< March 16	March 18 >

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. postdlf (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting the following two

• Category:People by elementary school in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Walsh Public School alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: seems a bit much, catting by elementary school graduated from Mayumashu (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - particularly as their single article does not mention the school in question. Occuli (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. It's bad enough categorising by secondary school, but by elementary school? Trivial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I agree. Can we do anything about that one too? Mayumashu (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. Not in support of Mayumashu's additional suggestion simply because quite a few secondary schools are defining, although its overuse as a category measure should be discouraged. (i.e. Past students of Hale School is one thing but past students of Belmont City College would be quite another.) Orderinchaos 01:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd note that one of the two articles in the Walsh category was the userpage of the editor who created it; I've removed that page from all articlespace categories. Also, this editor has a substantial history of being almost autistically devoted to the inclusion of reams and reams of unsourced Norfolk County-specific trivia — every individual cemetery, every individual public school, every individual pothole on Highway 24 through downtown Simcoe, etc. — and POV commentary — this is still probably my favourite stunt of his. Delete both per nom; delete editor too, if at all possible. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Attendence of a particular primary school will rarely be defining. For this reason we discourage articles on primary schools. they are usually best merged to the place where they are. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have often argued that anything below tertiary level should be listified. In the past I have suggested that if secondary school categories are OK, then why not primary schools? "Oh, don't be ridiculous," I was told. "What a stupid slippery slope argument", they said. "No one would ever try to categorize by primary school ...." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:30, 24 March 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 to Category:Mangoes, leaving category redirects. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merging Category:Mango to Category:Mangifera indica

Nominator's rationale: Most cultivated mangoes belong to the species Mangifera indica. Most (if not all) of this category's members should be categorized under Category:Mangifera indica, which would make this category redundant. Paul_012 ^(talk) 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Now agree with Occuli's proposal to merge both to Category:Mangoes. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 04:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per head article mango and WP:COMMONAME. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not the botanical specialists who known the scientifically-correct latin name. Surely there there is some way of accommodating the common name within the category system? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, done a little more checking: reverse merge Category:Mangifera indica to Category:Mango. The newly-created Category:Mangifera indica appears to be just a replacement for Category:Mango. By all means re-create Category:Mangifera indica as a ((Category redirect)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge both into Category:Mangoes per Occuli's comment below, but re-create both existing categs as ((Category redirect))s. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:Mangoes as they are both list categories of varieties of mango (see also sibling categories in Category:Fruit). Certainly do not use Mangifera. Occuli (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per Occuli. Both consistency (similarity to other existing categories e.g. Category:Bananas) and usability (having the most common name) should be key. Munci (talk) 16:38, 26 March 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. postdlf (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian health organisations to Category:Health organisations in Australia

Nominator's rationale: This one seems obvious - it's out of sync with all the other "by country" related categories and should be renamed for consistency, and the proposed name does not alter the scope of the category in any way. Orderinchaos 19:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per convention of Category:Medical and health organizations by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:American stained glass artists and manufacturers, with no prejudice against another nomination to change the convention of the category tree from Fooian stained glass artists and manufacturers to Stained glass artists and manufacturers of Foo. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Stained glass artists and manufacturers of the United States to Category:American stained glass artists and manufacturers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. To match the form of the other entries in Category:Stained glass artists and manufacturers. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: another idea would be rename them all, similar to what is being discussed with architecture right now. Munci (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yea, but no harm would be done by doing this one to make them all consistent. At that time, someone can nominate the lot if they think we should use the other form. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 26 March 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:Country parks in Cornwall. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Country Parks in Cornwall to Category:Country parks in Cornwall

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitals use to match parent. MRSC (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Jajouka. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Joujouka to Category:Jajouka

Nominator's rationale: Confusing to relate, so please just see Jajouka (which is an article), Category:Jajouka (the parent of this category), and Joujouka (a dab page.) Simply put, there is too much overlap and the names are confusingly similar. Since they're tranlisterated from Arabic, there is every chance that they are actually identical anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same indeed and it is a long story (see user:FayssalF/JK)! I'd suggest you contact user:Catalpa and user:BKLisenbee as they may have something to say. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:40, 9 March 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 14:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Jajouka, per FayssalF's reasoning on his subpage. Orderinchaos 22:54, 19 March 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. postdlf (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WCVB-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL, as a small category with no prospect of expansion. This is an eponymous category for WCVB-TV, a local TV station in Boston, Massachusetts. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Individual local television and radio stations should almost never have their own dedicated categories, and I'm not seeing a compelling reason for this to be an exception, given that it only contains the station's article and a PNG of its logo which is already on the article anyway. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 20 March 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; speedy deletion criterion C1 (category empty for 4 or more days) also applies. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shivatemple Melakadambur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can see no purpose in a category for a single temple unless it has a lot of related sub-articles which need to be grouped together, but in this case I cannot even find a head article Shiva temple Melmalayanur or Shivatemple Melmalayanur. This category was being used inappropriately as a parent category for the broader Category:Shiva temples, but I have just removed that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedia bureaucrat hopefuls. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bureaucrat hopefuls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. AFAICS the only purpose of this category is a form of canvassing-in-advance. Apart from that I cannot see how it assists collaboration, which is the purpose of wikipedian categories. The category is populated by the userbox, Template:User wikipedia/Bureaucrat someday, and the question of whether to keep the userbox is outside the scope of CFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• At a minimum, it seems superfluous to Category:Wikipedia bureaucrat hopefuls, which seems a logical extension of Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. So, I'd say merge. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware of Category:Wikipedia bureaucrat hopefuls, but since it already exists, I agree that the best solution is to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Bradjamesbrown's suggestion. (On a personal note I entirely agree with the delete rationale presented) Orderinchaos 06:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: DELETE. All articles are already otherwise appropriately categorized, so merging is unnecessary. postdlf (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Female philatelists to Category:Philatelists

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per WP:CATGRS#Gender, "Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic", and it seems to me to be a long stretch to argue that gender has a specific relation to philately. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the proposal here, to make Female Philatelists a sub-category of Philatelists or simply to delete Female Philatelists entirely? Every article in Female Philatelists is already in the Philatelists category. Female philatelists are so rare (at least 90% are male) that they deserve their own category IMHO. I think this is one occasion when an exception to the normal rule could apply. Maidonian (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposal is to "merge", which amounts to deleting Category:Female philatelists and placing all the articles in Category:Philatelists. If the articles are already in Category:Philatelists, then we could delete instead of merging.

  Per WP:CATGRS, the test of whether a gendered category for exist is "can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?" That means that the topic must be already notable as an area of study, so that the article could be referenced to reliable sources and not merely be a synthesis of unrelated material. A search for "female philatelists" -wikipedia throws up only 9 results (with only 5 hits on Google Scholar, which does not suggest that a head article could be written without a lot of of original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What the guidance actually says is: As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General). Do not create separate categories for male and female occupants of the same position, such as "Male Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom" vs. "Female Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom". Why does that not apply here? The vast majority of notable philatelists have been male. The rareness of the female ones is what makes that small group notable. Maidonian (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The guidance actually says both, and I was applying both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The deciding factor is not just whether men normally outnumber women in the field or not — it's whether you can write a genuine, properly sourced encyclopedia article about the phenomenon of "female X". Women rulers, for example, are actually studied as a distinct topic in their own right. Women writers are studied as a distinct topic in their own right. Where's the academic research into what makes female philatelists a distinct topic from philatelists in general? Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found this by looking thought the empty categories about to be deleted where Category:Women philatelists was apparently emptied to populate this one. There is no need to merge since all of the existing articles are already included in a subcategory of Category:Philatelists. So a merge would make a mess that would need to be cleaned up. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. OK it's not strictly in accordance with policy but Wikipedia is better with it than without it and that is exactly when we can break a rule. Maidonian (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-defining intersection unless somebody can demonstrate that "female philatelists" actually constitute a field of actual academic or cultural study. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. I have posted a message on the Philately Project page to see if there are any views there. Please allow time for any further comments. Maidonian (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this is overcategorisation and has happened before with Category:Philatelists. In fact the same philatelic editor who created this category also created additional country related categories where they are really not warranted due to only 1 or 2 entries. We discussed this back in July 2006 and in consequence several under-populated categories were deleted following these two discussions: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 30#Merge all Philatelist Categories and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 3#Philatelists category. ww2censor (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I was unaware of the discussion on this subject four years ago as I have only been active since Oct 2008. In any case, this is not about country categories it is about the validity of a female one, but thanks for piling on ww2censor, nice. Maidonian (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you agree with it or not, this is a perfectly valid discussion to have — and participating in it does not constitute "piling on". Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ww2censor is an active participant in the Philately project, and was presumably alerted to this CFD discussion by the message which Maurreen posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately#Category:Female_philatelists. It's rather perverse to ask project members for comments, and then object when they do comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Stamp collecting is hardly an activity where the sex of the collector is significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:03, 20 March 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. postdlf (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Social evil in Indian society to Category:Indian society

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Deciding whether or not an aspect of Indian society is a "social evil" is subjective and results in POV categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It also does not fit into any other country or topic classifying schemes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Blatantly POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)
• I ask not to merge or delete this category. It is openly known that indian society has several social evils. It is in no way POV if we categorize them. Every entry under said category is not hidden/taboo/Mystery. Please read Hindu Social Custom, Practice of Sati still prevalent in India, STATUS OF INDIAN WOMEN AND THE ROLE OF LEGISLATION and British India - Society. These are few quick refs for now. Please consider the fact that indian society has many social evils and wiki supports facts. You decide what to do with this category. I'll support you as I support wiki. cheers! --Swaminworld (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But by labelling something like Dowry as a "social evil", you are promoting a particular opinion or point of view. You and others may believe the dowry is a social evil, but I'm sure there are others who disagree. Wikipedia shouldn't be written or structured to advance one opinion over another. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok,Good opinion. Now if one can argue and defend Dowry as not a social evil than anything can be argued and labeled as POV. --Swaminworld (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Swaminworld, please read WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I respect every clauses that wiki has adopted over the years and I an not promoting a "particular opinion or point of view". I simply categorized social customs/trends/traditions/happenings on basis of the facts. may be it is simply a question of weather you agree with me or vice versa. If you can argue that one thing is "this way" then surely someone can argue it the "other way". Now as i said before, I'll support your actions for i support wiki. --Swaminworld (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The facts here are that some people regard these things as evil, but others do not: for example, plenty of peole don't like bride burning, but those who do it do not regard it as evil. That makes it a POV issue, so labelling it is either "good" or "bad" is unacceptable. Please do read WP:NPOV: it is one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • If murder is not evil anymore (it's all pov and discrimination isnt't it?) shouldn't all Category:Crimes be upmerged to Category:Society or perhaps Category:Hobbies ? Or is it just murder of colored women that's not evil anymore ? NVO (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • But murder being part of Category:Crime is something fact-based rather than opinion-based: you can look up the law to find out if it is true or not. You can't look up anything to decide objectively whether something is evil or not because evil is necessarily subjective. Bride burning is already part of the category Domestic violence which is to some extent categorising it according to its legal status. Theoretically, it could also be part of the Category Murder for the same reason. But putting it in any category with such words as 'evil' in it is POV.Munci (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Or is it just murder of colored women that's not evil anymore ?" Good gravy, what a comment! I agree with Munci, let's not confuse a state labelling certain acts "criminal" and a Wikipedian declaring something to be "evil". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Gobonobo ^{T C} 04:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Would agree with nom to merge, the members are important topics in Indian society, but the members already belong to that category. The name too POV. Suggest that all categories should have a parent article first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As with Smokey Joe, I would go for merge like the nominator but all already part of Idnian society category anyway. Munci (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The person wanting the category can consider Category:Social controversies in India or somesuch. Maurreen (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NPOV is a cornerstone policy. Orderinchaos 06:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; POV. While there are certainly problematic traditions that can be attached to dowry, for instance, dowry itself isn't "evil" (though maybe a bit archaic in some cultures) — and the more problematic aspects already have their own separate articles anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 25. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Swingin Utters albums to Category:Swingin' Utters albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main, Swingin' Utters. Possibly speedy as a misspelling. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teenbeat Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. While the club is notable, it does not merit a category. I did remove the two groups that had populated the category since neither mention playing here. The article does a good job of linking to articles about what happened so deleting the category should not cause any problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:06, 17 March 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:Uzkekistani expatriates in Russia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Uzbekaistani expatriates in Russia to Category:Uzbek expatriates in Russia

Nominator's rationale: to correct spelling error and grammar. Possible speedy candidate? Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Uzbekistani expatriates in Russia. There is a difference between Category:Uzbek people and Category:Uzbekistani people, though someone could easily be in both trees. The former is an ethnicity, while the latter refers to the nationality, and for someone to be an "expatriate", presumably we're referring to the nationality, not the ethnicity. It should be a subcategory of Category:Uzbekistani expatriates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Uzkekistani expatriates in Russia per GoodOlFactory Mayumashu (talk) 22:26, 17 March 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 09:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Southern Border to Category:Southern Border (California)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Southern Border" would normally include the border areas outside of California, such as in Texas, especially considering debates on the war on drugs in the Texas-Mexico area, which refer to it as the southern border. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match main article Southern Border (California). There are many "southern borders" in the world, and a few that go by the proper name are listed at Southern Border (disambiguation), though I'm sure this list is probably incomplete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:32, 17 March 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 09:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Glass history to Category:History of glass

Nominator's rationale: Rename per convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match corresponding categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, to follow convention of parent Category:History of technology and grandparent Category:History by topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename No problem with this rename to follow convention. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:29, 17 March 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.