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:Monotypic mammal genera, with no prejudice against renominating as part of a nomination of the entire 'Monotypic genera' category tree, of the 'Monotypic animal genera' tree, or even as an individual nomination, if appropriate. There was no consensus on whether to delete or retain the category, but there seemed to be agreement that the proposed name is better. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monotypic mammals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The current name means "mammal species without subspecies" rather than "mammal genera with only one species", the intended meaning. Thus, it should at least be renamed to Category:Monotypic mammal genera. However, I don't see the need for this category at all: it's not a particularly defining characteristic that taxonomists happen to have placed only one species in these genera, and I don't see any navigational value. Thus, I prefer to delete this category and its parents altogether. Ucucha 23:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposed name change, as it is more consistent with the other related categories. I oppose the deletion, however, as I do see navigational value, but that could just be personal preference. Should a deletion proposal be put forward, it should probably be for the main category of Category:monotypic genera as opposed to this sub-category. The sub-category Category:monotypic fungi genera has nearly 1000 articles, so I would presume that other users see navigational value as well. Reade (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are these with only one species, only one extant species, or only one known species in the paleontological/historical record? (ie. in order to have a genus, it would have to have evolved from another genus, and thus may have unknown predecessor species in the same genus as itself, unless those are classified into the known species as well...) 65.94.252.177 (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no need such category. Maybe there is even no need such "list of monotypic genera", but if somebody wants to have such list, he/she can write such list and at least it will be referenced. There are even mistakes in this category: for example there is Aardvark in the category, but there are also more species listed in Orycteropus genus. And delete also Category:Monotypic animal genera. --Snek01 (talk) 14:01, 21 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: Speedy rename per WP:CFD/S#Speedy_criteria C2.C and convention of Category:Lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of college football head coaches to Category:Lists of college football head coaches

Nominator's rationale: This category contains multiple lists, and should thus be "Lists" Mm40 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename speedily – it does indeed contain lists. Occuli (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Remember (talk) 18:08, 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: do not rename. Consensus is that the use of the word "descent" suffices to indicate that the category is for people of Jewish ethnicity rather than adherents of Judaism (the religion), and that renaming is not necessary to indicate that a dedicated subcategory for people who are of Jewish descent and profess Judaism is unneeded. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of Jewish descent by religion to Category:People of Jewish descent by religion (non-Jewish)

Nominator's rationale: Rename This category is now a natural subcategory of the recently created Category:People of Jewish descent. However it was intended to apply to those of Jewish descent who practise other (or indeed no) religions (The rubric on the category reads 'People of ethnic Jewish descent who do not profess Judaism'). Unless the title is changed, however, it should also logically include those who practise the Jewish religion itself (I suppose Category:Jewish Jews, or something like that). Actually I don't think my proposed title is by any standards ideal, as the category also incudes Category: Jewish atheists, Category:Jewish agnostics, and Category:Jewish humanists - for all of which the old title is also unsuited - another reason to change. Perhaps Category:People of Jewish descent subscribing to non-Jewish beliefs? Over to you all. Smerus (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. On grounds of logical perfection and absolute clarity, Smerus has a point ... but I don't think that the rename is necessary. The "of Jewish descent" is superfluous for people who are themselves Jewish, so it should be evident to readers and editors that Jewish people don't belong in here. Similarly, Category:People of Scandinavian descent doesn't include people who still live in Scandianvia -- they are called Scandinavians.
  To clarify the category's purpose for anyone who is unsure, I suggest that it is quite sufficient to put a headnote on the category page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Jews of Jewish descent would be a pointless category, since most practising Jews are. Christians of Jewish descent, etc, is worth having, as are Jewish atheists, etc. The proposed addition is pointless. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you've missed my point here.I am not proposing a category for Jews of Jewish descent. I am proposing clarification of an exisiting category so as to avoid such an anomaly.--Smerus (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is rather confusing as Category:People of Jewish descent is contained (supposedly) in Category:Jews and (say) Category:Jewish atheists and Category:Atheists of Jewish descent are different things. Occuli (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, are they in fact different? How so? An atheist may be a Jew by ethnicity, but cannot (by definition) be a Jew by religion. (There is no category Category:Christian atheists). The confusion arises, as always in this area, by the fact that 'Jew' carries the meaning both of religion and of ethnicity. That's why the category needs renaming. --Smerus (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don t see the necessity, as someone described of being of Jewish descent is presumably not Jewish. If it is to be renamed to avoid possible confusion, then I suggest Category:People of Ethnic Jewish descent by religion And, as per the above comments, I would definitely rename Category:Jewish atheists etc. into Category:Atheists of Jewish descent, etc., as 'Jewish atheist', etc., are utter oxymorons. Mayumashu (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, many people of Jewish (ethnic) descent are Jewish (religious), viz., virtually the entire community of practising Jews. But thansk anyway for agreeing on the oxymoronic Category:Jewish atheists. Fascinating by the way that all the people opposing this seem to be agreeing with me, at least in part.--Smerus (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm, yes, virtually the entire community of practising Jews are indeed of Jewish descent. But nearly all Japanese people are of Japanese descent, yet we have a Category:People of Japanese descent rather than Category:People of Japanese descent who are not themselves Japanese ... and it works because the "of Japanese descent" is unnecessary for someone who still has that status. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Does one convert to humanism or agnosticism from a religion. If so then, on second thought, Category:Jewish atheists, for example, should be renamed to Category:Converts to atheism from Judaism. (Then it could be a subcat of a potential Category:Atheists of Jewish descent, as the later would also describe an atheist with a Jewish grandparent, etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 15:50, 23 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 Category:Hannibal to Category:Hannibal Lecter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hannibal to Category:Hannibal the Cannibal

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Logically, this should be about the scourge of Rome, Hannibal, not the serial killer series by Thomas Harris. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Hannibal Lecter to match main article. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reanme to match main article. Maurreen (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Hannibal Lecter which is the clearest of the possible names. Occuli (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to Category:Hannibal Lecter. I expect we could provide a useful category relating to the Cathaginian general, but this is not it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Commnet there is a related rename request for the template, see Template talk:Hannibal . 65.94.252.177 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the last name of the character is also spelt "Lektor". 65.94.252.177 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to Category:Hannibal Lecter to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:59, 21 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 per nominator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eraserheads albums to Category:The Eraserheads albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 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: Merge Category:Australian Government schools to Category:Public schools in Australia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Australian Government schools is superfluous, as they should be and probably are in Category: Public schools in Australia by state/territory. I have added them to Category:Primary schools in Australia by state/territory too, as they (all five!) are primary schools. Hugo999 (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom - apart from the validity of the points Hugo999 makes, schools in Australia are part of a state or territory system and are not "Australian Government" schools. Orderinchaos 06:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Orderinchaos. The Australian government does not run a school system. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:12, 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: Rename. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:String Cheese Incident albums to Category:The String Cheese Incident albums

Nominator's rationale: per main article, The String Cheese Incident —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 00:00, 22 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:Murray-Darling basin, with no prejudice against another nomination to consider the hyphen/endash issue. However, since the main article currently uses a hyphen (Murray-Darling basin), I recommend addressing the issue at the article first. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Murray basin to Category:Murray-Darling basin

Nominator's rationale: To reflect the common name of the basin and to be consistent with the main article - Murray-Darling basin. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, but re-create the old title as a ((category redirect)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and recreate as per BrownHairedGirl's suggestion. "Murray-Darling basin" is the authoritative name. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and create redirect per nom / BrownHairedGirl. Orderinchaos 06:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I suspect that both the article and the category should adopt the endash standard at some point, since Murray and Darling are actually different rivers (ie, there is no "Murray-Darling River"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  My opinion is - Darling Basin and Upper Murray Basin (upward confluence of both) are subbasin of Murray Basin (here called Murray-Darling Basin). Mircea cs (talk) 11:57, 29 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. The category is now empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internal Bleeding albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Albums by redlink band. Both are nominated for AfD. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So why not await the afd conclusions? If the afds produce 1 keep (which would be a surprise), then this is a keep, and if they are both delete, this is an immediate delete; so there is no need to bring it here. Occuli (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I figured that I would forget and I didn't want to leave an empty category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 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.