< January 11	January 13 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename per Speedy criteria C2.4. Please note that renamings which fit the speedy criterion do not need a full CFD discussion: just tag the category with ((subst:cfr-speedy)) and follow the instructions to list the category in the list of speedy proposals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Malian theatre to Category:Theatre of Mali

Nominator's rationale: Every other category in Category:Theatre by country follows this naming pattern. Beloved Freak 22:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Indeed they do, and I dislike the adjectival format in categories, at any rate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename to Category:Theatre in Mali. The parent uses "in", not "of". Also, see speedy rename criterion #4. Jafeluv (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Theatre in Mali, the actual construction used by other similar categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per Category:Theatre by country. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 16 January 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 to the Category:English football clubs xxxx–xx season format.

There seems to be clear consensus against using "soccer" in this context, which leaves the options of "football" and "association football".

The two arguments for using "football" were:

In the absence of any qualification, "football" = "association football" in England; and
Consistency with article naming (e.g., Football in England, England national football team, and other related articles).

The main counterargument is that England-related categories do not exist solely for the benefit of English readers: while "football" = "association football" in an English context, we cannot (or should not) assume that all or most of our readers will be aware of this fact. I think that this argument was not effectively addressed in this discussion. However, this is ultimately an argument that belongs at a discussion about a higher-level category, such as Category:Football in England or Category:Football in the United Kingdom, since a change of UK categories from "football" to "association football" should be supported by a general consensus for the category tree as a whole, not just for one container category with 11 members.

–Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all categories in this parent category, from Category:English football (soccer) clubs xxxx–xx season, to Category:English football clubs xxxx–xx season, reflecting the CFD decision here. As stated in the previous CFD, my preference is that they are all named in the Category:English football clubs xxxx–xx season format, but I am not opposed to them being named Category:English association football clubs xxxx–xx season. What is most important is consistency. WFCforLife (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The individual categories are not tagged! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why, do they need to be? WFCforLife (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I know that this sounds strange, but please could you clarify what "oppose" means. There are multiple proposals here, and regardless of the outcome, the categories are not currently named consistently. WFCforLife (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it does indeed sound strange. "Oppose" means, unsurprisingly, do not rename them as you have proposed. I don't see "multiple proposals"; I just see one proposal to rename all the categories in the same way. --22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment -- the present form seems to result from a US bias. In UK "football" (without some further qualification such as Rugby, American, Gaelic, or Austrialian rules) means soccer. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not written for the sole benefit of readers from the UK. For readers from much of the rest of the world, football either has has another primary meaning, or is ambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think BrownHairedGirl has a point to be honest. My personal opinion is that "English" and "football" is enough context (indeed, the previous CFD closed in favour of "English football clubs 2009–10 season"). Assuming that the consensus is against that, "association football" is more neutral than "football (soccer)", and therefore the sensible compromise. WFCforLife (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Introducing unnecessary ambiguity seems perverse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not association football then? (i.e. what the sport is actually called)? WFCforLife (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. I have no preference between "association football" and "football (soccer)"; both are unambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Everything else under Football in England uses just "football". I see no reason why the word would be ambiguous here but not elsewhere. Jafeluv (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, plain "football" is used in article space instead of "association football" when the subject is a country where "football" means exclusively association football. So, the sport is at Association football, but we have Football in England, History of English football, English football league system, England national football team etc. when talking about England in particular. Category naming should follow article naming where possible. Jafeluv (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support changes. Uniformity of categories is important. Though "football" may be generally unambiguous in England, it is very ambiguous globally. Preferred changes to "association football", as using "Football (soccer)" implies that football is a form of soccer, which is not the case at all, but will support to simply "football" if uniformity can be achieved. The term "association football" has been approved by consensus that was reached over two years ago, located here. Although these categories are in reference to English sport, they are not available to an exclusively English WP audience. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed to England football clubs Discussed one month before. Did the article need to renamed to England national association football (soccer) team? For sure football clubs in England only refer to association football. Matthew_hk t c 21:31, 22 January 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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Miss Angola to Category:Beauty pageants

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category with little expectation for expansion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and create the subcat Category:Miss Angola winners (which will have 3 articles straightaway). Angola is a very large country. Occuli (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed We have articles on five of the winners, so we can just add them to this category, and consider the creation of a winners category at some point in the future if it is ever needed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As part of a global structure of pageant participants and winners, with several more articles on the way. Alansohn (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep as part of a category tree and sure to be expanded. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll note that at this time, there is still only one entry here. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 19 January 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, without prejudice to re-creation if a referenced Hip-hop ballad is ever created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. It's a category that simply WP:OR. No exact def of what's a "hip hop ballad". BoredOnWiki (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- if we can have Category:Pop ballads, Category:Country ballads, etc, what's wrong with Hip-Hop ballads? They're both defined terms, so keep as part of the established scheme of breaking down Category:Ballads by genre by, well, musical genre. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hip hop" and "ballads" might both be defined terms, I suppose, but "hip hop ballads" isn't. Unlike "pop ballads" and "country ballads", which do actually mean actual things that actually exist, "hip hop ballad" is a neologistic misnomer for songs that already fit into Category:Rhythm and blues ballads anyway. By definition, a ballad is sung, which makes it almost impossible for a song to simultaneously be both hip hop and a ballad. R&B with a Timbaland beat is still R&B, not hip hop. Bearcat (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ballad article includes writeup and examples of ballads in traditional, folk, jazz, blues, pop, and rock music— but not country, funk, hip-hop, or R&B. That isn't to say that country or funk ballads don't exist, however. Category:Power ballads was deleted without incident two years ago.- choster (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to categorize and allow navigation based on this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any evidence that the genre actually exists? If not, how can it be a "defining characteristic"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A google search for "Hip hop ballad" -wikipedia returns 104,000 hits. I haven't evaluated them, but at first glance that does suggest that the term is in wide use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once you've discounted people who incorrectly conflate "hip hop" with "any and all R&B whether it has anything to do with actual hip hop or not", name me just one song that's still on the list of "hip hop ballads". Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know nothing at all about hip-hop, so if the consensus is that that those google hits are just a mis-labelling, I'm have no objection with deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 14 January 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. If there is a strong opinion about deleting, the category can be nominated for deletion after the rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the United Kingdom Special Constabularies to Category:British special constables

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A lot less long-winded and just as accurate. In addition, "British" is the usual adjective used in these categories (and generally). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. A special constable is a part-time volunteer, not a career, and it is irrelevant to the notability of 2 of the 3 articles in this category. I have removed William Ewart Gladstone from the category, since there was nothing in the article to support his inclusion. That leaves:

The racing driver Nigel Mansell, whose article improbably suggests that for 11 years being a special constable was his primary occupation
John Christie (murderer). It's perhaps a little more relevant in this case, but even with Christie there is no suggestion that being a special constable assisted his crime in any way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that special constables are still police officers, however, and therefore can accurately be categorised under Category:British police officers (just as Territorial Army officers can be categorised under Category:British Army officers). There seems, therefore, to be nothing particularly wrong with having a subcat for specials. I'm not sure that it says anywhere that categories are only for actual careers or that they should only be included if it is relevant to their notability! If so, that would mean a lot of decategorising! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special constables are police officers in the sense of having the powers, but they are not police officers in the sense of that being their occupation. It's much like how many people spend a lot of time tending their gardens, but that does not lead to them being included in Category:Gardeners unless they achieved notability for their horticultural works. Per WP:CAT, categories are for defining characteristics. Many people do all sorts of good works in their spare time, but we do not categorise by those activities unless they are relevant to notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to more clearly and succinctly describe the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename -- ~~The headnote to the category is in fact inaccurate: there are no special "constabularies".~~ A special constable is merely a part-time volunteer policeman, who holds the office of "special constable". The situation for the Northern Ireland Specials (the subcategory) may be different. I note the request for the category to be populated: this may not happen fast, as special constables are only likely to have articles if they are notable for other reasons. Typically they will be NN, and so have no article. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that's untrue. As a member of a special constabulary, I can confirm that there are indeed special constabularies! There is a special constabulary within each police force with its own ranks and organisation. Yes, they work alongside their regular colleagues and do the same job, but they are still distinct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected. This does not affect my vote for Rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable trivia. This is one among many spare-time organisations (ambulance, lifeboats, Samaritans, etc) to which people may volunteer their time, but it is non-defining (hence probably part of the reason why it is so sparcely populated). AllyD (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case would you care to explain why several of the people in the category were honoured (OBEs, CBEs) for their service in special constabularies? Hardly trivia. Of course it's defining! Just as being a member of the TA is defining! These people are still police officers, army officers etc; they just don't do it full-time (although in actual fact many devote almost as much time to their part-time "jobs" as to their day jobs). -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and keep per Necrothesp. It is certainly defining for Reginald Beddington and others, and nearly all the Ulster sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the merits of retaining this category, it's very odd to place the Ulster Special Constabulary as a sub-category. Special constables in England are primarily community officers, but the Ulster Special Constabulary (better known as the B-specials) were a paramilitary force which was disbanded after an official enquiry acknowledged that their reputation as sectarian thugs was irreparable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were indeed great differences, but the fact remains that the USC were special constables. They were called special constables, they were volunteers, and they were constituted in a similar way to other British special constabularies, although their activities were most certainly very different. Incidentally, there were also originally "A Specials" and "C Specials". -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little puzzled as to why some people want to delete this category as not a "defining characteristic". For many people, being a special is a defining characteristic. We categorise people who served in the reserve forces, we categorise people who served in individual wars, we categorise people if they only worked in a particular job for a short time. So, should we categorise people who served in the British Army for six months in Category:British Army soldiers but not categorise people who served in the special constabulary for 25 years and may have been honoured for it in this category? Seems very, very odd to me and also seems to show a fundamental disagreement with the categorisation policies that most editors use, which should be raised elsewhere, not on the Cfr for an individual category. We have categories for all sorts of pretty irrelevant factors in people's lives, far less defining than this one. In addition, the fact remains that I (and others) will continue to categorise specials under Category:British police officers (since they are), so it makes no sense not to have a separate subcat. The argument for deletion is therefore a pretty pointless one - this cat or its higher cat, they will still be categorised. At the end of the day, categories are essentially there for the sake of interest ("oh look, xx was a special constable"), not for any great intellectual or encyclopaedic reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and keep per Necrothesp. Specials are regarded highly in the UK and service is often rewarded in the honours systems. It's also useful in categorisation terms to distinguish these part-time volunteer police officers from their full time colleagues. This is an encyclopedia after all Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 16 January 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Basically an award category. This is for models who have appeared on danni.com and were named 'DanniGirl of the Month'. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have Category:DanniGirls navigational boxes on this. We have a List of DanniGirls. I checked a dozen or so of the articles on that list, and none of them even mention this "award". Category:Danni.com looks as if it could go, as well. Minor award of a website we don't even have an article about, just a redirect. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Danni.com added to nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The usual solution to awards categories is to listify and delete, but the list already exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:21, 12 January 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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of performer by performance. (This is for artists who have performed at the Peabody Mason Concerts.) We don't do it because it's almost never defining for an artist and would lead to incredible category clutter if the scheme were fully developed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Good Olfactory.--Baron Larf 07:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are very good reasons we don't do this- chief among them to keep musicians pages from having a hundred categories. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. If every concert series had a category, musician's articles would be cluttered beyond all reason. Wikipedia is not a catchall.THD3 (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WE do not need performer by performance categories. If we allowed them WP would be swamped with them. I doubt that listifying would be appropriate either. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I'd like to suggest that there is a strong historical significance to the Peabody Mason concerts, especially the early concerts of the 50's-60's which introduced some of today's big names to the music scene. The list helps wikipedia users to link from one artist of interest to other artists related by the series. The list should not grow any larger since these performances for all intents ended in the 80's--Silverforgestudio (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the intent is to list those who performed at the Peabody Mason concerts, why don't we just add a list to the Peabody Mason Concerts article? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters, and anyway should not use "artists", which means visual art in category names. Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 18 January 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 either rename or delete, default to keep. Jafeluv (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Avatar (film) to Category:Avatar (2009 film)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article; there are *at least* two films named Avatar. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unneeded ugly disambiguation name for a category which has an unpiped name displayed at the bottom of articles. I created the category with a sufficient hatnote saying:

Avatar (2004 film) is very unlikely to get a category and nobody would expect it to have a category. Cameron's hugely successful film will probably get sequels in coming years and then we would have to remove a year from the category name. The Avatar: The Last Airbender franchise includes "The Last Airbender" in their name and have Category:Avatar: The Last Airbender among the disambiguations at Category:Avatar (created by me when I made Category:Avatar (film) a week ago). Their upcoming 2010 film is only called The Last Airbender without "Avatar". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support If the article names need to be disambiguated, the categories should be. Simple as that. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 14:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is the minimum number of articles permitted in a category? This category does not seem to have enough articles to warrant its existence. Erik (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fixed number. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth. Category:Categories named after films has many categories with a simlar number of articles. The film is incredibly popular and I think this category has strong potential to grow with time, maybe into a new name like Category:Avatar (franchise). I certainly think Category:Avatar (2009 film) would be a temporary name. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match full title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, god, for the love of all that is holy and non-OCAT-flouting and ARTICLES-ABOUT-FICTIONAL-LANGUAGES-IN-SCIENCE-FICTION-FILMS-DON'T-BELONG-IN-ENCYCLOPEDIAS, delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to limited number of articles with no foreseeable growth. Cameron may or may not make more films or may or may not produce Avatar-related media. The ((Avatar (film))) template is pushing it, too, making three anchor links out of one article, Fictional universe in Avatar. Erik (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, per PrimeHunter. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 16 January 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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Miss Brasil to Category:Miss Brazil

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ENGLISH. "Brasil" is Portuguese. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 03:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of these seem to be named after the competitions, which often retain non-English spelling when being translated into English. Examples are Category:Miss Universe Nederland, Category:Miss Perú, Category:Señorita Panamá. The articles about the specific competitions by year are all called "Miss Brasil YEAR". The nominator recently moved Miss Brasil to Miss Brazil without discussion. Yup, it's a mess. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've put several articles on pageants with non-English names up for discussion and the consensus has always been to rename them to English (at least that I can remember), which is why I initially moved the "Miss Brasil" article, although I stopped halfway through converting the usage within the article after deciding that it's probably better to bring this up for discussion. That said, I see no reason at all not to rename this type of category when translating it clearly does not affect the meaning or the ability to locate the article/categories. If it's a mess, that's all the more reason to standardize these with English names per the vast majority in Category:Beauty pageants rather than back off and leave it as-is—that's exactly how it's been a mess for so long. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed It's a mess- and the only thing I want to do to with this proposal it is move the article back to Miss Brasil; which I'm not going to do! However, this needed a larger discussion than a unilateral move- I"m going to notify the Brazil Wikiproject. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the article should be moved back to Miss Brasil pending a consensus to move it: given such a consensus then the categories should follow suit, but not before. It was Miss Brasil consistently until recent unilateralism. (We don't always use English. There is La Liga for instance.) Occuli (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- We need a discussion to settle the name of the main article, then to rename the category (if necessary) to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've moved the main article back to Miss Brasil in light of the concerns expressed here. Obviously this would need to be proposed at WP:RM and discussed before moving it back to Miss Brazil. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can onlt say that I noticed some time ago, that these articles are a mess indeed, with any language you like. Somebody feels like moving a few of them to normal English titles? This is the English Wikipedia, after all. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename unless research justifies it. On the previous one of these that was raised, I studied the Web site of the relevant contest and reported back here. In my view, the articles must be in the official name (official English name where it exists) of the contest. To do anything else risks confusing similarly-named contests, if they exist. To assume that 'Señorita Panamá' is called 'Miss Panama' in English is very risky, and to ask for "normal English titles; This is the English Wikipedia, after all." is like asking Giuseppe Verdi to be renamed "Joseph Greene". --Sussexonian (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename as category title (now) matches that of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 19 January 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:RSS aggregators to Category:News aggregators

Nominator's rationale: "RSS aggregator" is usually the same as "news aggregator". The term "RSS aggregators" can also refer to only those news aggregators that support RSS format, but in this case these categories are mostly-overlapping because most of news readers (nearly all) support RSS. Note also that most feed readers support Atom format too, but there is no Category:Atom aggregators. Filemon (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some overlap between aggregator, web feed, and web syndication; aggregator might be remade into a dab. The categories themselves are a mishmash of news aggregation websites (Drudge Report), services (blo.gs), and software (Internet Explorer 7). I agree that support of a given technology standard (e.g. RSS) is an unsustainable way of categorization. By my thinking, we should rename Category:RSS aggregators to Category:Feed aggregation clients and create Category:Feed aggregation websites separately as part of a thorough cleanup. I would remove the tag altogether from software where aggregation is a secondary and non-defining feature. After all, we don't list Microsoft Word in Category:HTML editors or Adobe Flash in Category:Presentation software, even though they're probably used more often for those purposes than Winamp is used for aggregation.- choster 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'd merge all this stuff as much as possible and make sure it's clear that it refers to online technology. "News aggregator" doesn't cut it; that sounds like a fancified job title for people who work at Associated Press or Reuters. And let's not open a "well, we can keep this if we make one for Atom and so on too", since that leads to crap like "Atom aggregators" which means nothing to anyone but Atom-involved people; every other kind of reader will either think of supercolliders or just draw a blank. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Both terms redirect to the same article. If there is a need to better organize the contents, then appropriate subcategories can be created. But we only need one parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. They are the same thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 14 January 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 for now; may be renominated if anyone ever figures out and comes up with a plan to deal with the mess User:Levineps created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Small category (one article) that will not grow. Reywas92^Talk 02:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we have a bit of a mess here, as two former names of this team are in sub-categories. All told we have six stadia... I would be happier with upmerging everything so all this franchise's stadia are in a single category, and then doing the same to all the other NFL teams that have moved cities/names and are similarly organized. The only one we'd have to be careful on would be the Cleveland Browns (As the old Browns are now the Baltimore Ravens.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, both incarnations of the Browns are considered by the NFL to be a single franchise. See Cleveland Browns relocation controversy for details. — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, you're right. We actually have the Browns categorized like I proposed doing the entire NFL. Thanks for the link, my memory had gotten rusty on that. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Titans played in more than one stadium. LP Field is in Nashville. The Titans played their first season in Memphis, I believe at the Liberty Bowl. They may have played some games in Vanderbilt's stadium; I don't remember clearly. I know that is listed as "Tennessee Oilers"; is that fully and wholly accurate for the entire time any game was played in those two places? As mentioned above, in their prior incarnation as the Houston Oilers they played elsewhere, most notably in the Astrodome.LanternLight (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as parent og the team's multiple incarnations, there is nothing small about the category and the connections between the stadiums and the team are defining. Alansohn (talk) 18:34, 19 January 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Simply too small at this time. While there might be more articles possible, I'd like to see them before we have the category. I'm open to keeping if there are good reasons to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, without prejudice to re-creating it if and when there are 5 articles which genuinely belong in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the main article and single other article are adequately and mutually linked, so that the category serves little purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:29, 12 January 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.

January 12

Malian theatre

Category:English football club seasons by year

Category:Miss Angola

Category:Hip hop ballads

Category:Members of the United Kingdom Special Constabularies

Category:DanniGirls

Category:Peabody Mason artists

Category:Avatar (film)

Category:Miss Brasil

Category:RSS aggregators

Category:Tennessee Titans stadiums

Category:Rocky Mountain Institute