< June 7	June 9 >

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 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Australians of Hawaiian descent to Category:Australians of American descent

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC to categorise for ethnicity by sub-national administrative jurisdiction. Hawaii is but one of 50 states of the U.S. and, moreover, there isn t Category:People of Hawaiian descent. (Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent is a different matter, but the one person listed on the nominated cat page, Kate Ceberano, is, according to her WP bio, not of Native Hawaiian descent) Mayumashu (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Mayumashu touched on all the major points, I think. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom although I would note that Nicole Kidman meets the criteria for this category. I would also note that there is the possibility of Australians descended from non-native Hawaiians from before the US annexation of Hawaii. Hawaii was not always part of the US. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:31, 14 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 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

• Category:Jews by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:21st-century Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: as yet undeveloped category tree - there is no Category:20th-century Jews, Category:19th-century Jews etc. It may be a suitable one to have, ultimately, as there is Category:People by nationality and century, but wanted to run it by a few contributors here first, as there has been some argument against catting people by century for the 20th and 21st-centuries. Mayumashu (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:21st-century Jews: previous discussions have suggested that categories for 21st-century people aren't a good idea, given that almost all of them are 20th-century people as well. Neutral on the more general Category:Jews by century; I think categories for earlier centuries, like Category:5th-century Jews, could still be quite useful. Robofish (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Category:21st-century Judaism and Category:Jews by century are only populated by this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:21st-century Jews and the then empty Category:Jews by century. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:34, 15 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 to Category:African American culture in Omaha, Nebraska. — ξ^xplicit 19:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska to Category:African American in Omaha, Nebraska

Nominator's rationale: the purpose of this category is to list all things connected with African American experience/history/culture/etc. in Omaha, Nebraska, not just to list individual African Americans from Omaha. I opposed deleting this category as there is, the equivalent, Category:Jews and Judaism in Omaha, Nebraska which is part of the Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States by city tree Mayumashu (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – this is a hotchpotch of people mixed up with a history subcat, and needs disentangling first. Category:African American in Omaha, Nebraska sounds to me a very strange name, as does Category:American in Omaha, Nebraska. Occuli (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:African American culture in Omaha, Nebraska, and make it a subcategory of Category:African American culture. That should make it clear what it's about, rather than simply listing African-American people from Omaha, Nebraska. Robofish (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, as nominator, would support this alternative Mayumashu (talk) 20:10, 10 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: Speedily deleed per CSD-U1.  7  23:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century electroacoustic composers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Only contains a user page. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 8 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. There were more than enough users in support the renaming of the category due to its potential ambiguity. — ξ^xplicit 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:French Open to Category:French Open (tennis)

Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate, add clarity to meaning of name, as per Category:US Open (tennis), Category:Australian Open (tennis) etc. Mayumashu (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Although French Open (tennis) redirects to French Open, there is also Open de France, a golf tournament, so there is scope for confusion. (Category names should leave no doubts.) Occuli (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Occuli, category names should not be ambiguous, should be very much less ambiguous than anything else due to maintenance issues. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Article titles are established by a far broader cross-section of our editors and should be respected. There is no evidence that there is confusion between the French Open (the tennis tournament) and any other sport's tournament. There is every reason to believe that the discrepancy between the article title and that of the category will only create confusion, without helping anything. Let's not let the tail wag the dog; If there is any serious interest in clarifying the subject it should be done after discussion at the talk page of the article in question. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could it create confusion and not in fact lessen it? Category page names need that extra layer of clarity (compared with article pages) as they appear listed on article pages without explanation. Very similarly, WP:Common name applies to article pages and not category pages. Mayumashu (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The golf event is much less significant and has no categories relating to it. Cjc13 (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Simply put the current name is ambiguous and the category names should not be ambiguous. Significance is not an issue. While categories and articles tend to share a name, when extra disambiguation is needed for the category it needs to be added. Categories work differently then articles so there can be occasional differences. This should be one of those differences. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. WP:Common name applies to article names, not category names, and the current category name is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If WP:Common name does not apply, what is the policy? If there is a separate policy for categories, should it not be specified somewhere? In tennis the categories use the name of the tournament such as Category:Nice Open, Category:Lorraine Open and Category:Open 13. The name change nominated here seems to represent a change of policy and so should be applied consistently to relevant categories rather than just an individual category. Cjc13 (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it's not far enough along in the development of consensus for there to be a policy. This discussion is a good demonstration of why formulating such a policy might be difficult. But my reading of past consensus leaves little double that WP:Common name does not apply to categories. The other categories you mention—if they are indeed ambiguous, which I'm not sure if they are—could be nominated for discussion at any time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reading would be that WP:Common name still applies to categories unless there is ambiguity and then it is open to debate. My thoughts are that at the moment there does not seem to be any problem with these categories so I would leave them as they are until there is a definite change in policy. The suggestion of ambiguity in this case seems to have an element of WP:CRYSTAL. Cjc13 (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, since Open de France exists, I'm not sure anyone's invocation of ambiguity implicates WP:CRYSTAL here. The issue as I see it is if the terminology is ambiguous, not if there currently is a category that could be confused with this one. In this regard, category disambiguation has tended to be treated differently than article disambiguation, which has caused no end of consternation for some users, I know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, there needs to be another category with which it can be confused for it to be ambiguous. Otherwise to avoid ambiguity, it should be perhaps Category:French Open (tennis tournament). The crystal element is the idea that it is going to cause confusion in the future when there does not appear to be any confusion at present. Cjc13 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but that approach (it's the one that is taken with articles) implicitly pre-supposes that a user knows what categories already exist on WP. Nobody knows what all the categories are in WP, so I think it is helpful to be more specific. It also means that the more categories that are created, the more pre-existing category names have to change, and ideally these changes would need to be timed to coincide with the creation of the other categories, which is a tough job when 100s of categories are created daily. There is some benefit to just getting things right from the get-go so that the category can be more stable for longer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can we know what is "right" if we do not know what new categories if any would be created? You would then be guessing what new categories would be created, which would seem to be WP:CRYSTAL. In this case I think the liklihood of change is very small. If the category name is the same as the article name then it can change when the article name is changed, (again in this case I think not very likely). Cjc13 (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Via consensus, I presume. Through that process (which is this process) you can choose one that is self-standingly unambiguous, and then you don't have to worry about the other categories at all. That's my point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• REname per nom, but convert the present category to a category redirect. The destination category should be given a capnote to guide users to the golf category (if it has a category). Peterkingiron (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no category for the golf event. Cjc13 (talk) 14:15, 18 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 to Category:Templates containing links to non-Wikimedia wikis. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Templates containing Links to wiki's outside of WikiMedia to Category:Interwiki link templates

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• They're not duplicates. A link to Wiktionary is an "interwiki link", but not a "link to a wiki outside of Wikimedia". This one should be a subcategory of Category:Interwiki link templates. However, the obvious spelling errors should be corrected. Rename to Category:Templates containing links to non-Wikimedia wikis. Jafeluv (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Bud0011 (talk) 14:18, 18 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: keep. — ξ^xplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2010 controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is over-broad, and could conceivably include hundreds if not thousands of "controversies" that have taken place in 2010. It now consists of a hodge-podge of mainly trivial dust-ups, ranging from "Boobgate" to "Newsweek gay actor controversy." Has the potential to be used as a POV-pushing mechanism. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a part of Category:Controversies by year, but remove articles which are not specifically about controversies (e.g., television series episodes). The nominator makes a valid point about the contents of the category, but that can be remedied without deletion (see Category:2009 controversies for examples of the types of articles the category should contain). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a part of this scheme; either nominate them all for deletion or keep them all; why nominate just one of these years? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was testing the waters with this nomination, as the 2010 category seemed the weakest. It is possible that other years might be more salvageable. Note that some recent years have no controversies categories, so this category is somewhat arbitrary and certainly inclusion in this category is wildly arbitrary. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't you think the 2010 category might seem to be the "weakest" because the year is not yet half over? Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:Categorization:"Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject."

These categories have proven useful. The more category schemes there are, the better able to access the encyclopedia. Foundational rule is the goal is to produce the best possible encyclopedia. Remove trivial or unencyclopedic 'controversies'. User:Pedant (talk) 22:00, 15 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 to Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients. There was no consensus to delete the category. However, the current name of the category was also undesired; as a result, the category will be renamed. — ξ^xplicit 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honorary citizen of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Moved from WP:CFD/S. List exists at Yakir Yerushalaim. If no consensus to delete/listify, then rename as originally nominated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Copied from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy:

• Category:Honorary citizen of Jerusalem to Category:Honorary citizens of Jerusalem C2B - categories should be in the plural. Davshul (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  Just noting that previous categories for "honorary citizens" have been deleted/listified. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

---

• Delete/listify. This is the standard thing that has been done int he past with previous "honorary citizen" categories, including those for the USA and Canada. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The existing list is partial, and I doubt that it will ever be complete, since many of the recipients (18 per year?) are not on Wikipedia's radar. It seems to me that a category is a way around having a list that is not quite up to par.--Sreifa (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's not quite right. If there are many recipients that are not notable enough to have a WP article, that is a good reason to have a list, not a category, since then all the recipients can be listed. They won't all show up in the category, and thus the collection of information will be incomplete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients, per main article. Translation into English is not exact and it should be noted that this is an award received not an actual citizenship. --Soman (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, of course. It was just obvious to me that cities don't actually grant citizenship in the legal sense. But your proposed rename makes sense to me.--Sreifa (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify well, delete since the list already exists. I'm not convinced that these meet the exemption for award recipients. This concern about the need for the category is really pointed out in the keep discussion above over why we should have the category instead of the list. I sense some confusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is an English-Language encyclopedia; categories serve a distinct and separate purpose from lists per WP:Categorization:"Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject." The reader looking for information here on Yakir Yerushalaim will most likely be looking for English-language content, and searching categories in English Foundational rule is the goal is to produce the best possible encyclopedia. RENAME per User:Davshu: "categories should be in the plural" and redirect all likely spelling/capitalization variants (I did the 4 most obvious to me, I don't speak Hebrew) RE: 'incompleteness', lists and categories don't have to be complete to be useful. Category is for indexing notable Yakirim Yerushalaim (I already said I don't speak Hebrew, I don't read or write it either) with Wikipedia articles, list is about the topic, not as a "repository of links" (WP:NOT not a link repository. User:Pedant (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete (merging the category into the existing list). Create redirect for an article with the present category name to the destination article (if necessary). This is an award category. This is the normal answer for award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a defining honor. The category should co-exist with a corresponding list which can be updated synergistically per WP:CLN. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am a little confused as to the exact position being taken by a number of the users who have added comments here, in particualar those who propose "Keep". These could be interpreted as "Keep, as is" (namely Category:Honorary citizen of Jerusalem in the singular); "Keep, but change to plural" (namely Category:Honorary citizens of Jerusalem) or "keep, but change name to be consistent with article (Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients, which appears to be the view now taken by the creator of the category, Sreifa). I would ask users to be more specific in their comments here. (Also a number of comments were placed out of order and I have taken the liberty of rearranging these into their correct order.) Davshul (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I favor a Weak Keep, accepting the views of those wishing to retain the category, although acknowledging, as pointed out by Good Ol’factory, that a list is more comprehensive than a category (and indeed the present list within the article contains all recipients listed in the category plus some others without WP articles). As to the name, I consider that the category should be consistent with the name of article (Yakir Yerushalaim), but it should clearly indicate that it relates to an award, accordingly I propose the name (Category:Yakir Yerushalayim award recipients. Davshul (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• On second thought, I think Pedant's claim has merit - that English readers don't necessarily understand "Yakir Yerushalayim". It might be wise to change the entry, and change the category accordingly. I still don't think a list containing names that will probably never be on WP (on both EN and HE WP) is the way to go, considering that it is incomplete anyway. (forgive me, I'm fairly new here...) --Sreifa (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify/delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients. Despite the one assertion that this award recipients category is (unlike most others) defining, I do not see any specific argument explaining how or why it is defining; therefore, I do not see a reason at this time to make an exception to the recommendation to present "recipients of an award ... in a list rather than a category".
  I do not think that the completeness or incompleteness of the list or of the category needs to be a major consideration in this case, since both are incomplete and the list contains all of the information offered by the category (and can be used to encourage new article content). The fact that this information is incomplete is less-than-desirable, perhaps, but definitely not unusual and not a big problem. I'd say: develop the article content first, and consider recreating the category later if the need arises.
  If kept, rename to Category:Yakir Yerushalayim recipients per Soman. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:43, 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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Golden Globes winners to Category:Golden Globes (Portugal) winners

Nominator's rationale: To match main article and current name is ambigious. Lugnuts (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 15 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 into a new Category:Proposed electric automobiles. Category:Upcoming automobiles can be followed up on with a new nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose merging Category:Planned production electric vehicles to Category:Planned electric automobiles

Category:Preproduction electric vehicles to Category:Planned electric automobiles

Nominator's rationale: As no one has commented on this yet I'm replacing the proposal. First, remove "production" from the 1st target cat, as it does not appear in the Category:Electric vehicles master cat. Second, merge both into Planned electric automobiles. Question: is there a vital difference between "planned" and "preproduction"? If so, my proposal won't work as is. Second question: will what's happening with Category:Upcoming aircraft below lead to a CfD for Category:Upcoming automobiles? It's a parent cat for these, and we ought to be consistent, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I just read the introduction for Category:Upcoming automobiles and think that this should also be upmerged. There are so many restrictions on what it does and does not include, that I'm not sure we need it. Maybe that should be listified since membership needed a citation, so maybe this is one of those that a list would be more valuable. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Proposed electric automobiles per other nominations that are going with proposed. If at some point there is consensus for a preproduction category, it can be created. But I really don't see the need since this would be a transition category. The preproduction aspect may be better served by a list which shows when they were announced and then they are scheduled to be in production with any needed sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this, especially the use of "Proposed." All vehicles proceed from a "plan," I realize. "Proposed" makes it a little clearer that these are yet-to-be, if ever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Proposed electric vehicles. The disticntion between those on the drawing board only and those where prototypes are being trialed is not signficant. I prefer vehicles as this would be more inclusive. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 18 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 to Category:Judaism-related controversies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies to Category:Controversies regarding Judaism or Jews

Nominator's rationale: The original category name uses poor grammar, and can be interpreted two ways. The obvious interpretation suggests that the category includes two kinds of articles: (1) articles about Jews; and (2) article about Judaism controversies. But that is not correct: the scope of the category (based on looking at the articles in it) includes only articles about controversies regarding Judiasm and controversies about Jews. So a better name is "Controversies regarding Judaism or Jews" or "Controversies regarding Judaism and Jews". The suggestion with "or" is probably more precise and so that is what is proposed above. But the "and" wording is not bad, either. Noleander (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator amends proposal to rename to Category:Judaism-related controversies in accordance with discussion below. --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories for other religions (see Category:Religious controversies) use the Foo-related controversies format, so I do not support changing the format.
  Rename to Category:Jews- and Judaism-related controversies or Category:Judaism-related controversies. Regarding the latter option, I realize that the parent category is Jews and Judaism; however, I do not think that we should define the scope of this category to include controversies related to Judaism and controversies related to individual Jews or groups of Jews. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If there is already a convention for "Foo-related controversies" then I concur we should adhere to the convention. But we still should eliminate the misleading grammar. The suggestions from Black Falcon for Category:Jews- and Judaism-related controversies or Category:Judaism-related controversies seem okay. But the first one with "Jews- and Judaism- ..." seems to read very awkwardly. So I think Category:Judaism-related controversies is the best alternative so far. Also concur with Black Falcon's final statement. --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Judaism-related controversies so we can conform with Category:Islam-related controversies and Category:Christianity-related controversies. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:19, 9 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 to Category:Proposed aircraft. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Upcoming aircraft to Category:Planned aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Planned is about 6 times more common then upcoming when paired with aircraft. Also this is the more commonly used term for categories about future projects. Also upcoming is ambiguous since it could mean aircraft already available and becoming more popular. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "upcoming" seems very informal. "Planned" seems more encyclopedic. Concur with "Planned". --Noleander (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Planned aircraft does appear to be the more common of the two. It should be noted that Category:Planned aircraft carriers got moved to Category:Proposed aircraft carriers last year, but proposed doesn't seem to account for aircraft that are already in production. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer. Given that proposed is being used in many other nominations, consideration should be given to using that instead of planned. I don't have an issue with using WP:BOLD if it is closed that way. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment support vegaswikian's idea of using Category:Proposed aircraft as the cat is only used for projects and design ideas and would not be used once an aircraft becomes a reality. MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Category:Proposed aircraft. I think this could include those where a prototype is under trial, but aircraft should be recategorised out of this when they go into commercial production. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:24, 18 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 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman era anti-Christian thinkers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too colloquial a name and too vague of a category. An unneeded category. --Enterinlast (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If nothing else, "thinkers" is a terrible category. Does it mean there are "anti-Christian non-thinkers"? Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: "thinkers" is a non-ecyclopedic term. Perhaps there is already a category on "Persecutors of Christians" or similar, which covers this topic. --Noleander (talk) 16:21, 8 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 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman era Christian thinkers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too colloquial a name and too vague of a category. An unneeded category. --Enterinlast (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are established categorizations by era that make more sense than this; as it is it merely rolls up Paul of Tarsus in with the existing (and well-noted) category of Apostolic fathers. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 8 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 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Christian thinkers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Or renaming to Category:Anti-Christian philosophers or Category:Anti-Christian writers. This is simply too colloquial a name and probably too vague of a category in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 'thinkers' is too vague, and this doesn't seem like a necessary subcategory anyway - all these people could simply be listed in Category:Anti-Christianity. Robofish (talk) 11:58, 10 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian thinkers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: How is this different from Category:Christian theologians and Category:Christian philosophers? Maybe I'm dense, but this seems like a colloquialism for either or both of those more professional names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's OK for their to be a category called Category:Anti-Christian thinkers, then it seems fitting that there is also a category called Category:Christian thinkers. I think either both should stay or both should be deleted. --Enterinlast (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yikes. Category:Anti-Christian thinkers is even worse. I agree that they are equally valid, but in this case they are both inappropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Thinkers" is a wretched supercategory for theologians, etc. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 'thinkers' is just too vague a word to be used in categories. Robofish (talk) 11:59, 10 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 to Category:Jackson musical family. Jafeluv (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Jackson family to Category:Michael Jackson family

Nominator's rationale: to lessen ambiguity of category name Mayumashu (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose this doesn't just cover MJ, his wives and children. And MJ isn't the only very famous person in this family. Janet Jackson once had the largest recording contract in history, AE recently did a reality TV show with people other than Janet and MJ, the Jackson 5 are nothing if not very famous. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:Jackson musical family like Category:xxx political family etc. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's not more Michael's family than Rebbie's. Several members of the family are famous--two of them internationally so for several decades--so it's not reasonable to define all of them in terms of one of them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a rename to something, or delete it. Category:Jackson family cannot be assumed to have any connection with Michael as there are dozens of other highly notable Jacksons, many called Michael and others not even American. (Eg there would be 3 at least in Jesse Jackson's family category.) Category:Jackson musical family is a step in the right direction. Occuli (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I d support Category:Jackson musicial family too as it is, as User:Occuli points out, a step forward Mayumashu (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Jackson musical family - seems the best solution here. Robofish (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose title matches that of parent article and the proposed change makes it about one member, not the whole family. Alansohn (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??Most if not the whole family is/was notable soley for/from their music. And articles abide by WP:Common name while category pages do, or at least should, not. Mayumashu (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Jackson musical family as better disambiguation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 13 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 to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. — ξ^xplicit 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Administrators willing to consider requests for self blocking to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider requests for self blocking

Nominator's rationale: I originally proposed this for speedy renaming (C2B, compare Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Administrators to Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Wikipedia administrators; the only other self-reference categories in the former redirect to categories in the latter), but Black Falcon raised the objection that there is not a hyphen between self and blocking in the proposed name. PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm waiting to hear the point of this rename. Seems like nothing but process wonkery to me. Change it, don't I don't see why anyone would care either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The point, thought it may be minor, is that every other user category for sysops takes the form "Wikipedia administrators ...". The change may be an instance of gnome work (then again, much of non-mainspace editing is), but I don't think it really is process for the sake of process. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Technically it won't be a self-block, but more of a self-requested block. So rename to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, or something of the sort, if we're going to bother. –xeno^talk 18:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Xeno's suggestion. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per xeno. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:53, 9 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 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vegan snacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Proposing deletion or upmerge to Category:Snack foods. This looks to be a random collection of vegan-related articles, some are health food snack producers, some are whole foods (nuts, dried fruit), some are processed snacks. Some entries are questionably vegan (bombay mix, corn nuts, and potato chips are sometimes made with cheese or animal products). A complete list of all vegan snack foods would largely duplicate the snack category or would be exhaustive. Anyone for Chick-O-Sticks and Teddy Grahams? Gobonobo ^{T C} 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 15 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 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Electric Auto Association to Category:Electric automobile associations

Nominator's rationale: A Nopetro category that is poorly named, after the proper name of just one of the organizations. I don't think we can merge to Category:Battery electric vehicle organizations as a recent attempt to merge the Category:All-electric vehicles category to Category:Battery electric vehicles failed - although I'd support that here, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Remame per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 15 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 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Micromorphous silicon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The ever-reliable Nopetro created this category which has two articles: an electrical distribution company and Amorphous silicon, which already has its own category, Category:Amorphous silicon. Micromorphous silicon is just a redirect to Silicon thin-film cell, which also has its own category, Category:Thin-film silicon cells. So unless there's some need I'm not aware of, delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom since the article are already categorized appropriately. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 15 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wiki music to Category:Music

Nominator's rationale: This category (the only one of its kind) is an unnecessary layer between Category:Music and closely-related, high-level categories such as Category:Music-related lists. True "wiki internal" categories should be placed at the end of the subcategory list by means of sort keys (all done except for the lists category, which should be sorted at "L") or, in the case of maintenance categories, must be categorized separately. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Music as an unnecessary subcategory (and arguably an unnecessary self-reference). Robofish (talk) 12:02, 10 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 as nominated. — ξ^xplicit 19:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Modes of transportation to Category:Intermodal transportation

Nominator's rationale: Nopetro created this category and populated it with a scattering of intermodal articles. Of course, modes of transportation does not equal intermodal, and we already have Category:Transportation by mode. This may not be a bad category to keep and rename, and there is content that could be added to it. What do people think? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but prefer Category:Intermodal transport to match the parent articles' names. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename/repurpose per nom as there is currently no intermodal category that I can find. Also, the only parent I see is Category:Transportation and so should this be named. Hmains (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 15 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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hiking trails to Category:Hiking and backpacking trails

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category name should reflect that trails are often biuse. Separate hiking & backpacking trail categories would largely be redundant. Gjs238 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Backpacking combines elements of hiking and camping. I don't see the need to add it, as either it's implied or it needs its own set of categories. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose There is nothing in contents of this category about backpacking. Hmains (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose but I can see where the nominator is coming from. I think Mangoe's explanation is best. TheGrappler (talk) 23:31, 13 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 19:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Transparent displays

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories, per WP:OC#SMALL. Another one by Nopetro for a single article, in this case, for a display technology called Organic LED which apparently has the advantage of being transparent on both sides. Until such time as we have more suitable articles for inclusion, delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 15 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 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Energy efficiency to Category:Energy conservation

Nominator's rationale: The description of Energy conservation begins: "Energy conservation is the act of using energy in a more efficient and effective manner." And yet this category appears to exist more less independently of Energy efficiency, and judging by the contents, people seem to be as confused as I am as to what goes where. Is there no way we can merge, under one name or another? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. I think a hard look at the energy categories is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 15 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 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dinosaur Fauna of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There has been a long consensus among WP:DINO editors to restrict dinosaur-related geographic categories to continent-level Mesozoic entities, instead of modern political nation-level entities (the category for India and Madagascar reflects their shared history as a block of the southern supercontinent Gondwana). Given the number of articles involved, a dedicated article would probably be more appropriate. J. Spencer (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC) J. Spencer (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or listify, per J's rationale. Modern political boundaries didn't have much effect on dinosaurs, and we do not have categories like Category: U.S. dinosaurs. If there are enough Egyptian dinosaurs, an article can be created, but I seem to recall from the deletion discussion of the Arabian dinosaurs category that there's not a whole lot of dinosaurian fossils in the Middle East in general. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify per nom's rationale. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; that WP:DINO editor consensus is the only sensible approach. There's already an appropriate list article at Fossils of Egypt. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom since the list exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 15 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.