< July 4	July 6 >

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former members of the Urban Council of Hong Kong to Category:Members of the Urban Council of Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All member of the Urban Council of Hong Kong are former members, because it was abolished in 1999. But when we have membership categories for defunct political bodies, we don't add "former" to the category name. In fact, we almost never categorize political office holders into "current" and "former" categories. See also related discussion below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. While I note that we do do some current categories, and I think we should do some more, I do agree that use of "former" is not desirable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- we do not do currnet/former categories for politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former members of the Regional Council of Hong Kong to Category:Members of the Regional Council of Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All member of the Regional Council of Hong Kong are former members, because it was abolished in 1999. But when we have membership categories for defunct political bodies, we don't add "former" to the category name. In fact, we almost never categorize political office holders into "current" and "former" categories. See also related discussion above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per squillions of precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- we do not do current/former categories for politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Boondocks (TV series) episodes to Category:The Boondocks (TV series) episodes

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the lead article The Boondocks (TV series). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Ancient astronaut speculation and Category:Ancient astronauts in fiction. These seem the least controversial answers to the problems identified here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ancient astronaut theory to Category:Ancient astronauts

Propose renaming Category:Ancient astronaut theory in fiction to Category:Ancient astronauts in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article per a deprecation of the word theory which was ambiguously employed. In short, "ancient astronauts" is considered a more neutral presentation of the idea which may not rise to the level of a theory depending on whose definition of theory one uses. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No issues with "fiction", which can include anything. I see Category:Ancient astronaut theory is a subcategory of "Paranormal" something and lots of Pseudo- things, but it looks clear to me that it belongs in/below Category:Mythology. From what little I just read, ancient astronauts looks like an anachronistic revisionism of the Judeo integration of Greek mythology. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal: Rename the main cat to ~~Category:Ancient astronaut hypothesis~~ Category:Ancient astronaut conjecture/s [I'm changing my proposal - see below]. The sub-cat can be renamed either as proposed or to Category:Ancient astronaut hypothesis in fiction. While I understand the concern over use of the word "theory", I am perplexed by the apparent lack of concern over the implicit reification of the notion of "Ancient astronauts" that would result from the proposed rename. When the article was renamed back in 2008 there was very little in the way of actual discussion -- and no discussion at all of the alternate proposal to rename to Ancient astronaut hypothesis, which I believe is the best and most accurate characterization of the subject at hand, while also avoiding the problem of inadvertent reification. Cgingold (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like Cgingold's proposal. The nom seems to legitimise a fringe theory, but it is fringe. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Ancient astronaut theory to Category:Ancient astronaut hypothesis, and subcat to Category:Ancient astronaut hypothesis in fiction per cgingold. As noted in the head article Ancient astronauts "the idea that ancient astronauts actually existed is not taken seriously by academics, and has received little or no credulous attention in peer reviewed studies" ... so the category title should reflect that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A "hypothesis" is a much more rigorous concept than the ancient astronaut explanations actually are. We can call ancient astronauts "proposals, "speculations", "ideas", and even "beliefs", but they are not well-formed hypotheses which is a term that has a specific definition to which these proposals do not conform. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure I agree with you that the term "hypothesis" must necessarily be construed as strictly as you've indicated, but again I understand your concern, S/A. And thank you for coming up with some possible alternative terms to consider. I don't think any of them are suitable -- but you got my lexical wheels turning, and I think I may have come up with a viable solution. What do you think of "conjecture" -- i.e. "Ancient astronaut conjecture"? Cgingold (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A conjecture in mathematics is an assertion based on inferred evidence that appears to be correct but is not proven. This is obviously not the case for these ideas. I appreciate the brainstorming, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah yes, well... this isn't mathematics -- so that definition is irrelevant. "Conjecture/s" is a perfectly good term that isn't owned by any particular discipline, and I think it conveys the essence of this subject very well indeed. I honestly don't understand why you think this term is unacceptable and must be rejected out of hand. Meanwhile, I continue to be mystified by your apparent lack of concern over the issue of reification that I pointed out above. Or do you now agree that we need to settle on an alternate proposal for this category? Cgingold (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "conjecture" implies that there is evidence for the claim regardless of the context (mathematical or not). This is why I dislike it as a proposal. As for reification, I don't think it's an issue at all. Arbcom said as much in one of its rulings at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate framing. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right that "conjecture" implies that there is evidence, S/A. But that's not the issue here. These books are filled -- overflowing -- with evidence. (Continued below...) Cgingold (talk)

Rename to "Ancient astronaut speculation" or something of that sort. But not "hypothesis", because that refers to "a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon"— clearly not the case here. cmadler (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have just the term you want: "Conjecture/s". Cgingold (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Ancient astronaut nonsense? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation is closer to the appropriate meaning than conjecture. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One final attempt at consensus:Propose renaming Category:Ancient astronaut theory to Category:Ancient astronaut proposals and Propose renaming Category:Ancient astronaut theory in fiction to Category:Ancient astronauts in fiction. This at least carries the correct meaning. Saying something is "in fiction" to me indicates that it isn't real anyway, so we don't need to further explain it per the arbcom ruling on adequate framing. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer "speculation", but "proposals" is OK with me too. And I'm fine with "Ancient astronauts in fiction" too. These need to be renamed one way or another. cmadler (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm okay with "speculation" too. "Proposal" just seems a little more prosaic and more in-keeping with how these ideas are developed, to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conjecture (continued from above): These books are filled -- overflowing -- with evidence. The real issue is the quality of that evidence -- and the quality of the inferences that are made. I think we can all agree that the quality of the evidence is rather poor to say the least, frequently misinterpreted or misrepresented, at times flat out bogus -- and of course, it all falls well short of supporting the grand inferences they make about Ancient astronauts.

It so happens that what I've just described corresponds very closely with the dictionary definitions of "conjecture", as you can see from the following items:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

2a. inference from defective or presumptive evidence
2b. a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork

Random House Dictionary:

1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

Webster's New World College Dictionary:

inferring, theorizing, or predicting from incomplete or uncertain evidence; guesswork

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork

I submit that on the basis of these definitions "conjecture" is unquestionably the right term to use, as it is both accurate and neutral. "Speculation", on the other hand, is too dismissive, and therefore fails the NPOV test. As for "Proposal", that word really doesn't cover the nature of the subject adequately -- whereas "conjecture" describes it even better than I realized (before finding those definitions). My feeling is that "conjectures" (plural) probably makes more sense, as there are multiple conjectures (from multiple authors), thus Category:Ancient astronaut conjectures. As I said above, I'm fine with Category:Ancient astronauts in fiction. Cgingold (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conjecture(s) is fine by me. As Cgingold suggests, it resolves the problem of hypothesis being a little too scientific. (Now, will Erich ever speak to me again?) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me give one last plea for something other than "conjecture". In short, a conjecture is reasonable while these ideas are not. It has nothing in common with those articles listed under Category:Conjectures. That's my problem with it. What about Category:Ancient astronaut pseudoscholarship? I'm really grasping here. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "conjecture" is not appropriate. Conjecture is associated with things that are scholarly or analytical. "Guesswork" is not a reasonable synonym to conjecture. Conjecture is definitely expected to be reasonable. This ancient astronoaut stuff is not an explanation of anything that needs explaining. "fantacy" would be a better word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but did either of you even bother to read the standard dictionary definitions that I provided? You guys are just flatly wrong to insist that your very narrow construction of the word "conjecture" must replace and supersede the real world, Plain English, meaning of the term. What you're referring to is a specialized usage of the term -- which only pertains to mathematics. I don't know how to put it any more clearly. Please read (or re-read) those dictionary definitions and try to assimilate them. Cgingold (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The head note for Category:Conjectures specifies that it's about mathematics -- but that's not apparent from the name. Since the word "Conjecture" also has other, more common meanings, I am going to propose renaming the category (probably to Category:Mathematical conjectures). That will ensure that nobody confuses ordinary conjectures with the mathematical variety. Cgingold (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did. More importantly, I consulted oed.com. Also, I have used the word in science, not mathematics. I agree that the word is not easily defined, but I am sure that it does not apply here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, if we go all the way down that route we might as well just call it Category:Ancient astronaut crap. That seems to be some editors view of this stuff, and it's not a million miles beyond my view; but it is POV. So far we've made the trip from theory to hypothesis to conjecture; but calling it "pseudoscholarship" is making a much bugger leap to definitive and unambiguous statement that there is no truth at all in any of this, and that none of the stuff in this field has any merit at all. I think that's unnecessary, because we don't need to take such a hard line to convey that the ancient astronaut stuff is disowned by mainstream science ... but we don't need to crap all over it. Use a neutral term and let articles speak for themselves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, please excuse my POV, but to a degree I am allowed to have one outside mainspace, and Categories are a funny place that are not clearly mainspace. Checking google scholar, I see on the first page the following words used for "ancient astronauts": "popular theories"; "myth"; "Pseudoscientific beliefs"; "assertion"; "modern myth"; "theory". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category names appear without qualification of explanation on all the pages in that category, so they are clearly subject to WP:NPOV. However honourably and sincerely you hold a POV, category names are not the place to express it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I withdraw my Category:Ancient astronaut nonsense suggestion. I hope it wasn't taken seriously. I oppose "conjecture", feeling that it confers implicit scholarly legitimacy, and would actually prefer "theory", as a common word often used without formal or technical implication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV actually has a section about pseudoscience and other such nonsense (WP:PSCI) which indicates that pseudoscience and similar fringe beliefs should be identified as such and "[a]n explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." So, to lift a term from that policy, what if we call it Category:Ancient astronaut pseudoscience theory? cmadler (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I think that's a rather selective reading of WP:PSCI. It's clearly written wrt to articles (rather than categories), and says "the scientific view and the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such". Great: that's what we do in articles, but it's not the case that every article in this category consists solely of a pseudoscientific view (which would breach NPOV), or that all the critics of the astronaut stuff concur in labelling it "pseudoscience": Carl Sagan, for example, was much more cautious in dismissing the case as lacking the evidence required. Stuff like this generates a range of responses , and at Ancient astronaut theory#Scientific consideration the terminology used is words like "speculative" and "unproven", and Sagn is referred to as describing it as possible but unproven, and perhaps improbable.

I hold no brief for any of these theories, but I don't like this enthusiasm for taking everything in this field and slapping it with a label which fails to recognise that responses from some of the most significant scientific critics stay well clear of using such an unambiguously critical label. More neutral terminology is available, and should be used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, full circle. Yes, we all agree this is nonsense. So nonsensical, in fact, that many of the standard words we'd use to describe such an idea seem to be too validating. So what do we do? How about not use them at all? This was why I thought Category:Ancient astronauts would be good. The issue of reification is one that probably shouldn't be dealt with at the category level considering this round-robin discussion. We can always clarify on the category page itself. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:49, 25 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bioclimatics to Category:Sustainable building

Nominator's rationale: Up Merge. Up merge to the proper parent category. Note, the main article appears to be Green building. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Bizarre. Nopetro creates the redirect Bioclimatic → Green building but still feels compelled to create a parallel splinter category on the redirected name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 6 July 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 to Category:Risk management. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. When you remove hazards themselves, you are left with a very small category. Also, while we have a main article, prevention is misleading. We really can not prevent earthquakes, fires or auto accidents. We can do things to reduce hazards, but generally not to prevent them, accidents do happen. So the category title is really misleading. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Risk management. The stub, Hazard prevention should be redirected to Risk management. Hazard prevention (sometimes possible) is a subset of risk management, which is a well defined subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 5 July 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: WIthdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:World democracy to Category:Direct democracy

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Not convinced that we need this extra level for navigation. Many of the articles are also listed in the parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do not merge as nominated There is no relationship between 'World democracy' and 'Direct democracy' as found by reading articles, so I removed Category:Direct democracy as a parent to Category:World democracy. 'Direct democracy' is a type of democracy compared to 'representative democracy'. 'World democracy' deals with the geographic scope of democracy across sovereign states as compared to democracy within a specific state. Hmains (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - different meanings. jonkerz ♠ 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose makes no sense; completely different categorization types. (democracy by type of internal mechanics vs democracy by area of coverage) 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I do not think they are the same thing at all; sparate them and keep them apart. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 6 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not convinced that this category is needed given the others in this area. So mostly listing to see if my view is reasonable or if I'm way off base. A merge is possible, but I'm not sure where. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another green WP:SMALLCAT category by Nopetro, who's always ready to toss the poor old General Services Administration into the mix. The GSA is not an article about Green procurement, though it is a (small) part of what they do. The first stated mission of the Directorate-General for Energy (European Commission) is not green procurement, it's to create "a competitive internal energy market to lower prices." So we're left with the main article and Forward Commitment Procurement only. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:34, 10 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A single entry category where the article is already included in both parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The single article is a list of different metrics, most but not all of which are specific to vehicles. It's better as a list than as a category, imo, but others might feel otherwise. This is one from Nopetro that isn't blatantly wrong,imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 6 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A single entry category where the article text does not support inclusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete. A distant cousin of Category:Vernacular architecture?
Delete The single article is about a Czech town (or village). No main article. Vernacular architecture is not quite the same, and not necessarily rural. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 6 July 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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 17#Category:Rural. — ξ ^xplicit 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rural to Category:?

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is listed as rural area, but that does not seem to really deal with the contents. So maybe delete or repurpose to Category:rural agriculture? I offer that since it's first parent was Category:Agriculture. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I see no reason to change it. Perhaps the listed main article is not quite the right one, but never mind. I have not looked too hardbut some of the "see also" rural items in rural area do not seem to be in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And some of them shouldn't be. Nopetro did a lot of damage to articles overpopulating See also sections with irrelevant or non-existent links. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh that explains why I fell like deleting the See also sections completely in some articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BYD to Category:BYD Company

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 5 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lithium-ion battery manufacturers to Category:Battery manufacturers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. We tend to classify these by application and not the type of material contained within. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 06:23, 10 July 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 to Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicle industry. — ξ ^xplicit 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete? Another discussion. The contents are not about conversion kits, but rather companies who make these or the components. Not sure if that justifies this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either rename to Category:Plug-in hybrid kit manufacturers or upmerge to Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicle industry, if we feel the kit category won't grow enough on its own. I would still keep these out of the plug-in hybrid vehicle manufacturers category, to differentiate them from companies which build entire vehicles, rather than just kits. --Vossanova ^o< 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Vossanova. cmadler (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or something. I'm bring this here to see if we should delete, clean it up, expand the contents or whatever. I'm not sure that it really can get many more articles without overlapping with other categories. Right now it does not seem to be connected to Category:Payment systems so maybe keeping or reparenting or... Vegaswikian (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep, populate, and use as a proper subcategory of Category:Payment systems among others. A payment is an important financial object and there are enough associated articles to keep together as a category. Doing so will help reduce the clutter currently found in Category:Payment systems which the articles can be removed from. Hmains (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All articles are already in Category:Payment systems or an appropriate subcategory, such as Category:Currency. These are not articles about payments, they are articles about things that can be used to make payments. This is a classic User:Nopetro special. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:38, 6 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vauxhall to Category:Vauxhall Motors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article. And I thought I was going to get into a renaming of a British town or something. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Vauxhall is an area of Lambeth taking its name from (or giving its name to) the Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens. I presume that the cars were orignsally made there before the company relocated to Luton, but I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Per article it was originally named after the area. Cjc13 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to match head article Vauxhall Motors. (BYW, it's a minor gripe, but when an editor bases a nomination on the name of the head article, it's helpful to provide a link to that article). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 8 July 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. There is no consistency as to whether subcategories of Category:Rock music groups by genre use "rock groups," "rock music groups," or "rock musical groups," but they don't use "bands" except in the marching and orchestral sense, and in the case of the self-contained phrase Category:Jam bands. Per the head article, "rock" here is definitely lowercase. No prejudice against a nomination to remove the "musical" part, or for that matter bringing consistency to the whole tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pub Rock bands to Category:Pub rock musical groups

Nominator's rationale: Caps and the "X musical groups" standard of the parent categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The standard appears to be "rock music groups", not musical. The main article for musical groups is Musical ensemble, which uses the heading "Rock and pop bands", so rock bands would seem to be acceptable terminology, and bands is used in other categories for musical groups such as Category:Concert bands and Category:Military bands. The category has the lead article Pub rock (UK), so perhaps UK should be added to the category title, but I would be inclined to leave the capital in Rock as these are "Pub Rock" bands. Cjc13 (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are you claiming that "Pub Rock" is a proper noun with that capitalization? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The specific UK musical genre covered is known as Pub Rock (with capitalisation), and the "musical groups" who fitted that genre were mostly referred to as "Pub Rock bands" - there might be a case for adding "UK" to the category title, but changing "bands" to "musical groups" rather misses the point. I note that Punk Rock appears in Wikipedia as Punk rock, without capitalisation, which is also contrary to popular usage in the UK; however for consistency both genres should use the same capitalisation or lack of RGCorris (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I should note that the parent article is Pub rock (UK), which should be brought into consideration. — ξ ^xplicit 19:06, 17 July 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 to Category:Meat industry. — ξ ^xplicit 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Meat processing to Category:Meat packing industry

Propose renaming Category:Meat industry to Category:Meat packing industry

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the main article. Also not convinced that we really need two categories where is the first category with the livestock article. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't "meat packing" a US-specific term? The Meat packing industry article is flagged as such. I agree with Vegaswikian that it is unnecessary to maintain both Category:Meat processing and Category:Meat industry though; better to standardise onto Category:Meat processing (and its existing sub-categores of similar names). AllyD (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge instead There's already a Category:Meatpacking. Creating a Category:Meat packing industry would be needless duplication and mighty confusing for the average reader. I propose all mentioned so far should be merged, probably into Category:Meat industry because that is a more generic term than the US specific "meatpacking" (which I've never heard used in a non-US context). Astronaut (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Meat industry per Astronaut. cmadler (talk) 19:02, 15 July 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, there's nothing to merge. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I actually thought this one was going to be OK. The problem is, how many articles are we going to have on IPOs? Most companies these days start their public life with an IPO. So using this for companies that went public in an IPO is not defining. Upmerge is not needed since the main article is already in the two parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upnerge but delete A123Systems, which appears to be a company that had an IPO. Is this another from the recent troublesome sockpuppet? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Almost all in the series. Note, there is now a list of categories that have been culled from the edits by this set of banned users. After reviewing, these are all likely to be nominated for some action. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:32, 6 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Could be deleted as small and probably misnamed since it is mostly for electrification articles. The main article reindustrialization does exist but has many problems that need cleaning up. I'm not opposed to a re purpose or rename if there are any suggestions. Even keeping is on the table is there is consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT Retrofitting is not reindustrialization. Neither is electrification. And so once again we have a category from Nopetro where we have only a parent article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The putative main article seems to be espousing a political POV, and I do not feel inclined to even try to fix it. Teh rest is disparate, so that there is essntially nothing left to make a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IPCC lead authors to Category:International Panel on Climate Change lead authors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym per normal practice to match main article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Perhaps "Expand acronym to match main article name" could be a speedy rename criteria?

Perhaps category creation should balk when non-English words are included and there is no matching article (redirects no counting). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 6 July 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. A merge to Category:Aircraft manufacturers is unnecessary, as the only article in this category is already in the subcategory Category:Aircraft manufacturers of the United States — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with unclear expansion possibilities at this time. The article has correct parents, so deletion will not have a negative effect on the sole article. Recreate if we get an abundance of these. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, or merge to Category:Aircraft manufacturers, trivial as it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as Small category.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:47, 6 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Plug-in hybrid buses to Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Not convinced that we need this single entry category at this time. Maybe in the future this design will result in more products, but for now we don't need the small category. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per as an essentially empty Nopetro category. I don't see anything in the sole article Mercedes-Benz Citaro or its refs to indicate that it is in fact a plug in. Did I miss something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 6 July 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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 17#Category:Optical disc image. — ξ ^xplicit 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Optical disc image to Category:Optical disc images

Nominator's rationale: Rename, maybe. This is one of those that it is not clear what the name should be, or if it should be changed. So bringing it here for discussion. The main article is disk image. This category includes formats and software and methods. So it is a mix of what we might use to choose between the singular and plural names. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose could be confused as a file category that categorizes files. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles improved to Category:Wikipedia unreferenced articles improved

Nominator's rationale: remove double prefix. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I mistakenly added the double prefix when I created it. ascidian | talk-to-me 14:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 6 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is pretty simple: Unlike the parties that are found in the siblings to this category, none of the parties here are actual "Labour parties", so they should not be categorized as such. All three are already included in Category:Political parties in Hawaii, so no further action is needed. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, since none of the 3 articles currently in the category actually belong there (I checked, and agree wit the nominator's assessment). Oh, and nice to see CGingold back at CFD :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The category definition explains the apparent misunderstanding of the category creator on this point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Native Hawaiian nationalist parties, as this appears to be less problematic. — ξ ^xplicit 21:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:(Hawaiian) Nationalist parties in Hawaii to Category:Hawaiian nationalist parties

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Hawaiian" definitely doesn't need to be in parentheses here, but that could leave us with Category:Hawaiian nationalist parties in Hawaii. I suspect the "in Hawaii" is redundant here; there's unlikely to be Hawaiian nationalist parties anywhere but in Hawaii. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or Category:Nationalist parties in Hawaii for which there is some support in Category:Nationalist parties. Occuli (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Whatever name is agreed on needs to denote the fact that these are/were Native Hawaiian nationalist parties -- as distinct from other nationalist parties in the United States. Btw, I rather doubt that the Democratic Party of Hawaii can properly be considered a true "nationalist party", as it is of course a branch of the Democratic Party of the United States. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe not anymore, but if you read Democratic Party of Hawaii, it sounds like historically it was fairly nationalist in its approach. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I was wondering what to make of that. I imagine there's a lot more to the story than what's outlined in the article. Anyway, I'm going to leave it for more knowledgable editors to deal with. Cgingold (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). Category:Native Hawaiian nationalist parties might be a better option. The problem with Category:Nationalist parties in Hawaii is that it remains unclear whether they are for Native Hawaiian nationalism or American nationalism in general, which I presume is why the category initially included the "(Hawaiian)" in parentheses in the first place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Hawaiian nationalist parties or if clarification is really needed, Category:Native Hawaiian nationalist parties. cmadler (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Unió Valenciana to Category:Valencian Union

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article uses the English-language version, Valencian Union. I suggest we rename the corresponding category to match. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support when I created the cat back in 2008 it had the same name as the main article. At some point since the main article was renamed so it's logical for the cat to also be renamed. Valenciano (talk) 13:34, 5 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization, irrelevant to the listed subjects (or do we want Genghis Khan littered with potentially dozens of "Historical characters in X Y's work" categories?). Latebird (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To continue Latebird's argument, if only "historical characters" were limited to works by authors like Plutarch, Tolstoy or Walter Scott. But there are and were scores of very prolific second-rate writers of run-of-the-mill "history" and biographies... these gentlemen hardly deserve a place in (for example) Cultural depictions of Napoleon, not to mention Napoleon I himself. East of Borschov 11:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This strikes me as a clear analog to performer-by-performance -- a sure recipe for category clutter. Cgingold (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial intersection.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:50, 6 July 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 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Democratic Alliance to Category:Democratic Alliance (South Africa)

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Democratic Alliance to Category:Members of the Democratic Alliance (South Africa)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest disambiguating to match main article Democratic Alliance (South Africa). Democratic Alliance is highly ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. To match the main article; there are several other parties named "Democratic Alliance". - htonl (talk) 10:44, 5 July 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: Relisted HERE for further discussion - non-admin close by Cgingold (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Converts to atheism to Category:Deconverts to atheism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe the title of this category is in need of change. In my opinion, the word "convert" is generally used for religion, so to use it as above implies that atheism is a religion, which it is not. The Religious conversion article on Wikipedia begins: "Religious conversion is the adoption of new religious beliefs that differ from the convert's previous beliefs. It involves a new religious identity, or a change from one religious identity to another. Conversion requires internalization of the new belief system."

Even if we remove the word "religion" from the above there are many problems."Conversion is the adoption of new beliefs that differ from the convert's previous beliefs.[This implies that this happens all at once, as opposed the slow reasoning away from faith most atheists experience.] It involves a new religious identity, or a change from one religious identity to another [Most people only become self-described atheists after losing any religious identity, and no new one is required]. Conversion requires internalization of the new belief system.[Atheism has no belief system.]"

Wiktionary defines deconversion as "the loss of faith in a given religion and embarrassing of a previously held religion or non-religion (typically atheism, agnosticism, or rationalism)."

Therefore I believe the category be renamed Deconverts to atheism, with subcategorys renamed appropriately. May Cause Dizziness (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The meaning of the current title is clearly understood. "Deconversion" sounds weird, and sounds to imply a previous conversion, contrary to the definition offered. That said, I don't think much of categorising biographies by religion (or atheism), and much less by categorising according to the method of adoption of the religion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge to Category:Atheists, although I would prefer it were Category:Avowed atheists, which would be a very small subset of Category:Atheists. Most people keep their personal spirituality personal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are "deconversion" and "deconvert" even real words? They don't appear in OED; are they some sort of specialists' terminology, or are they just made up? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – deconversion does sound weird and 'X is a deconvert to atheism' sounds even weirder. Occuli (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (mostly) - I agree that convert is the wrong term, and would like to see it removed from all the "...to atheism..." and "...to agnositicism..." category names, but deconvert seems such an ugly word... HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the proposals. What makes self-invented "deconverts" better than defectors, deserters, apostates etc. ? Oh yes they don't marry with "to atheism" ... East of Borschov 11:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Atheists. The current name is is problematic, and the proposed replacement is not just a neologism, it's the ugliest neologism since the ugliest-neologism-ever. However, this is a pointless category, whose only purpose is to serve as a container for two other poorly-named categories, so we can safely upmerge it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about Category:Formerly religious atheists? I don't like it either, just throwing it out there. Second choice merge to the atheists category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Convert literally means "turn with". Accordingly a person who turns to athiesm turns with others taking that stance. There is no reason why being a "convert" should imply joining a theistic religion. Deconvert is a Neologism and is not useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Atheists. One does indeed not convert to atheism. One averts from religion. See for instance [1] with Bacon's example: "When atheists and profane persons do hear of so many discordant and contrary opinions in religion, it doth avert them from the church." Deconvert is definitely bad, but something should be done about this category. Second choice: move to Category:Formerly religious atheists, but without subcategories. - DVdm (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DIY to Category:Do it yourself

Nominator's rationale: Rename to expand acronym and match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. TLAs are not helpful to the intended purpose of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 5 July 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. Category has now been pruned enough that its contents actually resemble what is proposed. Further expansion or merging might be possible.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PHEV organizations to Category:Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the main article and expand acronym. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~. Acronyms do not support the purpose of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Shawn in Montreal looks to be right? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and SmokeyJoe. Beagel (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on: has anyone bothered to look at the articles in this category?Only CalCars -- and my just added PHEV Research Center -- are described as organizations devoted to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. All the others are organizations for electric or green vehicles in general, including fuel cells and non-plug in hybrids; or non-vehicular sustainable development and green energy; and more. Not specifically PHEVs. I removed the non-relevant articles, which were:

Please do have a look. This is just more nonsense from a banned user. I suggest we merge with Mac's single article Category:Hybrid vehicle authorities along with Category:Electric automobile associations and Category:Battery electric vehicle organizations (which still needs to be partially depopulated) into Category:Electric vehicle organizations or some such. Upon inspection, many of these organizations do not focus on a single type of electric vehicle per technology. And most do seem to be for cars. And to split them according to whether they're organizations, associations, authorities, etc. is trivial. What say you? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just went though Category:Battery electric vehicle organizations are moved all the articles which are about either green vehicles in general or sustainable energy as a whole. I removed:

We now have a much smaller category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Also Category:Electric vehicle manufacturers and the technology-related subcats are much better populated, not surprisingly. This tree would become a sub-cat of the proposed Category:Electric vehicle organizations. We could still put technology-specific electric car advocacy groups and such in the main categories for each car technology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that somewhere in the discussion is a proposal to merge rather then rename. I don't object to that, but this probably can't be closed since it is not clear what the proposed target should be. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:46, 20 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This basically starts a battery by application series. If you look at the contents like Lithium-ion battery, it should also be in Category:Cell phone batteries, Category:Camera batteries, Category:iPod batteries, and so on. I don't think this is helpful since it will lead to category clutter. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ill-conceived. Battery types are not specific to particular uses. Individual batteries are not notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 5 July 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/repurpose—use as parent for Category:Low-speed vehicles. Past and ongoing clean-up commended. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Neighborhood electric vehicles ~~to Category:Electric vehicles~~

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge this single entry category to its sole parent. As a category this is likely to be ambiguous since my neighborhood is different then yours. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a decent number of honest-to-god articles on NEVs linked to from the parent article. Nopetro just never bothered adding them to the category, for whatever reason. I've added them and there's sure to be more. So I think we should keep in this case. The parent article does explain the parameters for what an NEV is, so doesn't seem to be a case of one neighbourhood being different from another. The nominator's doing a great job cleaning these out, though.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the defining characteristic here appears to be the speed. These are probably better classified as Low speed vehicles (under 25MPH) to match the naming of Medium Speed Vehicle (under 35MPH). So as I said, NEV is still an ambiguous term since some consider the MSV to be one, but the article kind of waltzes around that. But the article does make it clear that the federal legislation does create the speed limit on the vehicle. Also I don't believe that the LSVs must be electric powered. If I'm correct, then we would still need to deal with another article/category. Interestingly, these are not in the list of car classifications, ((automobile classification)). Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose. In doing other digging, I found this gem, Category:Low-speed vehicles. So this category probably works as a parent for Category:Low-speed vehicles and Category:Medium-speed vehicles. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Open hardware to Category:Open source hardware

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, to match head article Open source (I note that the more specific article is at Open-source hardware, but it seems to be unusual among such articles to adopt the hyphenated form). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename current name makes no sense, as it could be open-standards hardware, open-architecture hardware, which are very different from open-source hardware. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. — ξ ^xplicit 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Greenhouse gases in the United States to Category:Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This proposal simply matches the name of the main article. It is not about greenhouse gases, but rather their emission. I suspect that we need to keep this category, and there may well be a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Confusing alongside Category:Greenhouse gases. Greenhousse gases shouldn't be treated as country-specific. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but to Category:Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, which I think will better encompass the range of articles included in this category. (Btw, I looked around and found several more such articles, which are now in the category.) Cgingold (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States as more precise. Beagel (talk) 06:29, 10 July 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 not closed yet at the time of this closing, it looks like the article will not be renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Electric batteries to Category:Battery (electricity)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Instead, move Battery (electricity) to Battery and Battery to Battery (disambiguation). Electrical batteries are the primary topic for "battery". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a specific discussion on that a while ago that resulted in retaining the current name. Two subsequent discussions not too long ago, also did not establish consensus to move. Although one of those was to correct a spelling error. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm surprised at that discussion. The primary term is dominant, my feeling, plus google results. If we won't do the moves, I prefer to not use parentheses in this case, and to move the parent article. I think I do recall old people long ago, country people who grew up without domestic electricity, talking of electric batteries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support nom (or keep as is). Artillery operates in batteries, so that the subject is only the most common use, certainly not the primary (i.e. original) one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right, the electrical battery was not the first use of the word battery. According to the OED, "Batrye" was in use in 1531, but it was not until 1748 that a battery of galvanic cells was called "an electrical battery". What I mean is that if you start talking to a random person about a battery without qualification, they will very likely assume you are talking the electrical energy storage device.
--If there are to be no disambiguation renames, I would prefer to see it stay "Electric batteries". The batteries are electric, but they are not batteries of electricity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually batteries are not electric. They are chemical devices that have the capability to convert the energy available from a chemical reaction of those chemicals into electricity. Both names are somewhat misleading or incorrect. So I see no reason to have different names and it is clear that any renaming proposal needs to occur at the article and not here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The early description described them as electrical batteries. What is the difference between "electric" and "electrical"?. I'd guess that "Electrical battery" is the least incorrect to use. I'd hesitate to suggest a move at the article without some support here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed to rename to parent article, at Talk:Battery_(electricity)#Propose_article_rename_to_.22Electrical_battery.22. I suggest that we wait a few days to see if there is any objection. If the rename goes ahead, I suggest that the category be changed to Category:Electrical batteries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way more complicated than I imagined. Support rename to match parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 12 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This single entry category has a single parent, Category:Car classifications. However this name is not listed as a valid car classification in ((automobile classification)). Also this is a subjective name since how do we define low weight? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. An armour-plated SUV weighs only 7 tons, which is a lot less than a Challenger tank ... so is it a lightweight? Or is a 630kg Citroën AX what's intended? Or the 550Kg Caterham Seven? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Low weight car" is not a classification used by any industry, and it is subjective. --Vossanova ^o< 19:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too imprecise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 12 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Electricity storage to Category:Energy storage

Nominator's rationale: Merge. We store energy and not electricity, right? How does a flywheel energy storage device store electricity? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to undeveloped membership. Electricity storage might be better named, but there are not enough members to make it worthwhile. I believe it is more efficient to store electricity by conversion to flywheel/pressure/water pumped up a dam, etc, so breaking down Category:Energy storage this way seems a bit odd. Other subcategories of Category:Energy storage should suffice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd that Category:Capacitors is not directly in Category:Energy storage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, there are some oddities in these categories. Look around and you can find a few more. The green/renewable area seems to be in the most need for a cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 6 July 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/merge both. Given both WP:SILENCE and the fact that these were both creations of User:Nopetro, I have no problem closing this now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Green auto racing to Category:Electric drag racing

Propose renaming Category:Electric vehicle racing to Category:Electric drag racing

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These two categories seem to share a main article (electric drag racing) that is not the name of either. So I think merging both to a new name would serve us well. There is probably a need to more organization here, but I'm just not sure. Another question is should this match the main article or should we jump right to Category:Electric vehicle racing making Category:Electric drag racing a subcategory? While there would not be a main article, most readers might well find the latter option more understandable. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:43, 5 July 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 to Category:Capacitors. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Supercapacitors to Category:Electric double-layer capacitors

Nominator's rationale: Rename or up merge to Category:Capacitors. Capacitors are energy storage devices more so then electricity storage devices so one parent categroy should probably be changed if kept. The problem with keeping is what is a supercapacitor? Without an article on that we don't really know what belongs here. So I favor the up merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer upmerge. A supercapitor sounds like a big capicitor, and they do come VERY big. Electric double-layer capacitor sounds like a quite specific type of a not-so-well-defined name ("An Electric double-layer capacitor, also known as supercapacitor, supercondenser, pseudocapacitor, electrochemical double layer capacitor (EDLC), or ultracapacitor") and the category only has a few members. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer upmerge I doubt there will be enough on the subject to warrant a category. Is this another from our blocked renewables man? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you need to ask... Vegaswikian (talk) 17:36, 6 July 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 both. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Algerian FLN to Category:National Liberation Front (Algeria)

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Algerian FLN to Category:Members of the National Liberation Front (Algeria)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article National Liberation Front (Algeria). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - to match article. Warofdreams talk 23:08, 7 July 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 both. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Respect – The Unity Coalition to ~~Category:Repect Party~~ Category:Respect Party

Propose renaming Category:Respect – The Unity Coalition politicians to ~~Category:Repect Party politicians~~ Category:Respect Party politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of this political party was formerly "Respect – The Unity Coalition", but it has changed to just Respect Party. I suggest that the categories be renamed to match the article name, where it was moved to earlier this year. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support all (assuming "Respect" is meant, and "Repect" is just a typo - should use current name of party. Warofdreams talk 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yes, of course. It was a typo; I've adjusted the nom. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Additionally "Respect – The Unity Coalition" has become semi-ambiguous because at one stage in the split the breakaway Left List councillors in Tower Hamlets used "Respect – The Unity Coalition" as the name for their new group to distinguish it from the main Respect group. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Veritas to Category:Veritas (political party)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest disambiguating to match main article Veritas (political party) This is not the primary meaning and the term is otherwise ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support rename. Don't we all know that Veritas, sans modifiers, is ein echte sewing machine ?East of Borschov 10:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for clarity. Should Category:Veritas politicians also be renamed, or is it already unambiguous? Warofdreams talk 23:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure about that. I suppose we could rename it to Category:Veritas (political party) politicians for consistency, but I can also see the point of view that this is overkill. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alliance Party politicians to Category:Alliance Party of Northern Ireland politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest using full name, as does the parent category Category:Alliance Party of Northern Ireland and the subcategory Category:Leaders of the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. Alliance Party is terribly ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - potentially ambiguous; should use full name of political party. Warofdreams talk 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Populist Party (United States) to Category:People's Party (United States)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe this party is often referred to as the "Populist Party", but for now the main article is at People's Party (United States). Populist Party (United States) redirects there. I suggest that the main article and the corresponding category name should match. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 5 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Monocrystalline silicon to Category:Crystalline silicon

Nominator's rationale: Another essentially empty category by banned User:Mac, there are no links to articles on Monocrystalline silicon in the target category's parent article Crystalline silicon. The only articles in the source cat are two electronics companies who may manufacture this type of single lattice silicon along with lots of other things. Upmerge to parent, although I would be interested to see others think the target cat Category:Crystalline silicon should be done away with as well, as it too is populated principally by companies who may manufacture this along with other things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging Thanks for relisting.

Monocrystalline Silicon is a distinctly different material from polycristalline silicon, both in its properties as well as its uses and manufacturing. The article Crystalline silicon tries to squeeze both into one chapter, but as an observant reader might realize: it doesn't work too well. Just because the importance of Monocrystalline Silicon and the technologies connected to it have not yet reached the common (wo)man is no reason to merge that category with "Crystalline silicon" - which actually would be more like merging "man" and "woman" into "people". --Gert Weise (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

- But there are no articles on Monocrystalline silicon in the category: just two companies that happen to use it in their products. This is not how categories are meant to be used. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The problem is that the article Crystalline silicon needs to be renamed to Polycrystalline silicon or to be substantially restructured. Or is it that the mono-cat needs to be renamed to Category:Companies using monocrystalline silicon, not that it is mentioned in the one article that I checked? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, we would never create Category:Companies using monocrystalline silicon per OC#trivial. Rather, once the CfD for Category:Cobalt sulfide passes, I'm now thinking we should nominate all of Mac/Nopetro's chemical compound categories for deletion, including the target cat here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am informing the community that I am removing the companies from these categories that may use this compound in their manufacturing processes -- as they no doubt do use other materials as well: metal, glass, etc. This will leave an empty source category, and three articles in the target. It is unworkable to categorize companies by every chemical compound or element used, surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per logic in nomination. Even if empty at the time. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 12 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sci Fi Channel original films to Category:Syfy original films

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to reflect the changed channel name Syfy. Otto4711 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Syfy original films. The article doesn't cap the F. — ξ ^xplicit 06:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal changed. I would've sworn "SyFy" was the direct name. Weird. Otto4711 (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename to match parent cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:49, 6 July 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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Created by banned user Mac (aka Nopetro) in May 2008, this category still only has one article, Diesel motorcycle. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT as this is clearly not "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme," per the CfD for this user's other empty and neglected diesel category, Category:Diesel trucks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 12 July 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 all. Courcelles (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as these are categories for redlink producers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. If the articles for these record producers don't exist, neither should the categories. No prejudice against recreation should articles be created. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 July 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.

July 5

Category:Former members of the Urban Council of Hong Kong

Category:Former members of the Regional Council of Hong Kong

Category:Boondocks (TV series) episodes

Ancient astronaut theory deprecation

Category:Bioclimatics

Category:Hazard prevention

Category:World democracy

Category:Green procurement

Category:Vehicle metrics

Category:Rural architecture

Category:Rural

Category:BYD

Category:Lithium-ion battery manufacturers

Category:Plug-in hybrid kits

Category:Payments

Category:Vauxhall

Category:Pub Rock bands

Category:Meat processing

Category:Initial public offerings

Category:Reindustrialization

Category:IPCC lead authors

Category:Electric aircraft manufacturers

Category:Plug-in hybrid buses

Category:Optical disc image

Category:Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles improved

Category:Labour parties in Hawaii

Category:(Hawaiian) Nationalist parties in Hawaii

Category:Unió Valenciana

Category:Historical characters in Jin Yong's works

Category:Democratic Alliance

Deconverts to atheism

Category:DIY

Category:PHEV organizations

Category:Electric vehicle batteries

Category:Neighborhood electric vehicles

Category:Open hardware

Category:Greenhouse gases in the United States

Category:Electric batteries

Category:Low weight cars

Category:Electricity storage

Category:Green auto racing

Category:Supercapacitors

Category:Algerian FLN

Category:Respect – The Unity Coalition

Category:Veritas

Category:Alliance Party politicians

Category:Populist Party (United States)

Category:Monocrystalline silicon

Category:Sci Fi Channel original films

Category:Diesel motorcycles

Redlink producers