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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non Chalcedonianism to Category:Non-Chalcedonianism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I nominated this for a speedy renaming to add a hyphen to match the main article Non-Chalcedonianism, but this was opposed by the category creator for the reasons explained below. As an opposed speedy nomination, I now move this to a full discussion. I still think it should match the main article, and there has been no move to attempt a name change for the article. All reliable source usages of the term I can find use the hyphen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Make new comments under this line.

• Support nom. Non Chalcedonianism is not a Latin phrase, so the Wiktionary advice although correct is irrelevant. The category should follow the article, as the nom states. Occuli (talk) 00:24, 2 December 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 to Category:Caravanserais in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Khans in Israel and Palestine to Category:Khans in Israel and the Palestinian territories OR Category:Caravanserais in Israel and the Palestinian territories

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Procedural nomination. Moving from speedy section (see below). We're deciding between the two proposals. I am neutral. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Make new comments under this line.
• Support rename. Weak preference for Category:Caravanserais in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Davshul (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Caravanserais in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Category:Khans is about monarchs, and so to keep the Khans name this would need a disambiguation such as "Khans (hostels)". Best to avoid that and go with caravanserais.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:15, 3 December 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: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rail canyons and gorges of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Rail canyons and gorges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is probably part of the railfanning idea. We don't build canyons and gorges to route rail lines through them. Rail lines are run along the lowest grades that are available and those just happen to be along rivers. So this method of classification is not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. In principle, I can't see why these kind of gorges and canyons should be any more defined by a rail line than a highway, and I don't see anyone suggesting that, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it is a notable (as is Category:Rail mountain passes of the United States). The invalid reason "we don't build canyons and gorges to route rail lines" is an absurd argument to falsely infer "Rail canyon" refers to construction of the canyon rather than construction of a railway. Likewise, categorization isn't only for "defining" characteristics. Geez, how dim are you folks gonna' be? 75.75.158.153 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories are for defining characteristics. See Wikipedia:Categorization#What_categories_should_be_created. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Geez: look up categorization. Occuli (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion. Overdoing it. Dincher (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion. If there was a unique railroad structure built for canyons, that would be different but the actual articles appear to be any canyon with a rail line. Did add a transportation cat to Soledad Canyon though as that is the focus of the article.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepComment There is a flaw in the logic to delete. Canyons suitable for routing a rail line are much fewer, and harder to find, than those suitable for routing a highway or trail. Especially for through freight lines, there are serious restrictions on both grade and curvature of the route. An example of this is in Southern California, where all the past and present primary highways connecting the southern to central part of the state have used the canyons leading up to Tejon Pass. However, due to how steep the canyon is that is used for the northern descent from Tejon pass (usually called the grapevine), the railroads are forced to use a much longer route, via Tehachapi Pass. As such, I disagree that classifying a canyon as "used by rail" is completely meaningless. However, I'm not sure this needs to be expressed as a category, either, as if the article is even semi-developed the rail usage will be mentioned in the article. Will think about this some more. Dave (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Added parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 6 December 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 per proposal. -Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional portrayals of the BPD to Category:Fictional portrayals of the Baltimore Police Department

Propose renaming Category:Fictional BPD police detectives to Category:Fictional Baltimore Police Department police detectives or Category:Fictional Baltimore Police Department detectives

Propose renaming Category:Fictional portrayals of the LAPD to Category:Fictional portrayals of the Los Angeles Police Department

Propose renaming Category:Fictional LAPD police detectives to Category:Fictional Los Angeles Police Department detectives

Propose renaming Category:Fictional MDPD detectives to Category:Fictional Miami-Dade Police Department detectives

Propose renaming Category:Fictional portrayals of the NYPD to Category:Fictional portrayals of the New York City Police Department

Propose renaming Category:Fictional NYPD police detectives to Category:Fictional New York City Police Department detectives

Propose renaming or deleting Category:Fictional NYPD police officers (if renamed) to Category:Fictional New York City Police Department officers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest expanding abbreviation to match parent Category:Baltimore Police Department and Baltimore Police Department. BPD is ambiguous. In the second category, we could eliminate the second "police" if desired. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (losing second "police" in the detectives category). I recommend this principle be applied to these categories as well. The NYPD officers category probably should be deleted, since it has only one redirect in it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree to above additions of this nomination. All the abbreviations should all be expanded. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tagged and added these to the nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Support all renaming. NYPD officers needs populating, so I request that it not be deleted too hastily DjlnDjln (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I've removed the suggestion to delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:49, 8 December 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: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sierra Crest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was kept at this discussion mainly since it was not correctly added in that group nomination. I'm still proposing deletion since according to the introduction, The Sierra Crest category provides an alphabetical index of wikarticles that describe points of the Sierra Nevada's drainage divide in California. Well, this is exactly what is in the article, Sierra Crest so while a listify could be suggested it is not needed here. While being on the divide may be noted in the articles, is being on this delineation point defining for the articles? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (do not delete) since the deletion reason "this is exactly what is in the article" is completely false (the category isn't even populated yet). In particular the notable category for a notable lengthy watershed will provide a concise list, subdivided by alphabetic letter, which the article will never do. Also, not "being ... defining for the articles" is not a valid deletion criterian, as categorization is for multiple topics of articles, not just the defining topic of an article (e.g., a town article is primarily categorized in a town category, but may have other non-primary topics that are subjects of articles such as former county seat, historical event, etc -- and they are categorized in those non-primary categories!) 75.75.158.153 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, who explains well why this is redundant at best. Not being defining for the articles is a very common and valid criterion for deletion, and it is one that applies here, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: The Sierra Crest article is about the north to south ridgeline of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.) and yet the articles in the Category:Sierra Crest are about east to west passes that only interset the ridgeline at a single point. What is the intent of the category? How do you know if an article is related to the Sierra Crest? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 5 December 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railroad attractions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary level of navigation since where appropriate these are already included in local visitor attraction categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (do not delete) since the deletion reason "Unnecessary" is invalid since Category:Visitor attractions is a valid category tree, and railroad museums, heritage railroads, etc. are indeed railroad visitor attractions. In particular, the dubious rationale "already included in local visitor attraction categories" is an absurd reason that justifies improperly deleting ALL subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions (e.g., all parks in Category:Parks are already in a local category). Does this Vegaswikiuser really think such dim claims are valid (oh wait, I suspect the momentary-lack-of-critical-thinking is quite popular as indicated by the next section)? 75.75.158.153 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a container category for the various subcats (which all appear to fit the description of being railroad-related attractions). (It's not unnecessary as it forms a grouping which no other category duplicates.) Occuli (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Change terminology culturally bound and biased 'container category' - many parts of world do not have railroads, but railways and even trains in alternate usage - if a container category is really required - go think a better term for a start - so I disagree with both above - SatuSuro 00:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Container Agree with Occulli. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 5 December 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: delete. We do not categorize locations by subjective applicability to a hobby; there are no categories for kite-flying locations or birdwatching locations. Any of the subcategories can be placed into category:Railroad attractions, which was kept above. I'm also preemptively deleting Category:California railfanning locations and its subcategory Category:Feather River Route railfanning locations in California.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States railfanning locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:United States railfanning locations by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Maryland railfanning locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not WP:TRAVEL. Also a subjective decision. If they can be documented, then a list should be created. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Category:United States railfanning locations by state even thought it is empty since it is likely to be populated. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (do not delete), as what Wikipedia IS NOT ("this is not WP:TRAVEL") is not a valid deletion reason, since of course Visitor attractions are indeed within the scope of Wikipedia -- it's an entire category tree! Also, since Category:United States railfanning locations is the "local visitor attraction" category for a national locale, the nominator justified it's existing with his rationalization in the preceeding section! 75.75.158.153 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, good heavens, support. This is like the peak-bagging stuff, only worse. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The "like the peak-bagging stuff" reason is completely false, as the category is not about which people have actual "bagged" (visited) a railroad attraction in the United States, nor is it about who first visited an attraction, etc. In fact, since Railroad attractions are locations, they are 'like the mountain stuff' since mountains are locations which have a complete category tree (which is cross subdivided by state, mountain range, geology, etc.). More lack of critical thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.158.153 (talk • contribs)

• Delete all – being of interest to railfans is incidental, at most, not defining. Occuli (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many of these locations are indeed defined by the ability to 'train-watch' there. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How do we know if it's a good location to train watch? Is there a good objective reference source out there? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes: there's an entire book on the subject, and Trains and Railfan and Railroad magazines run articles on them often. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete interesting for those that care about trains, of little value to others. Dincher (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The same could be said of, say, Category:Fringillidae: "Interesting for those who care about birds," etc. Or any number of other categories. An "Interesting to some people but not others" argument slips into WP:WHOCARES territory; just because it's boring to one person doesn't mean it is to another (and vice versa, of course). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete main, state, Maryland & California cats: If a railroad enthusiast organization started rating locations or a travel organizations started tracking popularity, then we would have an objective list to reference. At this point this cat just serves as a subjective travel report on locations other trainspotters find useful. This information is better suited to another website.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Unlike other cats, such as Category:Rail mountain passes, there is no objective criteria for what is a railfanning location. As such the criteria will be overly subjective. Dave (talk) 19:12, 5 December 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 on the perfect game cat, delete the no hitter one. Kbdank71 16:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a no-hitter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a perfect game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In light of the previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 12#Category:Baseball players who have hit for the cycle the appropriateness of these categories is suspect. A list article would be more useful to readers, and probably already exists. ―cobaltcigs 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a no-hitter, but Strong Keep Category:Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a perfect game (although perhaps with a less unwieldy name). Perfect games are distinctly rare (only 20 times in MLB history) and are defining characteristics, I'd think. No-hitters, on the other hand, happen many times a year. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Being distinctly rare does not change the nature of the latter category. Otherwise, why not Category:Major League Baseball players who completed an unassisted triple play? I would also, in fact, argue that not many people, Don Larsen aside, are defined by having thrown a perfect game. And even Larsen is known for when he threw it, not that he did it. Resolute 18:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both as defining characteristics of the players involved. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfect game category, weak keep the no-hitter category. I would definitely consider pitching a perfect game a defining characteristic, while pitching a no-hitter is less so, but still defining enough to keep as a category, IMO. VegaDark (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a perfect game as defining. Delete Category:Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a no-hitter or listify if anyone wants to keep the information here that is, one would guess, contained in many books. I could even be persuaded to change my keep vote since while the pitcher pitched the game, unless he strikes out everyone, the game required 8 others to not make any major errors to make the game perfect. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the no-hitter one; ambivalent about the perfect-game one. I don't think pitching a no-hitter is a defining characteristic since they are relatively commonplace. Perfect games are very rare, so I suppose it could be said to be defining for the pitcher, but I'm not sure why a list for both of these wouldn't be more appropriate as well as sufficient. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both ("pitching a no-hitter [is] relatively commonplace"? Wow, how can anyone make such a preposterous claim?) 75.75.158.153 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it is true, in a relative sense, meaning compared to pitching a perfect game. There have been 20 perfect games in history and 269 no-hitters. At a rate of about two no-hitters every season, versus less than two perfect games every decade, I would call that relatively commonplace. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as non-defining characteristics. These make great lists, but are not defining for a player. I can understand the case for an awards category like MVPs and Cy Young Award winners, but many of the best pitchers of all time never threw a no hitter or perfect game (like Pedro Martinez and Roger Clemens).--TM 00:18, 5 December 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2000s TV shows in India to Category:2000s Indian television series

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Using the established convention of Category:2000s television series. Tim! (talk) 18:02, 1 December 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: delete. I've made the recommendation adjustment to Golden age (metaphor) before deletion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golden ages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, it seems to me. What is the meaningful correlation between, say, the Golden Age of Comic Books and the Spanish Golden Age, both categorized here? Not a lot, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it is not subjective (use of the term "Golden age" is by numerous authorities in various fields) 75.75.158.153 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Nothing connects these subjects except that some source has referred to them as the "golden age of XXXX". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others, but checking they are in the much longer list at Golden age (metaphor) if appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 10:18, 8 December 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; I'm not sure relisting again will stimulate any comments, so given that this has been listed for over a month now, I think we can invoke WP:SILENCE. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Furman Paladins and Lady Paladins to Category:Furman Paladins

Propose renaming Category:Furman Lady Paladins basketball coaches to Category:Furman Paladins women's basketball coaches

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Similar to the Ole Miss categories below, Furman no longer seems to use "Lady Paladins." Examples here and here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 1 December 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) 00:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Rebels and Lady Rebels to Category:Ole Miss Rebels

Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball to Category:Ole Miss Rebels men's basketball

Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball players to Category:Ole Miss Rebels men's basketball players

Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball coaches to Category:Ole Miss Rebels men's basketball coaches

Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Lady Rebels basketball to Category:Ole Miss Rebels women's basketball

Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Lady Rebels basketball players to Category:Ole Miss Rebels women's basketball players

Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Lady Rebels basketball coaches to Category:Ole Miss Rebels women's basketball coaches

Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss basketball to Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I created most of these Ole Miss Rebels categories years ago, when the University of Mississippi men's teams were Rebels and the women's teams were Lady Rebels. The school no longer seems to use the term "Lady Rebels" for its women's sports teams. Examples here, here, and here. Note the sequencing of the above nominations, as Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball would need to lose its former purpose before gaining a new one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Dincher (talk) 21:26, 4 December 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: merge Category:University of Manitoba Bisons players, keep Category:Manitoba Bisons players. Kbdank71 16:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Manitoba Bisons players to Category:Manitoba Bisons ice hockey players

Propose renaming Category:Manitoba Bisons players to Category:Manitoba Bisons athletes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The first category is comprised entirely of hockey players. The second category is just for subcategories such as Category:Manitoba Bisons ice hockey players. The Canadian equivalent of Category:College athletes in the United States by team seems to be the underpopulated Category:Interuniversity athletes in Canada, which gives no guidance whether a Canadian category should follow the U.S. principle that "athlete" means "active sportsperson" or the more global principle that "athlete" means "track and field participant." This nomination assumes the former, but I'm open to being educated otherwise.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging the University of Manitoba Bisons players to Manitoba Bisons ice hockey players, as that naturally is where they should go. However , I don't support the second renaming. All Universities in Canada have "Category:School X players" as the overarching category. So to keep with the format, I would keep the name as players unless you are proposing to rename all 40 someodd CIS members as "Category:School X athletes" of which I do not support. At least in Canada you hear of hockey players, football players etc. but you never hear them called hockey athletes or football athletes. The only time you hear athletes mentioned is when it is track and field or cross-country. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the knowledge. All the sport-specific categories in all countries are "School X players," but in the US categories, we've used "School athletes" to define the broader class of sports players.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support #1, Oppose #2 per Shootmaster. -DJSasso (talk) 20:17, 6 December 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Crocodiles to Category:Crocodilians

Nominator's rationale: Technically speaking, not all animals in this category are crocodiles. Some, for example, are aligators. On the other hand, all are crocodilians. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since wiktionary defines crocodile as including animals in this category: "Any of a variety of related predatory amphibious reptiles, related to the alligator." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.158.153 (talk • contribs)
• Rename per nom. Some of these are alligators, not just "related to the alligator". Alligators are not crocodiles. This clarifies the situation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:16, 4 December 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 delete Category:Ornamental trees, but delete Category:Ornamental plants after its articles are merged to Category:Garden plants. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ornamental plants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Ornamental trees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective inclusion criteria. And by most subjective opinions, this would be ridiculously large if actually populated. Hesperian 12:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - support - culturally bound - what could be ornamental in one context could be a weed in another SatuSuro 00:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Indiscriminate category. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose Category:Ornamental trees deletion; Merge Category:Ornamental plants, articles only, with Category:Garden plants, although use in non-garden urban-regional parks, highways, etc. is then minimized. The cat. naming with 'Ornamental plants' probably came from Ornamental Horticulture, a degree program and department/school at colleges and universities, and so not an Indiscriminate category for many. It's distinguished from agricultural productive horticulture with the term ornamental. You may want to post this delete notice on the Category:Horticulture and gardening project or portal page, as the term ornamental plant is widely used in 'coffee table-do it yourself' books and magazines, horticulture industry publications, and academic journals. With Category:Ornamental trees, Ornamental trees is a widely used term, usually meaning adaptable to urban and garden conditions, used over time-centuries for non-productive aesthetic purposes, and regionally available in the horticulture trade-nurseries. There is no category to merge its articles into. With Category:Ornamental plants, there are several hundred articles there, not to be lost if the category is deleted, that can use the similar Category:Garden plants---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose Category:Ornamental trees deletion; Merge Category:Ornamental plants, articles only, with Category:Garden plants, per Look2See1. That these may be weeds in their original homes is hardly the point. Following the logic of this nom would suppress any "garden plant" categories. Johnbod (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose. If there is reliable sourcing indicating that the plants or trees in question have been, or are being, used ornamentally, then it is reasonable to have these categories, and for those pages to be in the categories. The categories are subjective if pages are placed there based on editor opinion, but they are not subjective (for our purposes) if based on sources. And I can easily imagine readers finding the categories useful, if they would like to find pages based upon ornamental use. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 9 December 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, for now. This entire category tree needs a re-evaluation, as there are multiple categories for the same concept. For now, I'm just cleaning up the capitalization.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Superstores In The United States to Category:Superstores in the United States

Nominator's rationale: This category should either be renamed for capitalization or it should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 04:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Big-box stores in the United States and introduce more articles to the category. Dough4872 04:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – we already have Category:Supermarkets of the United States, part of the well-developed Category:Supermarkets. There is also the less developed Category:Superstores, not to forget Category:Hypermarkets. These should perhaps all be merged. Occuli (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While not in the article names, this is really WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. I did not recommend any merge since I suspect that all of the articles have good parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since wiktionary defines superstore as "An extremely large store, hypermarket." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.158.153 (talk • contribs)
  • In which case they would be in Category:Hypermarkets. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Big-box stores in the United States. Hypermarket article shows that name is not right. Superstores redirects to Big-box store which is the name I hear all the time in the US for such establishments. Hmains (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contents are actually companies that may own some big-box stores. So while the companies could be classified as big-box, is this defining for the companies? Based on the contents what is included is companies and not stores. So if we really need something in this area it seems to be more accurately named Category:Companies that operate big-box stores in the United States. Not sure that we want to do that. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 4 December 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Venue to Category:Venue (law)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Venue (law). Obviously just having a category called "Venue" is quite ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not rename to Category:Venue (law), as the appropriate term is with an adjective (legal venue), which should be the name of the article, too, as with Sports venue, Music venue, etc. (see also Category:Arts venues & Category:Entertainment venues 75.75.158.153 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the category is not about "legal venues", it is about the legal concept of venue. There is a significant difference. A "legal venue" is an actual place in a specific sense. The legal concept is about where a trial is held in a general sense, not in a specific sense. (For example, asking for a "change of venue" isn't asking if you can move out of courtroom 1A and move upstairs into courtroom 2A. That is a legal venue. It's more like asking to move it to a different city or county.) That is why the article is at Venue (law), whereas the examples you cite have the articles sport venue and music venue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom to match main and correct article Hmains (talk) 19:29, 3 December 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.