Battle of the Somme Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Battle of the Somme recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Irish Battle of the Somme Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Irish Battle of the Somme recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:British Battle of the Somme Victoria Cross recipients to Category:British Battle of the Somme recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Australian Battle of the Somme Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Australian Battle of the Somme recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Canadian Battle of the Somme Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Canadian Battle of the Somme recipients of the Victoria Cross

Category:Battle of Gallipoli Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Gallipoli Campaign recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Irish Battle of Gallipoli Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Irish Gallipoli Campaign recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:British Battle of Gallipoli Victoria Cross recipients to Category:British Gallipoli Campaign recipients of the Victoria Cross
Category:Australian Battle of Gallipoli Victoria Cross recipients to Category:Australian Gallipoli Campaign recipients of the Victoria Cross

Nominator's rationale: Rename all iot bring Victoria and George Cross recipient's categories into line with existing naming convention - Recipients of XXX. --Xdamr^talk 01:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Makes much more sense per English syntax. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nominators rationale seems sound, even though it seems like a lot of effort without much return (and my watchlist is going to be hell ;) Woody (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it! Once I'd finished nominating the GC categories (all 10 of them), I thought I might as well do the VC for good measure. Little did I realise the immense web in which I was entangling myself, and of course once you start, you can't really stop. Those are a couple of hours I'm never going to get back, weep... --Xdamr^talk 11:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per UK-Eng syntax, and to acknowledge the diligent efforts of the nom and the lost 2 hours. Occuli (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom & Occuli. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Somewhat indifferent. - Agree with Woody. (However, perhaps having my watchlist going to hell would be a good thing?) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no problems with the change. However, the "Battle of Gallipoli" categories really should be renamed as "Gallipoli Campaign", due to the latter being the correct naming. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with that, makes sense. Nomination amended accordingly. Incidentally I'm fairly ambivalent about the Somme/Gallipoli categorisations, no objection to merging them if consensus demands. --Xdamr^talk 23:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename most but upmerge some - I don't see what's wrong with "Foo medal recipients" as it's shorter but I can't bring myself to care that much, so go ahead and rename most of these, but those which are categorizing at the specific battle level strike me as splitting things too fine. Otto4711 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Equalizes the categories and makes more sense in English. Hekerui (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Reads much better and more consistently with other cats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 9 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. --Xdamr^talk 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Cannara itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. ~~Is it really necessary by now ? It sounds like redundant.~~ Now only one article, so it is completely useless --95.233.86.129 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – there needs to be some upmerging, not straight deletion. I was also struck by Category:Cities and towns in Italy with their own category which seems unduly self-congratulatory. Something like Category:Categories named after settlements would be enough. I agree with the nom that most of these small places do not need a category (Bettona has a population of 3800). Occuli (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these. The non-main ones are in Category:Frazioni of the Province of Perugia where they belong, so no upmerging is required. These are neighbourhoods within the village! There are 3 more he has not stubbed-up yet, but that is still way too small. I don't really see the need for Category:Cities and towns in Italy with their own category at all, except as a deletionists' playground. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 5 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. --Xdamr^talk 19:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Bettona itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. ~~Is it really necessary by now ? It sounds like redundant~~ By now is one-voiced, so it is completely useless. --95.233.86.129 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have now added "Passaggio, Colle and Cerreto are frazioni of the comune." to the ahem main article, which is all that is needed. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 5 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. --Xdamr^talk 19:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Bastia itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. ~~Is it really necessary by now ? It sounds like redundant.~~ Now only one article, so it is completely useless --95.233.86.129 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All linked by infobox at main article, which will do. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 5 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. --Xdamr^talk 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Castel Ritaldi itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. ~~Is it really necessary by now ? It sounds like redundant.~~ Now only one article, so it is completely useless --95.233.86.199 (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All linked by infobox at main article, which will do. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 5 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. --Xdamr^talk 19:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Campello itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Completely useless. --95.234.24.27 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All linked by infobox at main article, which will do Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 12 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. --Xdamr^talk 19:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article (Cascia itself) for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Completely useless. --95.234.24.27 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All linked by infobox at main article, which will do Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 12 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. --Xdamr^talk 19:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 articles for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Is it really necessary by now ? It sounds like redundant. --95.234.24.27 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments at "Trevi" below. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 12 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. --Xdamr^talk 19:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 article for a low-importance rated article reguarding a little Italian commune. Completely useless. --95.233.86.199 (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All linked by infobox at main article, which will do Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 12 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. --Xdamr^talk 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would include also Trevi in this discussion. The village has got 8,000 inhabitants and its category a total of 7 articles. It is a Low importance-rated article so, also for it the category could be redundant. --95.234.22.189 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note : It seems that the author of this categories, Francesco Betti Sorbelli, is creating alphabetically a category for each commune of the Province of Perugia (total : 59), due to his creations of articles reguaring its frazioni. Some categories, as for exemple Category:Cascia have got a strong reason to exist (16 articles), but 59 categories for each village are too much (eg: the Category:Cannara has got only 2 voices: Cannara and a frazione). Is the project reguarding categories for Italian municipalities so developped ? Mainly i've see that there are categories for cities and towns, mostly provincial seats. Avoiding misunderstandings, the works of Francesbo Betti Sorbelli creating articles are good; but the categories, simply created for 1, 2 or 3 voices of frazione, are redundant. Also on itwiki, the municipalities with categories in PG are simply nine (the most famous or important and only Perugia, Foligno and Assisi exist both on it and en). This project to create a category for an Italian municipality (also a low-important rated one) when it has only one related article could open the road to create, potentially, 8,101 categories. Reguarding the province of Perugia itself and its 59 municipalities, i've never found a county of USA or a shire of UK with all its municipalities with their own category. Well for the cities of Perugia, Foligno, Assisi; good for the populated cats of Cascia and Trevi; useful (but i'm not so sure) for Campello and Bevagna but all 59 are, by now, redundant. In a future, with the continuous development of enwiki, it could be normal... but now IMHO not. In a next future i could only suppose that the categories who could be created will reguard other important towns of this province as for exemple Spoleto, Gubbio, Città di Castello... Good work :-) --95.233.86.129 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course. I have asked him to stop doing this. Even more annoyingly, he does not mention and link the frazioni at the main comune article, except in the infobox! Let's do a group nom for these before the fire spreads. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In England, we normally only have categories for larger towns, not for every village, but it depends on the number of articles. Some county (shire) categories are being divided by local government district, but only rarely by civil parish or village. If there are only a few articles relating to one place, a navbox does the job better than a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep Category:Bevagna and Category:Trevi. They seem to be useful: the articles included are not entirely restricted to those on the so-called frazioni, and at least some of those on the frazioni are more developed than simple stubs deriving from census data. Ian Spackman (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced - he can't be bothered to mention any of these links in his miniscule stubs, so just sets up a category & lumps them in there. This is not to be encouraged. But if someone could spend a few minutes mentioning & linking these other things, that would be helpful - now done for both these. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 12 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 5

Category:Ecology of Africa

Category:Ecology of the United States

Category:Ecology by country

Category:Donkey Kong characters

Category:Anime and manga about music

Category:Living museums in New York by county

Category:Directorial debut films

Category:Dragon Ball episodes

Category:20th-century American football running backs, etc

Category:Graduates of Oxford School of Drama

Category:Grade B listed churches in London

Category:Philippine political scandals

Category:Gotra

Category:Poland–Czech Republic relations

Bilateral relations

Category:Theatre redirects

International rugby union footballers

Category:Communist Party of Russia members

Category:Godspeed You Black Emperor albums

Category:Eloise television specials

Swedes to Swedish

Category:Lists of films by technical issue

Category:Bisexual models

Category:George and Victoria Cross Recipients

Category:Cannara

Category:Bettona

Category:Bastia Umbra

Category:Castel Ritaldi

Category:Campello sul Clitunno

Category:Cascia

Category:Bevagna

Category:Castiglione del Lago

Category:Trevi