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: Upmerge to Category:District councillors of Hong Kong. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former member of district council in Hong Kong to Category:Former members of district councils of Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: At 11:13, 3 May 2010 User:119.237.153.52 listed this move as an article-type move, and it got in Wikipedia:Requested moves/current. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:District councillors of Hong Kong. We do not distinguish present and former members in categories (per long precedent). However this is a parent only category with a lot of ill-populated subcats. If these subcats are retained the contents of this cat really ought to be distributed inot the appropriate subcats. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting note. Category was not tagged; done now. — ξ^xplicit 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:District councillors of Hong Kong per Peter. Per many precedents politicians and others are not categorized by current or former status. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:District councillors of Hong Kong per Peterkingiron. JackJud (talk) 10:48, 17 May 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 all. No comments here, but the article is stable at its present name, so this really isn't controversial. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FC Fakel-Voronezh Voronezh players to Category:FC Fakel Voronezh players

Propose renaming Category:FC Fakel-Voronezh Voronezh managers to Category:FC Fakel Voronezh managers

Propose renaming Category:FC Fakel-Voronezh Voronezh templates to Category:FC Fakel Voronezh templates

Nominator's rationale: The club has been renamed from FC Fakel-Voronezh Voronezh back to FC Fakel Voronezh: http://www.fakelfc.ru/. WildCherry06 10:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting note. Categories were not tagged; done now. — ξ^xplicit 22:43, 16 May 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:Austro-Hungarian Serbs. — ξ^xplicit 05:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Serbian Austro-Hungarians to Category:Austro-Hungarian Serb people C2C (parent cat is Category:Serb people) Mayumashu (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from speedy rename section. Initial suggestion was to rename to Category:Austro-Hungarian Serb people; alternate suggestion was to rename to Category:Austro-Hungarian Serbs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to alternate suggestion - Category:Austro-Hungarian Serbs. The expression "Serb people" appears clumsy and artificial, and the universally accepted word for a "Serb person" is a "Serb". JackJud (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 'Serb people' was suggested over 'Ethnic Serbian people' as a disambiguate to distinguish ethnically Serbian people from citizens of the state of Serbia, in this discussion. However these comments are for a renominating for renaming Category:Serb people, the parent category – the category here is a sub-cat and its renaming as a speedy is procedurely entirely correct as such under speedy rename category C2.C. Mayumashu (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Austro-Hungarian Serbs per my comments on speedy rename section, extracted above. Davshul (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is 'Serbs' semantically different from 'Serb people', assuming the later is the accepted term for someone who is ethnically Serb irrespective of citizenship? If 'Serb people' is not the best term, then that s a matter for renaming the parent category Category:Serb people. Given that the parent cat is named what it is, then I ask how is this not a wholly and utterly procedural matter under category C2C? Mayumashu (talk) 14:56, 19 May 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:American theatre directors of Asian descent. — ξ^xplicit 05:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Asian American theatre directors to Category:Directors of Asian American theater

Nominator's rationale: listed here, it seems, are directors of Asian American theater, and neither directors of any sort of American theater who are of Asian descent nor directors of any sort of theater who are U.S. citizens and of Asian descent. If, however, the view is that Asian American theater is just (any sort of) American theater involving people of Asian descent, and there is not an 'Asian American theater' as a unique sub-genre, then the rename should be Category:Directors of American theater of Asian descent (and the article page should be nominated for deletion). Mayumashu (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That needs to be assessed with regard to common-usage in the academic literature. If the sources generally refer both to those who make Asian-American theatre and those who make theatre and are of Asian descent as "Asian American theatre directors" then the category should be used to list both candidates, as it were. In my experience, that is precisely how it is used and the form ought to be retained here. I have yet to encounter the description "X is a director of American theatre of Asian descent", while I have often enountered "X is an Asian American theatre director." As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia reflects common use. Please note too that the "theatre" spelling is universal in the English language and not limited to a specfic region. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- surely nom distorts the purpose of the category. This is not about the type of theatre (or theater), but about the ehtnicity of the dorector. Or Rename Category:American theatre directors of Asian descent. (or have I got it titlally wrong). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry, but I think Category:Directors of American theater of Asian descent is a dreadful idea: unclear on the key point of whether it's the directors or the theatre which is of Asian descent. Either keep or rename per Peter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reason I oppose nom: the entire category tree, including the parent American directors category, does spell it "theatre," I'm pleased to see, not "theater." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Giving this a second thought, I d support Peterkingiron's Category:American theatre directors of Asian descent, but this is continguent of deleting article page Asian American theater, or perhaps renaming it to Asian Americans in theatre (where a fair presumption is made that the 'theatre' refers to American theatre as the participants are Asian American) Mayumashu (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why we would make a CfD rename decision "continguent" (sic) on deleting this article. If you want to nominate it for deletion you're welcome to do so. However, the article does seem to summarize Asian American theatre history and movements, not simply Asian Americans working in the theatre business, so I don't know that I'd support even an article rename.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. If there is not connection between the article and category here, then let s not make it contingent. They were linked up when I submitted the speedy rename - I should have checked the validity of the link at the time. Mayumashu (talk) 16:57, 17 May 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 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Image maintenance templates to Category:File maintenance templates

Nominator's rationale: Namespace has been renamed and some of these templates can potentially be used on a sound or video file. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:02, 16 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bouncing Souls albums to Category:The Bouncing Souls albums

Nominator's rationale: actual name —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per The Bouncing Souls. Occuli (talk) 17:33, 16 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sensational Alex Harvey Band albums to Category:The Sensational Alex Harvey Band albums

Nominator's rationale: actual name —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Strangely, there isn't an actual page on the SAHB, just a redirect from Sensational Alex Harvey Band to the man himself. Something best rectified by carving out a distinct page on the band though, and then the category change would be consistent. AllyD (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, not per The Sensational Alex Harvey Band, which is indeed a redirect, but per the cover of Live (The Sensational Alex Harvey Band album). Occuli (talk) 17:36, 16 May 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 May 25#Category:Votes for deletion templates. — ξ^xplicit 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Votes for deletion templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: VFD doesn't exist anymore since some time, and if there's any point in keeping some of the templates here, they should be renamed to "AFD" and recategorized to Category:Articles for deletion templates. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it doesn't matter that VfD doesn't matter anymore, VfD archives still exist, and atleast some of the templates are used on them. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:57, 17 May 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 first, and merge with second. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Cameroon to Category:Populated places in Cameroon

Propose merging Category:Cities, towns and villages in Cameroon to Category:Populated places in Cameroon

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy rename and merge based on previous discussions - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but why are we doing these one at a time?--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because editors do not seem willing to tag them as part of the larger nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need to get this process under control. We have a bot already lined up to do the tagging, but the longer it waits to do it, the more editors will do it manually. We have clear precedent, so let's do it all at once. Let me know if I can help.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like it may be done (May 17) with some duplication of what was already nominated/completed. 07:46, 17 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.

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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Temporary settlements to Category:Temporary populated places

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy rename based on previous discussions - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 16 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Future settlements to Category:Future populated places

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy rename based on previous discussions - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 16 May 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 and merge. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Colombian-American models to Category:American models of Latin American descent and merge present contents to Category:American people of Colombian descent

Nominator's rationale: this is too narrow a focus for the cat tree that is by nationality, by ethnic/prior national descent Mayumashu (talk) 15:04, 17 April 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 10:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge, agree with nom that the focus is too narrow. Neutral on whether rename target is the best option or conforms to existing categories. postdlf (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge and also rename per nom, as category appears very narrow. JackJud (talk) 11:02, 17 May 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 people of Chinese descent and Category:American philosophers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Chinese American philosophers to Category:American people of Chinese descent and Category:American philosophers (and possibly Category:Philosophers of Chinese descent?)

Nominator's rationale: no similar cats for this occupation for Americans by ethnic or national origin, and it s a very lightly populated cat (some similar cats that for other occupations may not have trees but have some population to justify having them as a means of breaking up a heavily populated supra cat page - this is not the case here). Mayumashu (talk) 19:30, 16 April 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 10:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:American people of Chinese descent and Category:American philosophers. I can't see any justification for Category:Philosophers of Chinese descent. Occuli (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Occuli. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: WP:PHILOSOPHY notified. AllyD (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as others have suggested. The present category is too narrow and intersection (unless there are dozens of them). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 24 May 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arista Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow with no chance of expansion. Either delete or upmerge to RCA Records Music Group category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as the main article exists. There are hundreds of articles in the sub categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:56, 4 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 10:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the distinction between Arista and RCA is significant, and the number of articles in the subcats (both of which have Arista in the title) is great. I might support a further division of those cats, depending on the suggestion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merging to RCA (or to Bertelsmann, or to Sony) would merely be representing the retrospective commercial juggling of legacy catalogue after the main event. Arista (and the more interesting labels like Arista Freedom) stand on their own. AllyD (talk) 22:24, 19 May 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:2005 meteorology (many of them are already in a subcategory of this target); I will also make sure that all the contents are included in Category:2005 in the United States.. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2005 in United States meteorology to Category:2005 in meteorology

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Does not appear to be part of larger series. Tim! (talk) 20:59, 27 April 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 10:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• support if the merge is to Category:2005_meteorology (which exists and is part of a series). I checked the 2004 possibilities of all three and Category:2004_meteorology is the only one of the three that exists, and has a series box on it (as does 2005). - UtherSRG (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but to both parents - Category:2005 meteorology and Category:2005 in the United States. Occuli (talk) 15:49, 16 May 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 to CFD 2010 June 27. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

• Category:Victorian era ships of France
  • Category:Victorian era naval ships of France
    • Category:Victorian era battleships of France
    • Category:Victorian era corvettes of France
    • Category:Victorian era frigates of France
• Category:Victorian era ships of Germany
  • Category:Victorian era naval ships of Germany
    • Category:Victorian era corvettes of Germany
    • Category:Victorian era frigates of Germany
  • Category:Victorian era merchant ships of Germany
  • Category:Victorian era passenger ships of Germany
• Category:Victorian era ships of the United States
  • Category:Victorian era naval ships of the United States
    • Category:Victorian era submarines of the United States
  • Category:Victorian era merchant ships of the United States
  • Category:Victorian era passenger ships of the United States
• Category:Victorian era naval ships of China
  • Category:Victorian era battleships of China
• Category:Victorian era naval ships of Japan
• Category:Victorian era naval ships of Russia
  • Category:Victorian era battleships of Russia
• Category:Victorian era submarines (this is an all-American category) subcats are American; contains one British entry

Nominator's rationale: Her Majesty ruled from 1837 to 1901. The "ships of the Victorian Era", taken broadly, cover everything from the survivors of the Napoleonic Wars to the Great White Fleet (its ships were built after H.M. had died, but followed the pre-dreadnought standard developed in the UK in the 1890s). That is, the category is nearly synomymous to Category:19th-century ships.

I do not question Britain's own Category:Victorian era ships of the United Kingdom, Category:Victorian era ships of Australia, Category:Victorian era ships of Canada. However, the Victorian categorization should not be applied to the rest of the world. Submarines of the Confederate States of America were a domestic American affair - of no concern to Her Majesty at all. Neither was the mighty Chinese turret ship Dingyuan. I recommend deletion of all non-British Victorian categories. As for the ships built in Britain for other nations - Category:Ships built in the United Kingdom is, in my opinion, sufficient. It may be argued that certain French, Rusian and German shipbuilding programs resulted from specific French-British, Russian-British, German-British standoffs of the Victorian Era, and thus fall into the scope of the Victorian politics. Identification of specific ships built through such programs is too subjective and uncertain (some were conceived as a deterrent against the British, but the threat was gone when they were completed, etc.).

Earlier, I raised the question at WP:SHIPS; only one person replied. Creator of the categories notified (he seems inactive for the past few months). East of Borschov East of Borschov (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• support and more - I'm split on this. One one hand, it's nice to have consistency, such that all ships of a given vintage are in categories by vintage with the same naming schema. On the other hand, it makes no sens at all to talk about Victorian era Chinese anything. So, while I believe I'm for the removal of the listed categories, I think it should be extended to include all of the "Victorian era [X] ships [XYZ]" categories, including the ones Victoria ruled over. Consistency and conformity should rule here, so I suppose I'd have to support this plus. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete until a study is made of each category of each country to determine where these ship articles should reside. In each county, the 'victorian era...' category is part of a pattern, removal of which would leave these ships with no category pointing to their country or era. Provide another proposal than deletion. Hmains (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The passenger ship categories appear to lack any pattern, so SS Illinois (1873) is a Victorian ship of the U.S., but R.R. Thompson (sternwheeler) (1878) is not and neither is the infamous PS General Slocum (1891). Perhaps river boats did not deserve victorianization (except for Civil War combatants, see below) but it's not obvious. The military "Victorian categories" for France, Germany, Russia appear to be complete but they are not (that is, some ships of the period are categorized as Victorian, and many others are not). Category:Victorian era naval ships of the United States is limited only to Civil War ships, Holland U-booten and three 19th century ships). These are very counterintuitive categories, and I suspect that many article creators simply could not imagine that German cruisers and American whaling boats should've been categorized as "Victorian". East of Borschov (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Category:Victorian era also includes Category:Victorian era military equipment which suffers from the same problem. I agree with Hmains that we need a rename (or another plan) rather than a delete. Occuli (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This form of categorization is quite funny, I think—kind of an ultimate in Anglo-centrism. If we wanted to rename these instead of deleting, it could just be "19th-century ships of FOO" and so forth. The Victorian era was entirely within the 19th century, with the minor exception of its final 22 days (1–22 Jan 1901). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On top of being Anglo-centric, it is both arbitrary and odd to name an era of shipbuilding after the ruler of one nation, even if it just so happened to be the British Empire. Resolute 01:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to equivalent 19th century categories. Beyond the British empire, the use of Victorian era is inappropriate. The technical overlap with 20th century is too trifling to worry about. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment would use of the term Pax Britannica in the category names be an improvement? It covers more of the time span in question. Hmains (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. All of the ships I looked at are already in one of the Category:yyyy ships so that they fall into the by century categories. While I think the suggestion by Peterkingiron is in the right direction, I would rather upmerge to the broader ships by type categories and not to any 19th century categories. That is effectively the main category for these. So we keep the ships in a correct tree and we avoid the issue of which conflict they were in to correctly classify them. I really did want to say delete, but in looking at some of the entries this seems to be the only way some of these ships roll up into any by type category. So I fully concur with the need to remove these categories, the only issue is how. Note to the closer. With these last few comments, it may be better to relist to see if Peterkingiron and my suggestions help with creating a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:20, 19 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose renaming Category:Tool members to Category:Tool (band) members

Propose renaming Category:Tool songs to Category:Tool (band) songs

Nominator's rationale: To match main article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• support - While my initial reaction was to oppose, I see this is rather standard, such as Category:Kiss (band) albums. Certainly Category:Kiss albums and the existing Category:Tool albums categories are readily identifiable as being "albums released by the band [KISS|Tool]", consistency urges the ranames. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it is standard to match the article for all subcats, and not scrutinise separately every instance of XXX albums, XXX videos, XXX tours, XXX songs etc for possible ambiguities. Occuli (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support a "tool album" could be a binder of hardware tools. a "tool member" could mean a bit for a drill. etc. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:34, 18 May 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 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1972 Team USSR players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I failed to bundle it with the one for Team Canada, oops. But, same reason. Overcategorization - performer by performance and a vague, non-descriptive category. Resolute 03:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• support - overlooked in previous discussion, should probably just speedy it. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Keep per my argument for the Team Canada category... defining characteristic in the career of these players, at the very least, in the English speaking world; the most defining characteristic in the English speaking world for these players, perhaps the only defining characteristic in the English speaking world (unlike the Canadians, where there are other defining characteristics). 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We don't categorize sportspeople by team combined with year. I don't see a reason we would make an exception to the general rule. Already exists as a list with more detail at Summit Series. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that issue can be solved by renaming it to Category:1972 Summit Series Team USSR players. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it can't. We still "don't categorize sportspeople by team combined with year", and I see no reason to make an exception here. Renaming it doesn't solve that issue, which is my principal concern. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a year. It's a tournament. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the tournament happened in a particular year—1972 in this case, right in the category name. We don't categorize sportspeople by particular tournament in a particular year either, as this would be even more refined than categorizing by year. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a one-off it's just a particular tournament. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes. Remind me why are we going over this? Whether it's a team for a particular year, or a team for a particular tournament, or a combination of both—none of these forms of categorization are typically done, even for teams/tournaments/years that particular users think are particularly imporant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. There's not quite enough consensus for a "Keep" result.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Documentaries to Category:Documentary

Nominator's rationale: We have established the use of singular in similar top-level categories Category:Film, Category:Animation and the like. Suggest the same here, helping to distinguish from sub-categories for individual works, such as documentary films, audio documentaries, documentary television programs, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose - doesn't look top level to me. It's underneath Category:Sources and Category:Films based on actual events. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weaksupport - appears to resolve confusion between Documentary style and documentary films (the latter of which it seems many are confusing this category is for). Please look at Category:Documentary film and Category:Documentary films too - can we fix that?ZayZayEM (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created Documentary film as the top-level cat for this branch, and it includes Documentary films along with related categories such as Documentary film awards, Documentary film organizations, etc. This precisely mirrors the top-level Film/ sub-level Films category structure and I believe it's correct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment shouldn't this be split/resorted so that the singular contains articles about the topic, and the plural contains examples of the topic? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• do not rename; last comment is correct A pair of categories is needed. Hmains (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentaries would essentially become a top category for Documentary films, Audio documentaries etc. This particular category needs to shifted up to singular, and the plural form not deleted, but populated with appropriate entries. So yes split/resortZayZayEM (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm lost here. Why do we have Category:Documentaries, Category:Documentary film and Category:Documentary films? If anything: merge Category:Documentaries into Category:Documentary films (to match parent article, documentary film); redirect Category:Documentary to Category:Documentary film; redirect Category:Documentaries to Category:Documentary films. Category:Documentary film appears to be the "top level" category, assuming there is one. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Documentaries can not be merged into documentary films and documentary film is not the top-level, at least according to the description for the Documentaries cat (which I do agree with). The term "documentaries" encompasses radio/audio documentaries, along with documentary films and documentary TV programming (and, it adds, arguably documentary still photography as well). This is why Documentaries or the singular Documentary must remain at the top, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, good point. Damn age of technology fogged up my brain. In that case, I think I'd support the alternative given by 70.29.208.247 (talk). — ξ^xplicit 22:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, but don't we still want/need some kind of top-level cat where singular articles about documentary and examples of documentaries join up? (And if so, what would that top-level be called?) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- categories are typically in the plural. Perhaps Reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the singular Category:Documentary is just a redirect to Category:Documentaries, so if I understand your comment correctly, your position would require no action. It would simply be a keep, right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 25 May 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.