< December 14	December 16 >

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 to Category:American sex offenders and Category:American schoolteachers. The category name is not false; these are indeed american schoolteachers that were convicted of sex offenses against students. Just because the "media lost interest" in any other teachers doesn't make it false either. In fact, from what I hear and read, the media has not lost interest; we may just need to find the sources, and write and categorize the articles. Until that is done, however, merging may be a good solution. Recreation permissible if it's determined that we have enough articles to support this category. Kbdank71 14:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:American schoolteachers convicted of sex offenses against students (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: *Delete. Implication of title is false. There were four women convicted of sex offenses in a slow news period. Once the media realized that there were dozens of female teachers among the thousands of cases reported each year in America, the media lost interest. While these four have articles, they are NOT the only American schoolteachers convicted of sex offenses. There are thousands more, but Wikipedia is not a police blotter so they can't be shown. These few female teacher-articles need to be re-categorized into general felonies or something. The category name is glaringly false because of its implied grand scope but its actual minuscule scope. Student7 (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:American sex offenders and Category:American schoolteachers. This category is too small, and appears to have little prospect of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm a little bit confused by the nominator's rationale. Categories are never meant to suggest that they are a comprehensive collection of the things that meet the category requirements. We only have articles about notable things and notable people. So I don't see how categories have an "implied grand scope". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as BrownHairedGirl suggests. This category's name is extremely damning, and it rather stands out as an isolated structure. Had it been part of an encompassing effort of categorizing sex offenders against children I could see its merit, but as it currently stands it's more of a novelty "shock" thing. __meco (talk) 13:48, 21 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. Though there may be some things that are forts and not fortresses, it's much harder to make the case the other direction. Since the categories are a mish-mash of forts and fortresses, it'd be best to make sure all big stone buildings are in an appropriate castles category. As for the Swedish Realm, countries' borders change, but the fact that something was in those countries does not.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fortresses to Category:Forts

Rename Category:Fortresses in Armenia to Category:Forts in Armenia

Rename Category:Fortresses in Finland to Category:Forts in Finland

Rename Category:Fortresses in Bhutan to Category:Forts in Bhutan

Merge Category:Fortresses in the Swedish Realm to Category:Forts in Sweden

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No significant difference between fort and fortress both redirect to fortification (seems to be size based but no details). Country subcats should be renamed to fit into Category:Forts by country. Tim! (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose aren't major fortresses masonary structures (ie. Eben Emal, Louisbourg), while forts are wooden (ie. palisade area) or minor masonary structures (ie. hill forts); 65.93.13.227 (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The different types seem to categorised together though: Category:Fortresses in Armenia contains Bjni Fortress and Ertij Fort. I'm not sure it would be possible to categorically state whether a particular structure is a fort or a fortress. Tim! (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Category:Fortresses in the Swedish Realm appears intended to cover fort[resse]s (or whatever you want to name them) both within the current borders of Sweden and in areas no longer part of Sweden (Finland, mainly). The suggestion to simply merge this category with Category:Forts in Sweden does not appear to take this into account. If the term "Swedish Realm" is seen as unclear, some other term needs to be used to cover these areas. --Hegvald (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't usually categorise buildings by which countries they used to be in, although it might be worth listifying that one. Tim! (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, the OED definitions are fort, "a fortified place; a position fortified for defensive or protective purposes, usually surrounded with a ditch, rampart, and parapet, and garrisoned with troops; a fortress"; and fortress, "a military stronghold, fortified place; in mod. use chiefly one capable of receiving a large force; often applied to a strongly fortified town regarded from a military point of view." There's a secondary, North-American-specific, use of "fort" for "protected trading station", which fits with a loose divide of "one is small, one is large". Shimgray | talk | 15:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the helpful dicdefs. However, the distinction doesn't rigid enough for two separate category trees to be viable, and if we are gonna have just one, it seems better to use the more inclusive term. For example, Fort George, Scotland is one of many large stone structures named just "fort". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:02, 20 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 all. Courcelles 06:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The standard format for these is Category:Baseball teams in Los Angeles, California, for example. Rename to match all other sport teams-city categories.TM 22:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories also nominated are: Category:Baltimore soccer clubs -> Category:Soccer clubs in Baltimore, Maryland; Category:Birmingham, Alabama soccer clubs -> Category:Soccer clubs in Birmingham, Alabama and every other similar category in Category:Soccer clubs in the United States by city.

• Support but all categories to be renamed need to be listed and tagged befoire they can be renamed. This can however be treated asa test nomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note all are tagged. Is listing each one individually here really important? They were all created on the same day by the same editor.--TM 04:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an umbrella nomination like this that has had opposition in the past? It would be a good idea. --Kbdank71 14:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. However, the Greater Los Angeles one should be Category:Soccer clubs in the Greater Los Angeles Area, per Category:Greater Los Angeles Area.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:06, 29 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) 21:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jackson Generals players to Category:Jackson Generals (Texas League) players

Nominator's rationale: Rename This is a team that played in the Texas League, since there's gonna be another team in Jackson, Tennessee, it would be best to move this category because we don't want to get confused with which Jackson team this guy played for or that guy. – Michael (talk) 22:07, 15 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 as there are no objections. Kbdank71 15:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Boston baseball teams to Category:Baseball teams in Boston, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match other categories in Category:Baseball teams in the United States by city. TM 21:56, 15 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: procedural close; category has already been deleted. Kbdank71 15:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:GLAM Wiki UK 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category contains nothing but unused, unidentified pictures... and itself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is perhaps a case that these images would belong better on uk.wikimedia.org; the only place I can see them being used on en.wikipedia is on Wikipdia:GLAM/BM. Seems unnecessary to delete the category while the content remains though. The Land (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as creator I thought I was on Commons at the time. I think all the pics have been reloaded there too. Finally, a TPH nom I can endorse! (ok, just kidding, well, kidding a bit) Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - this can be closed now. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 20 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. Kbdank71 15:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:American anti-communist propaganda films to Category:American Cold War propaganda films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This renaming would be consistent with categories such as Category:American World War II propaganda films, and would also facilitate the creation of a supercategory Category:Cold War propaganda films, which could include (for example) examples of Soviet Cold War propaganda. GCarty (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The unifying characteristic here is anti-communism, making it an appropriate subcategory of Category:Anti-communism in the United States. While true that "American Cold War propaganda films" might be tautologically anticommunist, the scope of the category is nevertheless altered. One represents an event or an era, the other a philosophical or political position.- choster (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is; it is a proper subcat of several anti-communist parent categories. No indication that any other content exists for Category:Cold War propaganda films which can be created at any time if there is sufficient content and could include this category, regardless of its current name. Hmains (talk) 19:04, 17 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. Kbdank71 15:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Products manufactured in the 1970s and 1980s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Lone category seemingly created to hold just a single article. There is a Category:Product introductions by year category tree but this product has no introduction date. It could be renamed Products introduced in the 1970s but even that is not clearly true from the information in the article. It just says it was used in the 70s and 80s. Tassedethe (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- If we need something like this at all, it should be split by decade and be a parent-only category for Category:Product introductions by year categories. However, better not at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 20 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 Alansohn to Category:Jews from Galicia (Eastern Europe), Category:Rabbis from Galicia (Eastern Europe) and Category:Orthodox rabbis from Galicia (Eastern Europe), which matches the parent article and the "People from" category. Kbdank71 15:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming:

• Category:Galician Jews to Category:Galician Jews (Eastern Europe)
• Category:Galician rabbis to Category:Galician rabbis (Eastern Europe)
• Category:Galician Orthodox rabbis to Category:Galician Orthodox rabbis (Eastern Europe)

Nominator's rationale: Rename these three categories to fit in with main Category:People from Galicia (Eastern Europe) and Category:Jews and Judaism in Galicia (Eastern Europe), see also main article Jews in Galicia (Eastern Europe). See Galicia disambiguation page, there exists Galicia (Spain) and Galicia (Eastern Europe). These three categories need to specify that they are about Jews/Rabbis/Orthodox rabbis from Galicia (Eastern Europe), while the other main Category:Galicia refers to Galicia (Spain) on WP. IZAK (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all three categories, IZAK (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename as disambiguation. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames / Consider Alternative The proposed names do disambiguate the location, but another option is to go with Category:Jews from Galicia (Eastern Europe), Category:Rabbis from Galicia (Eastern Europe) and Category:Orthodox rabbis from Galicia (Eastern Europe) which might better match the parent article and Category:People from Galicia (Eastern Europe) and make a bit more grammatical sense. Alansohn (talk) 18:21, 20 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. Kbdank71 15:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Principals and Vice-Chancellors by university in Scotland to Category:Principals by university in Scotland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is unnecessary to have 'Vice-Chancellor' in the category title. In Scotland, the Principal is the head of a university and, although he is invariably also a Vice-Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor is just an honorary title used to allow him to preside at graduations. The sub-categories are all named simply "Principals of". Johnhousefriday (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the cat creator I have no objection, as this seems to be true of both the ancient universities (all 4 of which have cats) and the9 modern universities (none of which have cats, yet). Eg, see:

• http://www.strath.ac.uk/officers/bio/principal/
• http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/principal/

--Mais oui! (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Office of the Vice-Chancellor - The Universities (Scotland) Act of 1858 explicitly empowers the University Chancellor to appoint a Vice-Chancellor to discharge his office in his absence. By a convention uniformly observed since 1859 the Principal of the University is also appointed Vice-Chancellor. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per Mais oui --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 15 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. Kbdank71 15:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete - :Category:Muslim apologists serves no purpose, not clear what it means, and loosely applied without explanation. Delete,--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Apologetics is an old and well-defined field, and there are certainly Muslims who engage in it in defense of their own religion. It does seem a bit loosely applied to some of the members of the category but some members are clearly apologists and the category has plenty of potential for expansion. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Ahmed Deedat is a pretty good example of someone who engaged in Islamic apologetics. Wouldn't you call someone who does that a "Muslim apologist"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Muslims who are are notable for defending their faith through the methods of apologetics seems a perfectly reasonable category. I see that there is an exact equivalent Category:Christian apologists and I see the possibility of future categories for Buddhist and Hindu apologists. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep for the correct reasons outlined above. Religious apologetics is a long-standing activity as are the people doing it. Hmains (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Apologetics is an important branch of theology. I think that Apologist is the correct noun for its practitioners. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 18 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/rename per nom. Kbdank71 15:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Heritage railway stations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Heritage railway stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Heritage railway stations in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename Category:Heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom to Category:Stations on heritage railways in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Heritage railways are operating yet the contents are for stations that have been been declared as historic structures. There is no indication that these are in fact operating as stations. It might be possible that some of these are, but even then it is questionable if this would be defining for these structures. They are included in this category for something in the past and not their current status. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Category:Heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom seems to include only stations which have been part of a heritage railway. The subcats gathered here are not necessarily on heritage railways, as the nom states. (I see no reason why there should not be a sibling US category for Category:Heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom but it should use the same definition.) Occuli (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Heritage railway stations and all its subcats are problematic. Canada does maintain a list of "Heritage Railway Stations" and the term is assigned in the legislation, so its only member, Category:Designated Heritage Railway Stations of Canada, belongs in the Canadian historic sites/structures tree (as it does). The US equivalent is Category:Railway stations on the National Register of Historic Places, which is the only meaningful member of Category:Heritage railway stations in the United States. The UK articles are even worse: the equivalent category there is Category:Grade I listed railway stations which is underpopulated; presumably there should be categories for other grades. Meanwhile the entire Welsh and English category structures seem to list every "old" station, with no mention anywhere of historic merit; and as mentioned above, List of heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom is about stations on tourist lines; there's no corresponding American article, as best I can determine.

Therefore I would also propose all of the following for deletion:

Category:Heritage railway stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Heritage railway stations in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and I would suggest that people take a look at Category:Heritage railway stations in Wales and Category:Heritage railway stations in England and their subcats with an eye towards deletion or renaming. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On closer inspection I agree with Mangoe's analysis. The UK one should perhaps be renamed to Category:Stations on heritage railways in the United Kingdom and purged (I think being on a heritage railway is defining). (Grade I is a fairly rare distinction. There is the larger Category:Grade II listed railway stations and also Category:Grade II* listed railway stations, II* being higher than II.) Occuli (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK nomination modified to reflect other suggestions. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Didnt' we just have this exact conversation about "Historic railway stations"?
  • Yes, there was a similar nomination that is still open. Since there is a difference, at least in my mind, between historic and heritage railways, I decided that these discussions should not be combined. There could be more as we sort through the tree and decide what needs keeping and what need deleting or renaming. The next issue will likely be the overlap between Category:Rail transport preservation and Category:Railroad attractions. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename of Category:Heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom.

Some of these (or potential subjects at least) are not on railways, but are isolated stations. They are "railway museums" in a broad sense, although some have the odd engine, which may or may not operate, and some are just buildings. Tintern, Conwy Valley Railway Museum and Griffithstown Railway Museum are examples. Liverpool Road railway station (Manchester) is an important example, as the world's oldest railway station. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But are they operating to actually be called heritage. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did "heritage" change to mean "still operating"? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the nomination read heritage railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's particularly important that we don't confuse these sometimes individual stations that are functioning as "heritage" sites, as if they were part of a heritage railway, operating as a railway. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename UK category as nom. Keep Category:Heritage railway stations, which will make a useful parent category. Upmerge US and Canada categories so that their subcats become categories of the retained Category:Heritage railway stations, as an unnecessary level of categorisation. The second US category is up for deletion and anyway lacks worthwhile content, the one article being about a city which had a station, not the station. Category:Grade I listed railway stations and the 2* category should be sister categories to the UK one, which possibly suggests that Category:Heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom should be recreated as a parent for these. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any equivalent "all countries" category for designated historic structures of some other ilk (say, bridges)? Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 19 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lakota to Category:Lakota culture

Nominator's rationale: Or possibly something else. Lakota is a dab page and the real main article on this topic is Lakota people. Of course, Wikipedia has a problem whereby categories about persons are named "X people"--e.g. Category:Lakota people is about Lakota persons and not the people group/nation. Anyway, I'm open to better alternatives. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The naming conventions for US native/indigenous groups are a mess, and the categories are even worse. Articles tend to use "nation" internally but often "people" in the article names, but for whatever reason categories tend to use "tribe" even though generally articles use that as a subunit of "nation/people". All of these patterns see numerous exceptions. There's really no point in addressing a single category without addressing the whole system. I suggest bringing the matter up with WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America rather than pursuing a single category change in isolation. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Lakota topics. This formula was evolved here for categories like Category:Native American topics which had just these issues. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The problematic naming conventions are not limited to the native tribes and nations; we have never really achieved consensus on which form to use for the main/overview article and category, and which for individual members of an ethnic or cultural group. Although we have eliminated "Fooish" and "Fooish culture" for the most part, the main topic may still be Foo, Foos, Fooish people, Fooish people (Bar), Foos in Bar, Fooish people in Bar, Foo of Bar, Fooish peoples, Fooland, Foo tribe, Fooish groups, or something else entirely, and that is not counting a legion of constantly shifting descent, ancestry, and migrant-based categories. A sampling of discussions include CfD 2010/Mar/10 Fooians to Fooian people, CfD 2009/Jan/12 Picts, CfD 2008/Oct 29/People by race or ethnicity, and CfD 2008/May/2 People by ethnicity.- choster (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One very important consideration is to have a name at the top-level cat that unambiguously cannot just contain biographies, but can contain biographies, which is what a "topics" formula does, and nearly all the ones you list above don't. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as is. No better name has been offerred for this category inclusive of articles and subcats for this particular tribe. Hmains (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per hmains. Especially if there is no other Lakota category that might reasonably be confused for this. I would imagine any other Lakota would be named after the ethnicity, so they would have primacy, no? "Lakota culture" and "Lakota topics" seem to me to be particularly poor alternatives. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:54, 29 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. As the category creator says, there's no category that groups these concepts together, so it seems valid to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious identity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates existing categories, vague description. Editor2020 (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started the category for articles like Who is a Jew?, Mormon, Catholic, Hindu and others that talk about how religion is used to identify people, or how people identify themselves as being part of a religious community. I checked around first and didn't see any other categories that seemed to be about that. If there is already one please let me know.Borock (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it is vague and so open it could catch a whale.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, rename It is useful to have a category for all the "member of religion X" articles (e.g. Mormon, Hindu, Muslim), and contrary to the nomination there is no other category which encompasses them. I would agree that the name is unclear, as evidenced by the way it is attracting "-ism" articles. I'd suggest something better but I'm having a bit of a mental block on the proper word, sorry. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "members of religion X" categories be covered by Category:People by religion? Editor2020 (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because "people by" categories contain biographies, not terms. Mangoe (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, maybe you should look at it. It contains Agnostics, Animists, Atheists, Bahá'ís, Buddhists, Candomblés, Christians, Confucianists, Deists, Discordians, Druze people, Falun Gong practitioners, Hindus, Jains, Jews, Muslims, Neopagans, Occultists, Pagans, Panentheists, Pantheists, Rastafarians, Raëlians, Religious skeptics, Santeríans, Satanists, Scientologists, Shintoists, Sikhs, SubGenii, Subud members, Taoists, Thelemites, Theosophists, Unificationists, Unitarians, Universalists. Editor2020 (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category up for deletion here, however, contains articles on the words Mormon, Hindu, Muslim etc., not on people who are Mormon or Muslim or Hindu. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The words "Mormon, Hindu, Muslim, etc." are the proper subjects for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. As you previously wrote "It is useful to have a category for all the "member of religion X" articles (e.g. Mormon, Hindu, Muslim), and contrary to the nomination there is no other category which encompasses them." Category:People by religion does exist, and is the category for "members of religion X". Editor2020 (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't understand the distinction, but if you wish to have the articles in the category deleted, you'll have a hard time of it. Muslim is the shortest of the articles, at 13K chars, which is rather long for a dictionary definition. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too vague under the present name, and in practical terms is a duplication of much of the people by religion category tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:41, 29 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 first option listed for those with two options). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Watersheds of the Atlantic Ocean to Category:Drainage basins of the Atlantic Ocean or Category:Drainage basins feeding the Atlantic Ocean

Propose renaming Category:Watersheds of North America to Category:Drainage basins of North America

Propose renaming Category:Watersheds of the Arctic Ocean to Category:Drainage basins of the Arctic Ocean or Category:Drainage basins feeding the Arctic Ocean

Propose renaming Category:Categories named after watersheds to Category:Categories named after drainage basins

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main parent category, Category:Drainage basins. While these are called watersheds in the US, that may be the only exception. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds like a good idea to me. I think drainage basin is the more accepted expression. Borock (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. "Drainage basin" is the more correct etymologically, and more widely accepted. Still prefer "Drainage basins feeding the Atlantic Ocean", etc, as "Drainage basins of the Atlantic Ocean" makes me think of some ocean floor topological subject. A drainage basin is an area of land. A watershed is a dividing line that sheds the precipitating water one way or the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added feeding as an option. I'm not sure what form I prefer at this time. also, I'm still trying to decide on including Category:Watersheds of Canada. Anyone know which is correct there? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  From drainage basin: "In the technical sense, a watershed refers to a divide that separates one drainage area from another drainage area. However, in the United States and Canada, the term is often used to mean a drainage basin or catchment area itself." Not cited, but something to start with. Hmains (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "feeding" is unnecessary, it's already implied, that's what drainage basins do. Kmusser (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom format of Category:Watersheds of the Atlantic Ocean after reading the explanation in Drainage basin. No 'feeding' is needed. Hmains (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it also be true that Category:Rivers by basin and its 'by basin' subcats should all be renamed to include the word 'drainage'? I think this would clarify a good many things. Hmains (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think so. But is that the common name at the lower levels or is this a case by case determination? While watersheds is acceptable in the US and Canada, we still see basin used in categories and articles. I'm happy to clean up the top levels and then work down the tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Watersheds of the United States by state to Category:Watersheds of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm not convinced that we need this extra level of navigation since the parent is not over populated and contains most of the by state categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That also sounds like a good idea. Many watersheds will overlap state borders. Borock (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• do not merge For US categories, 'by state' parents exist for when the subcats are 'state' sub-categories. So each US state subcat should be moved to Category:Watersheds of the United States by state and the non-state categories kept in Category:Watersheds of the United States per standard practice. Hmains (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that some watersheds cover 33 or so states. So this would place them in 33 subcategories. This seems a tad wrong when categories are an aid to navigation. Yes, this upmerge would keep them in the sub categories, but this really questions the utility of by state categories when a significant number of watersheds may not be limited by state boundaries. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only categorize based on what currently exists, not what might or not might not exist in the future. Currently, there are state subcats. Hmains (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So existence establishes what is correct? Since Category:Chesapeake Bay Watershed has material that is from 6 states, it should be in Category:Watersheds of the United States where it is, and not in Category:Watersheds of Virginia where it is now since most of the watershed is not in Virginia. The upmerge is a clean way to clear up all of this. If and when articles are written on watersheds within the states, then we can reconsider this level of classification. I'll also note that virtually every article is not about the watersheds. In fact, there are very, very few. Most of what is dumped into these categories are rivers and rivers != watersheds. Rivers drain watersheds and are a part of the watershed. But is that defining? Let's get the articles written so we can see what is actually included in the watersheds and then determine if we need categories. We may find that with good watershed articles, categories are not needed for most since the article provides the best form of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • US has 'by state' categories for geography of which watersheds is a landform subset. There is no implication therein that a given landform is totally within a US state: it is sufficient that the US state contains some portion of the landform. In this way, an interested reader, navigating down from any state level, can find all geographic information pertaining to that state. Why not? If 'the article' provides the best source of navigation, when why have categories at all? In truth, WP consensus has determined that categories are a useful navigation aid and so maintains them. Hmains (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – this seems a perfectly good way of organising Category:Watersheds of the United States. (The nom is not suggesting any change to the individual state categories so remarks about overlapping borders are not germane.) At present there are a a few non-state subcats such as Category:Mississippi basin which will be lost amongst the host of states in an upmerge. (It is wholly incorrect to subcat Category:Mississippi basin in Category:Watersheds of Minnesota. This places all manner of extraneous things in Minnesota. There is no parent/child relationship between the 2.) Occuli (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The status quo is overcategorising. That Groveton, Virginia is found several layers under Category:Watersheds of the United States by state, says that this categorisation is unwieldy and needs to be simplified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is because editors seem to believe that the whole of Category:Potomac River is a subcat of Category:Watersheds of the United States. This nom has no bearing on such gross misconceptions and will leave Groveton, Virginia as a watershed, admittedly one level higher up. (Only one of the parents of Category:Potomac River is legitimate.) Occuli (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As you point out, inclusion criteria is problematic. Do towns belong in the watershed category if they are within the watersheds boundary? Can we restrict membership to geographic features like rivers? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem fixed with a few minutes of editing, which anyone can do Hmains (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please point the edits? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I could, but I don't know how. Sorry. Hmains (talk) 01:34, 25 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: Category:Naxos has been  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 23#Category:Naxos, Category:Kornati Islands had been withdrawn, the rest will be Renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tromelin[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Tromelin to Category:Tromelin Island

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Tromelin Island. Tromelin redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename this and all similar ones (below and perhaps above) to match the article. Occuli (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course. Renaming to follow a stable redirected parent article should be speediable. Especially when obviously a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename this and all others listed below to match the article name and for good navigation Hmains (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seram[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Seram to Category:Seram Island

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Seram Island. "Seram" is ambiguous due to the existence of Seram, Nepal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quemoy[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Quemoy to Category:Kinmen

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Kinmen. Quemoy redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pedra Branca[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Pedra Branca to Category:Pedra Branca, Singapore

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Pedra Branca, Singapore. Pedra Branca is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ogasawara Islands[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Ogasawara Islands to Category:Bonin Islands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Bonin Islands. Ogasawara Islands redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naxos[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Naxos to Category:Naxos (island)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Naxos (island). Naxos is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the other cities have been just ruins for over 1000 years. There is no need for a seperate cat between the island and the city on it. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are enough other potential meanings that it would seem to me to be foolish to make this a "primary meaning"-type category when the article hasn't taken that approach. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on the island and the main city. The category can and should cover the lot. If you set up an island category you might want a city one in addition. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The central problem is that there is bound to be confusion with Naxos (Sicily) or Naxos (Crete). If the city Naxos (city) is on the island, doesn't an island category encompass articles about the city that is on the island? That's how other island categories seem to be set up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No there absolutely isn't! The Sicilian one was abandoned for a better site in 358 BC, and hasn't even left any proper ruins, and it is unclear is the Cretan one ever actually existed. Both are as obscure as can be, whereas the island is a major tourist destination. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm too insignificant to avoid a finding of "absolutely" no chance of confusion, but I'm a reasonably well-read person, and I had heard of the Sicilian one in my line of work but was unaware of the island of the same name (except in the mythic sense), so I at least have anecdotal evidence that it's possible. (Admittedly, I have little interest in reading about or visiting Aegean islands and would not choose to pursue material about that topic.) In any case, that seems to be a debate more suitable to fixing the name of the article, not the category.

But with categories, don't we tend to default to disambiguation if there is a possible problem, especially if the category name is different from and more ambiguous than the article name, which this one is? These questions aren't being addressed directly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kunashir[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Kunashir to Category:Kunashir Island

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Kunashir Island. Kunashir redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kornati Islands[edit]

Category:Kodiak Islands[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Kodiak Islands to Category:Kodiak Archipelago

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Kodiak Archipelago. Kodiak Islands redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hydra, Saronic Islands[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Hydra, Saronic Islands to Category:Hydra (island)

Propose renaming Category:People from Hydra to Category:People from Hydra (island)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Hydra (island). Hydra, Saronic Islands redirects there. With respect to the second category listed, Hydra is ambiguous, even as a place name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chirpoy[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Chirpoy to Category:Chyornie Bratya

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Chyornie Bratya. Chirpoy redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chiloé[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Chiloé to Category:Chiloé Archipelago

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Chiloé Archipelago. Chiloé redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Chiloé Archipelago specifies more what the category is about. Dentren | ^Talk 03:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Calamian Group of Islands[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Calamian Group of Islands to Category:Calamian Islands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest dropping the word "Group of" since the main article is at Calamian Islands and Calamian Group of Islands redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bioko Island[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Bioko Island to Category:Bioko

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest dropping the word "Island" since the main article is at Bioko and Bioko Island redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename: Matches main article and common usage.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batam Island[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Batam Island to Category:Batam

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest dropping the word "Island" since the main article is at Batam and Batam Island redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As with several above, renaming categories to follow stable redirects should be speediable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 15 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.