< June 21	June 23 >

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:Synagogues by heritage register. — ξ^xplicit 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Registered Historic synagogues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename - not quite sure what to do with this category since its purpose is hard to discern. At first sight it sounded like a duplicate of Category:Synagogues on the National Register of Historic Places (a U.S. specific category which this is a subcat of). But the entries in it are worldwide in scope and all seem to be registered or listed on equivalent scheemes. Perhaps this would work under a name like "Synagogues with registered historic status" (or similar), with "Synagogues on the National Register of Historic Places" a subcategory of it (in a reversal of the current situation), and then remove the "Jewish-American history" category. TheGrappler (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename with a note defining scope, & at least losing the capital "H". I have reversed the relationship with the US category, which was clearly wrong. "Synagogues with registered historic status" might be ok, but the "historic" status relates to the architecture, which this does not make clear. "Category:Synagogues with protected building status" is probably better, reflecting UK legal terms just for a change, & as many of the buildings are British, and only those in the subcat American. Absolutely no need to delete. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So long as a use can be found for this category there is no need to delete, anyway. It looks like it may have been intended to do the same as the "Synagogues on the National Register of Historic Places" category, and these other articles ended up in it over time. I don't think "Synagogues with protected building status" works if we want to include synagogues designated with historic status but which lack legal protection from development. For instance this could apply to designations by a suitable NGO, and indeed to the NRHP - that provides tax perks but does not protect a building from demolition! (The tax perks are meant to discourage this, but that's rather different to the "listed building" concept in the UK, so the Brit terminology is not very globally relevant in this instance.) Do you think it's worth having "Listed synagogues" as a subcategory of Category:Listed buildings by function to cover the UK synagogues here, and use this category as a holding category for the NRHP and listed subcategories? TheGrappler (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A UK category could be set up. I have removed 2 stray US ones, also in the sub-cat, & all the remainder are protected, but apparently not the US sub-cat. Most worldwide government registers work on a basis of legal protection (not always absolute of course) and unofficial registers that don't are arguably not defining anyway. Category:Heritage registers is the global parent, & might be a way to go. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking in terms of something like World Heritage Sites which (if I recall correctly) don't add protection in their own right - but I can't imagine a site would be one of those unless it had legal protection by the government anyway. What might be the most general term that would cover both British listed buildings and the NRHP? I noticed the "Heritage registers"; it seems important to convey the idea both that the item in the category is registered with some official body, and that the registration is for reasons of its historic or heritage value. Category:Synagogues listed on heritage registers is one possibility, Category:Registered historic synagogues is another. Any other ideas? TheGrappler (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Counterproposal: rename as Category:Synagogues by heritage register, by analogy with Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register and type and then populate with subcats. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Synagogues by heritage register. This should be a top-level category, and should govern the naming of subcategories - such as NRHP for USA; listed buildings for UK; etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 26 June 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 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MusiCares Person of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per WP:OC#AWARDS I don't believe this award has the level of prestige normally associated with awards categories. This is the sort of honor that the people who receive it tend to accumulate and categories for them would lead to category clutter. A complete list exists in the lead article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply delete as an awards category, since we do not need to listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 26 June 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 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Billy Elliot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following the removal of improperly categorized biographies this eponymous category is small with little or no likelhood of expansion. The articles are interlinked through text. Otto4711 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. The links are already in the Billy Elliot article. Cjc13 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 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:Orienteers. — ξ^xplicit 05:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rogaining competitors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge - nominated once previously for renaming which resulted in the current name. This is a small category with little or no likelihood of expansion, given that the founders of the sport don't even have articles. This can be upmerged to Category:Orienteers. If kept it should be renamed to Category:Rogainers since the few sources out there use that term and not "Rogaining competitors". Otto4711 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename The sport has an article Rogaining. The category has potential, since WC has been arranged since year 2000. Renaming to "Rogainers" according to what is commonly used. --Kslotte (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm a little concerned that simplifying the name to "Rogainers" might lend itself to confusion & potential misuse for everyone known to use Rogaine, rather than just those who grow their hair competitively. Cgingold (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• For preference Upmerge to Category:Orienteers. The subject seems to be a specific version of orienteering. If kept, Category:Rogaining participants might be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I found the category incorrectly tagged and have just corrected the tag. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom to Category:Orienteers, at least until there are more articles to put in the category. There have been no additions to the category since August 2009, so there's not exactly an explosion of new articles needing to find a home. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 2 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 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Time Persons of the Year to article List of Time Persons of the Year

Nominator's rationale: Convert. Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_12#Category:Time_magazine_Persons_of_the_Year —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose creation of a new standalone list. The tabular list is already in Time Person of the Year. It better stay there; the article isn't long, no splitting required. no opinion on the category. East of Borschov (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just Delete as an awards category. As there is a list we do not need another, so no need to listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one of a plethora of awards and recognitions that the people so named will accumulate over a lifetime. Otto4711 (talk) 07:03, 27 June 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 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tuvalu albums to Category:Tuvalu (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To dab between the band and artists from the state of Tuvalu or albums that were released in that market. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for clarity and to match Tuvalu (band). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:20, 23 June 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 05:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deaths by the Israel Defense Forces to Category:People killed by the Israel Defense Forces.

Nominator's rationale: This category is named ambiguously as it stands and could be interpreted as referring to the deaths of members of the Israel Defense Forces. The deaths by... prefix seems to apply to methods of death, not categories which identify the person or people causing the death. Gobonobo ^{T C} 16:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Do we have a 'deaths by armed forces' category or some such for any country other than Israel? Just curious. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There's Category:People killed by Nazi Germany and the subcategories of Category:People killed during The Troubles (Northern Ireland). This might be a better format, with People killed by X being a subcategory of People killed during Y conflict. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This cat can probably be regarded as a counterpart to Category:Terrorism deaths in the Palestinian territories and its sub-cats, where the clear inference is that these deaths were caused by Palestinian militias and/or terrorists. Cgingold (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, I see. So it's another tit-for-tat thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention in nominating this category to be renamed was not a tit-for-tat thing. The name simply struck me as ambiguous and I'm open to suggestions for other names. Gobonobo ^{T C} 03:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Shawn was referring to the category itself, rather than your proposal to rename -- which I would support, btw. Cgingold (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom if kept, for clarity. I express no opinion on tits or tats. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 2 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: speedily deleted by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under G7. — ξ^xplicit 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armor regiments of the United States Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicate of Category:Armored regiments of the United States Army. Sadads (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G7. Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 26 June 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 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: New category with only four members, including a newly created template that I've nominated for deletion. The series has been cancelled so addition of other articles is extremely unlikely. AussieLegend (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per nom --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- everything is well linked by the main article. The template needs pruning of NN participants and converting to a navbox, which will do the job much better than a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Learning to read to Category:Reading skills acquisition

Nominator's rationale: We do not have a parent article Learning to read. However, we do have Reading skills acquisition. While in need of some attention, the latter does seem to me to be the appropriate parent for this Nopetro/Nudecline created category, so rename in order to match category to parent? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename.For me, there is not problem about the name. So you can use/create any of them both. If you use the last one (because is more cryptic) I suggest a redirection from learning to read to Reading skills acquisition. --Nudecline (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I made note of this category in a related CFD yesterday. I didn't say anything about the name because I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. To be sure, it's kind of unorthodox. But I'm not sure that means it's unacceptable. It does say what the category is about in very clear and simple terms. And I kind of like that it has an almost child-like feel, given the nature of the subject - whereas the proper Wikipedia-style name seems almost pedantic in comparison. But, as I said, I haven't made up my mind yet... so I will revisit this after other editors have registered their views. Cgingold (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is this category substantially different from Category:Literacy? Gobonobo ^{T C} 17:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say Category:Literacy should be another parent category for what we decide here. It includes articles such as Comics studies, Computer literacy, etc. which is quite different from the process of learning to read. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While the "main" article for this topic seems to be Reading skills acquisition, the other articles in the category seem more naturally to belong under "Learning to read" than they do "Reading skills acquisition". Do we make an exception to the "category should be named after its main article" rule, in cases where the main article has an unusually technical name? TheGrappler (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We sure could. I think it's more of a practice than a rule, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose. Keep it simple. The name of an article is not a holy cow, especially when it's an unstable stub with a bunch of hatnote warnings. East of Borschov (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename main article. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Rename to match main article. If in doubt or it's a toss up, this is a good default. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 3 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. I'll go through them and make sure they are appropriately categorized in either Category:American football quarterbacks or Category:Canadian football quarterbacks. If users feel that any particular individual should not be in one of the quarterbacks categories, they may be removed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Quarterbacks who switched positions to Category:American football quarterbacks who switched positions

Nominator's rationale: not sure that this category is necessary but the nomination here is to name to something a little clearer for non Amer. football enthusiasts Mayumashu (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and possibly listify - This makes much more sense as a list; I don't think it rises to the level of "definingness" that merits a category. Cgingold (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#TRIVIAL. And a word of caution for those who might agree with listifying: the category description states that it is for players who "at one point were quarterbacks." Well, "at one point" is pretty broad. I'm thinking many players who were gifted enough to play pro ball and merit an article here might have played some QB at some level. It's where a lot of gifted kids go, until shifting to other positions like WR or safety later on. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted my recommendation in light of your comment. Cgingold (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:American football quarterbacks. This is a 'former booers' category which we don't usually do, except in some cases of religious conversion. If someone was A, then B, we put them in both categories without attempting to record chronological order. Occuli (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, I see it's not American football quarterbacks only. Someone has added Bob Cameron (Canadian football), who never played any American football, since he attended college in Canada playing the Canadian game before going on to the CFL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, upmerge to Category:Canadian football quarterbacks or Category:American football quarterbacks as appropriate. Is it a good idea to have them all together anyway? Occuli (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (from a UK user): I find the term "American football x" ambiguous in that it may refer to Americans who play any kind of football or anyone who plays American football. (And mutatis mutandis for Canadian football, etc). Si Trew (talk) 05:59, 30 June 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 both. — ξ^xplicit 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:BYU Cougars quarterbacks to Category:BYU Cougars football players
• Category:Boston College Eagles quarterbacks to Category:Boston College Eagles football players

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC as there is no tree cat tree Category:College quarterbacks, Category:College football quarterbacks, Category:American college football quarterbacks etc. nor need there be. Mayumashu (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – too specific. (I looked at a few who all seemed to be another 'quarterbacks' category.) Occuli (talk) 16:10, 22 June 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 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Uruguayan Armenians to Category:Uruguayan people of Armenian descent

Nominator's rationale: All listed seem to be of Armenian ancestry and not ethnicity - suggest renaming to the default setting, so to speak. Mayumashu (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per long precedent to avoid confusion with Armenians of Uragayan descent (probably a very small group. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 26 June 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 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canoeing venues to Category:Canoeing and kayaking venues

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is being/has been used for both canoeing and kayaking venues. Also, there is confusion due to differing North American and British use of the term canoe/canoeing - a rename would help avoid ambiguities and confusion. Gjs238 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nom. Mayumashu (talk) 00:24, 24 June 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 both. — ξ^xplicit 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rights in Colombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Animal rights by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete: Both of these categories were created by the same editor for the sole purpose of housing a single article: Animal rights in Colombia. I could not find even one other article dealing with "Animal rights by country", so there is no category tree to speak of. Likewise, there are no other categories for "Rights by country" because all such articles are already part of the very extensive category tree under Category:Human rights by country. After these categories are deleted, the article can be upmerged to Category:Animal rights and Category:Colombian law. (Category creator stopped editing in 2008) Cgingold (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Single article categories are a waste of space. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 26 June 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 as empty. If recreated it should be as Category:Wikipedians in Kiev. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)))[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User Kyiv to Category:Wikipedians from Kiev

Nominator's rationale: I believe this is what the creator had in mind. I think this is the naming convention for user categories? — ξ^xplicit 06:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (Category:Wikipedians from Kyiv). I do not simply know how to rename. Only word "Kiev" it is necessary to write as "Kyiv". Because "Kiev" - Russian, and "Kyiv" - Ukrainian. It is needed to do redirecting from Category:Wikipedians from Kiev to Category:Wikipedians from Kyiv. — Sodmy (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Gobonobo ^{T C} 17:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd prefer Category:Wikipedians in Kiev as my first choice, since that seems more collaborative (Who cares where someone is "from"? How does that help collaboration?) and seems to better reflect the category description, but I support renaming as nominated over keeping the current name. VegaDark (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As VegaDark support change to Category:Wikipedians in Kiev to match others in the category tree. Category:Wikipedians from Kyiv should also be re-directed to Category:Wikipedians in Kiev to match article Kiev title as per current naming consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support preferring "in". Kiev is the usual British name for the city. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 26 June 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 both. — ξ^xplicit 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ketoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ekarma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete both - These tiny categories (2 articles each) are completely unneccesary. End of story. The articles are fully & properly categorized, so no further action is needed. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Indifferent as creator. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm... Does this mean that the creator is a Deist? Cgingold (talk) 12:39, 22 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Wikipedian Confessors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure this is a path categories want to take. Aside from the fact that Confessor of the Faith is given to a type of saint, this category would open doors to categories like Category:Wikipedians who pray, Category:Wikipedians who don't pray, Category:Wikipedians who pray on a non-regular basis, etc. The userbox is fine, but user categories should facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of Wikipedia per WP:USERCAT. This category fails to do just that. — ξ^xplicit 05:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Improper user category. VegaDark (talk) 06:34, 23 June 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 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Battles of the War of the Grand Alliance to Category:Battles of the Nine Years' War

Propose renaming Category:Naval battles of the War of the Grand Alliance to Category:Naval battles of the Nine Years' War

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The War of the Grand Alliance is another name for the Nine Years' War. Propose renaming these categories to match the main article and the parent Category:Nine Years' War. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match main article War of the Grand Alliance is a redirect to Nine Years' War. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 26 June 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 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:San Jose State Spartans starting quarterbacks to Category:San Jose State Spartans football players

Nominator's rationale: Overcat. There is no tree Category:College starting quarterbacks or Category:College starting football quarterbacks or even Category:College football quarterbacks Mayumashu (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - or even Category:American football starting quarterbacks (Category:American football quarterbacks includes several similar over-specific subcats). Occuli (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got two - listed up the page Mayumashu (talk) 14:51, 22 June 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 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Salvia divinorum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has only three articles, including the parent article. It is extremely likely that it "will never have more than a few members" per WP:OC#SMALL. Category was created in 2006, when the last page to be added was also created. First Light (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Categories at specific level for plants should be rare. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to a navbox -- The articles need to be formally linked, but a navbox will do it much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 26 June 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.