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. — ξ^xplicit 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by country to Category:Association football-related lists by country Category:Association-football-related lists by country

Nominator's rationale: To match the parent category, Category:Association football-related lists. I considered adding the subcategories to this nomination but couldn't think of a good alternative name (Association football in Foo-related lists is unwieldy and ambiguous). (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Why is making it consistent with 1 supercat preferable to keeping it consistent with 5 subcats? The proposed "-related" might appear to qualify only "football" rather than "association football". The supersupercat Category:Sports-related lists has some subcats with "-related" in the name and some without. WP:HYPHEN recommends paraphrasing to avoid hyphens in long compound nouns; I would suggest renaming the supercat to Category:Association football lists, or perhaps Category:Lists relating to association football, but only as part of a broader standardization. jnestorius^(talk) 10:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's true; if "-related" is retained, the title should be Category:Association-football-related lists by country (I have adjusted the nomination accordingly).

  I am not averse to the idea of undertaking a broader standardization of Category:Sports-related lists, but I prefer the Foo-related lists format over Foo lists or Lists relating to foo. Foo lists can be confusing as it suggests that the category contains lists of Foo, which does not work well for most topics (e.g., "lists of association football"). Lists of foo works for certain topics (e.g., Category:Lists of snooker players) but not for others. Lists relating to foo is accurate, but highly non-standard (there are only three categories that currently use this format). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 22:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per adjusted nomination. This seems to be in conformity with the standard way of naming list categories. I see no problems with compound adjectives, so long as they are hyphenated for the sake of clarity and proper grammar. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename although I prefer the original nomination Category:Association football-related lists by country with no hyphen between Association and football, and leaving the parents unchanged. Not that it's a matter of life and death. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Major League Baseball players by home state to Category:American baseball players by home state

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no need to not include players not in Major League Baseball. Many players in baseball history did not / have not played in MLB. Match other categories, for example Category:American players of American football by state TM 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is a subcat of Category:Major League Baseball players by national origin, itself part of Category:Major League Baseball players, Category:Major League Baseball etc. Category:American baseball players could of course be subcatted by state but this is not a matter for cfd (presumably there are not many per state other than Major League). Occuli (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are hundreds of articles on American baseball players who have not played in Major League Baseball. For example, there were hundreds of players in the Negro League who never played in MLB baseball. There are many minor league baseball players who have yet to play in MLB. I don't think we should be subcategorizing based on league and nationality. Do we really want Category:Japanese Major League Baseball players by home province, Category:Cuban Major League Baseball players by home province etc.? By merging this into a subcategory of Category:American baseball players and removing it as a subcat of Major League Baseball, we are avoiding subcategorizing players by professional league and nationality.--TM 16:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are 1600 in Category:Major League Baseball players from California alone. If there are hundreds more non-major-league players from California, then create Category:Baseball players from California and put them in it, leaving Category:Major League Baseball players from California as a subcat. As there are only 47 in Category:Major League Baseball players from Japan, there is no need for any subcat scheme. (The comments immediately above seem to suggest that the nom would actually like to upmerge Category:Fooian Major League Baseball players to Category:Fooian baseball players throughout, which would be a different nom.) Occuli (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where else on Wikipedia do we categorize by geographic subdivision, sport and league? Do we have Category:English Premier League football players by region? I don't think it is appropriate to sort by league. We don't have Category:American National Basketball Association players by home state, but Category:American basketball players by state and for good reason.--TM 19:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• By all means do a proper nom then, which is to get rid of Category:Fooian Major League Baseball players altogether, rather than removing the American ones and leaving the non-American ones. (There are Category:La Liga footballers; Category:The Football League players; Category:Serie A footballers. Subcatting by nationality has not been done but would be entirely standard. Subcatting in the UK by county is not standard, whereas 'by state' is standard in the US.) Or at least upmerge to Category:American Major League Baseball players (or rather Category:Major League Baseball players from the United States per the format of the siblings) as well. Occuli (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per OP and TM's comment above. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency for categories of sportspeople by U.S. state. Major League players are already subcatted by club played for and position, I believe, (or they should be) and that s sufficient Mayumashu (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, why are we saying American X by state? Basketball players aren't sorted that way, Category:Basketball players from Texas.--TM 20:14, 4 May 2010 (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. Thaneboy (talk · contribs) has populated the category with 12 articles, making the this nomination invalid. — ξ^xplicit 20:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neighbourhoods in Thane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Completely pointless category. Used only in one user space page. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete speedily as it is empty apart from an invalid entry. Occuli (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The page in the category has now been moved into main space as an article. Nevertheless, a category with only one page is still pretty pointless. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please do not delete the category Neighbourhoods in Thane as i am slowly new categories into it (already added few). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaneboy (talk • contribs) 07:29, 3 May 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Al Ain FC players to Category:Al Ain Club footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The club is named Al Ain Club, a multi-sport club, but no such Al Ain FC exist. Matthew_hk tc 11:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2010 (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 to rename. — ξ^xplicit 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of awards by film to Category:Lists of accolades by film

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All the articles in the category use the word "accolades", not "awards": e.g., List of accolades received by WALL-E. The articles seem to include award nominations and "top 10" lists, which are accolades but not awards per se. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't it too... fancy? The blow when first utilized was given with a naked fist. It was a forceful box on the ear that one would remember ... NVO (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunno. Do you reckon we should change the name of every single article in the category? If not, it just reflects the reality of what it contains. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the category name, and nominate (or just move) all the contents to "List of awards and nominations...". This would be consistent with Category:Lists of awards by television series and other subcats of Category:Lists of awards by award winner. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 20:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Protestant-related lists to Category:Protestantism-related lists

Nominator's rationale: More accurate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Seems straightforward—these are related to Protestantism, and are not limited to lists about Protestants or a Protestant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is to match its siblings found in Category:Christianity-related lists, which are not being nominated for change and would be weird if they were. Hmains (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it would match the parent. Protestantism:Christianity as Protestant:Christian. The few other ones can easily enough be renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to shorter alternative Category:Protestantism lists, like the existing Category:Church of England lists. I wouldn't see anything weird in renaming Category:Roman Catholic-related lists as Category:Roman Catholic Church lists (or even Category:Roman Catholic Church-related lists), and suggest nominating that to match after this one closes. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The change from Foo-related lists to Foo lists needs more general discussion, in my opinion (e.g., a mass nomination), since the -related lists standard is used by hundreds of categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:17, 15 May 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films which are set within one day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Totally arbitrary inclusion criterion. Why not "books set within one week"? One month? One year? What's so uniquely-relevant about being set within a day? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not an arbitrary measure: see definition of the unity of time in Classical unities (hell, it was a staple of literature classes in my time. 8th grade, IIRC.). NVO (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Defining charactertisc, and to mirror the sister category of books set in one day (see below). Lugnuts (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is. Based on books below, it a common enough film artifact. Hmains (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books which are set within one day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Totally arbitrary inclusion criterion. Why not "books set within one week"? One month? One year? What's so uniquely-relevant about being set within a day? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment i would be much more comfortable with this category (and list) if there was some indication of this being a notable dividing line in literature. i suspect it is to some extent, as so many tv shows and movies use the phrase "you have 24 hours before x happens", even when aliens (with a different day length) are attacking a ship in space (with no actual day). a reference to a book or article discussing this division would help. also, many if not most of the books listed are horribly lacking in clear indications that the books cover 1 day. unless the articles clearly indicate this is true, they should be removed. and, even weirder, some books may show a time frame of 24 hours, but include flashbacks and historical pieces that may read as if they are happening in the present, so do they count or not? I tend to agree with Ten, its arbitrary and probably impossible to clearly define, except for maybe a small number of books, like thrillers, that move exactly through 1 day (and ulysses of course).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not an arbitrary measure: see definition of the unity of time in Classical unities. NVO (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Defining characteristic, and also see the previous recent CfD. Lugnuts (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is. Based on this contents of this category, this is a common enough literary artifact. Hmains (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2010 (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. As it was noted several times, collectively, the term "Geological surveys" is not a proper noun. In fact, I should point out that the main article, geological survey, uses lower-capitalization as well. — ξ^xplicit 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Geological Surveys to Category:Geological surveys

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was listed at speedy renames as a capitalization fix but was objected to, so it is now being moved here. The speedy discussion is copied below. My rationale for the original nomination was that I essentially viewed this as being similar to, for example, the "Prime Ministers" issue. When we're referring to a specific organization or office, it is a proper noun—Category:Prime Ministers of Australia; United States Geological Survey, "First Connecticut Bank". But when referred to collectively in the generic sense, a bunch of proper nouns are referred to as a collective common noun—Category:Prime ministers, "geological surveys", "American banks". It's more an issue of English grammar than anything else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the maker of this group, I have no issues with the move/rename. I was unaware of the caps convention.--Qfl247 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I noticed the inconsistency with Wikipedia naming conventions, but was too lazy to nominate the category myself. --Cuppysfriend (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is Since all the subcats have Survey in their name and it appears to be a proper noun, caps is correct. Hmains (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not correct to refer to a group of various proper nouns as a proper noun. At that stage it becomes a common noun. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as the collective description is not a Proper Noun. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not about surveys of geology so that Geology of Belgium is correctly not a member. It is about Geological Surveys, public or official bodies responsible for producing geological maps and generally researching geology. As such the capitalisation is correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you implicitly suggesting that this collective noun would be treated as a proper noun? It's like saying "English Universities" should be capitalized because every member of the category capitalizes "University" in it's name—it doesn't make grammatical sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Multiple engine aircraft to Category:Multi-engine aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Rename. From "Multiple" to "multi" and adding hyphenation per usage (the pilot's rating, for instance, is "Multi-engine aircraft". The Bushranger (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Single engine aircraft to Category:Single-engine aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Adding hyphenation. The Bushranger (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2010 (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.