< June 7 June 9 >

June 8

Category:Australians of Hawaiian descent

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. — ξxplicit 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]

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

Category:Jews by century

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

Propose deleting:

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]

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

Category:African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska

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. — ξxplicit 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]
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.

Category:20th-century electroacoustic composers

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.

Category:French Open

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. — ξxplicit 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]
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]
  • 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]
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.

Category:Templates containing Links to wiki's outside of WikiMedia

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]

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

Category:2010 controversies

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. — ξxplicit 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]
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.

Category:Honorary citizen of Jerusalem

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. — ξxplicit 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)


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

Category:Golden Globes winners

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]

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

Category:Planned production electric vehicles

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]

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

Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies

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]

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

Category:Upcoming aircraft

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]

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

Category:Roman era anti-Christian thinkers

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. — ξxplicit 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]
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.

Category:Roman era Christian thinkers

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. — ξxplicit 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]

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

Category:Anti-Christian thinkers

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. — ξxplicit 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)TCM☯ 05:36, 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.

Category:Christian thinkers

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)TCM☯ 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)TCM☯ 05:34, 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.

Category:Jackson family

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]
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]
??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]

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

Category:Administrators willing to consider requests for self blocking

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. — ξxplicit 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]

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

Category:Vegan snacks

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. — ξxplicit 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]

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

Category:Electric Auto Association

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. — ξxplicit 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]

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

Category:Micromorphous silicon

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. — ξxplicit 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]

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

Category:Wiki music

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]

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

Category:Modes of transportation

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. — ξxplicit 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]

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

Category:Hiking trails

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]

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

Category:Transparent displays

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. — ξxplicit 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]

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

Category:Energy conservation

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. — ξxplicit 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]

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

Category:Dinosaur Fauna of Egypt

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. — ξxplicit 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]

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.