< December 26 December 28 >

December 27

Category:Brands of the World

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) 00:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Brands of the World to Category:Logos from Brands of the World
Nominator's rationale: Or somesuch. Just calling it "Brands of the World" implies that this category is just about that web site itself, but this is a collection of images and logos from that site. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 27 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.

Category:Books by former Scientologists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Books by former Scientologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is just no need to categorize books by their authors' religious background. For example, there should not be Category:Books by Scientologists, Category:Books by Christians, Category:Books by former Christians or Category:Books by former Muslims. Karppinen (talk) 20:34, 27 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.

Category:Images of Porter County

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; may be deleted when all images have been moved to Commons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Images of Porter County to Category:Images of Porter County, Indiana
Nominator's rationale: Name of state should be attached to category ----DanTD (talk) 12:44, 27 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.

Category:Shipwrecks near Key West

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Shipwrecks near Key West to Category:Shipwrecks of the Florida Keys
Nominator's rationale: Rename to specify a well defined region (the Florida Keys) in which hundreds of shipwrecks occurred. "Near Key West" is not well defined; some of the shipwrecks currently in this category occurred more than 100 miles from Key West. Donald Albury 02:21, 27 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.

Category:Articles on deletion review

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:  Relisted at 2011 JAN 11 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Articles on deletion review to Category:Wikipedia pages that are the subjects of deletion reviews
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is populated by a template that serves all namespaces, not just articles, and the category should be renamed to reflect its actual scope. Bsherr (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be inaccurate. It's the deletion process decision, not the page, that's under discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could add the implied "that are", if that addresses your concern. Either is grammatically correct. --Bsherr (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia pages that are the subjects of deletion reviews reads better to me. I assume present tense is intended (at the DRV close, the page is removed from the category?). Why "deletion reviews" plural? If it is only for current discussions, it should usually, if not always, be singular? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, present only; the category is populated by Template:Delrev. My take is that plural is correct to distinguish that the contents of the category are each the subject of a deletion review, as opposed to the contents of the category being the subject of a single deletion review. --Bsherr (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If name length is a problem, why not Category:Wikipedia pages currently undergoing deletion review? Or even simply Category:Wikipedia pages currently in deletion review? Grutness...wha? 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because, again, that would be inaccurate. It's the deletion process discussion for the page that's under review, not the page itself. Saying "subjects of" doesn't fully communicate this, but it's better than further omission. --Bsherr (talk) 00:21, 6 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.

Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Dublin

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) 00:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Dublin to Category:Parliamentary constituencies in County Dublin
Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify that the scope of the category includes the whole of County Dublin, not just the area of Dublin city, and per convention of the sub-categories of Category:County Dublin, which take the form Foo in/of County Dublin.
Note: the category was created by me, three years ago, so I take all the blame for the inaccurate name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 27 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.
More