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. If any of the subcategories merit splitting, editors are more than welcome get that ball rolling. — ξ^xplicit 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:School shootings in Finland to Category:School killings in Finland

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per all of its siblings in the amusingly non-conformist Category:School massacres. Or in the alternative rename it to match the parents and nominate the siblings. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is school shooting, so I think it would be best to rename the whole bunch to use that. Ucucha 23:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Not all such killings are shootings e.g. Maharishi University of Management stabbing or Poe Elementary School attack, so a broader title for the category is better. Tassedethe (talk) 12:21, 7 September 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: split all. Have fun with manual work! — ξ^xplicit 07:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Split and Delete - I am unclear, other than possibly the unreferenced assertion in Courtesan that "courtesan" is a current euphemism for "prostitute" as to why these occupations are joined in the category tree. I can't find any discussion of the decision-making process that resulted in this joining. The category was originally at Category:Famous courtesans and prostitutes but that was moved to the current name in 2005. Category:Prostitutes once existed but was deleted as empty and redundant to this category. Remnants of an apparent separation exist as evidenced by the sub-categories that specify one or the other. I propose we delete all of these and divvy up the contents into new Category:Courtesans and Category:Prostitutes structures. Most of these are small categories of one or two articles so I will check those and note here if the entries are all one or the other, in which case they can be renamed if consensus is to split. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't know why these were initially grouped together, but my guess is that it was done because splitting them would have resulted in relatively small categories, since there have not been a lot of articles about these, even when combined. They are currently split by nationality, and I doubt it will be worthwhile to split them by nationality if we separate the two ideas. But on balance, I support splitting them, since there can be quite a difference between a courtesan and a prostitute. It makes sense to me to keep the ideas separate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per nom: Several royal mistresses and favourites are currently categorized as prostitutes and I think it gives people the wrong idea. Dimadick (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I checked all of the categories with 5 or fewer entries. Australia, Canada, Colombia, Nepal, Portugal, Switzerland and Thailand are all prostitutes and Spain is all courtesans. The rest are blended. There's a single article in the head category for a Greek prostitute for which there's currently no subcategory. If any or all of the nominated categories are considered too small to sustain nationality categories then I have no objection to upmerging. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means, they should be split then. The person doing the dividing could their discretion in deciding whether or not to create a nationality category for each, and that's something that could develop over time in any case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Split, but keep the single head category for the sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this being kept open because someone doesn't want to do the work involved? Because I'll help. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as split and delete - the discussion is clearly and obviously in favor of having separate categories for courtesans and prostitutes. No argument for keeping the two professions conjoined has been advanced. Split the damn categories already. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:20, 19 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People appearing in gay pornography to Category:Actors in gay pornographic films

Nominator's rationale: Rename - all of the other categories use "actors" and "pornographic films". This unifies the categories and gets rid of the oddball "people appearing in" construction. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems reasonable. The use of "actors" is definitely more prevalent in most categories as it is anyways. Silverseren^C 21:45, 6 September 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 September 25#Category:Development projects in Louisville, Kentucky. — ξ^xplicit 07:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Development projects in Louisville, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Proposing as a deletion which may well be the result. However if that is the consensus, a few of the articles may need parenting to Louisville, Kentucky, The problem here is that this is a one of category and development project is ambiguous. I think it is better to simply place these in the various building and construction categories. Most of these articles already have this in place, but there are a few tricky ones like converting a rail bridge to a pike path. I'm open to a rename or a merge if one of these is a good option. The most reasonable merge may be to Category:Building projects in the United States and Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky and then to disperse as necessary. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why not to rename to Category:Construction projects in Louisville, Kentucky? Ruslik_Zero 15:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the only by city category and I question the need for making a category structure like this since it would generally be for categories with a small number of articles. Second, the articles are better covered in the other proposed and under construction categories. Development projects and construction projects are rather ambiguous as to what they cover. Is a proposed trail system a development project? Better to delete this one of category since it really is not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 23 September 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. — ξ^xplicit 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hims to Category:Homs

Propose renaming Category:People from Hims Governorate to Category:People from Homs Governorate

Propose renaming Category:People from Hims to Category:People from Homs

Propose renaming Category:Education in Hims to Category:Education in Homs

Propose renaming Category:Mosques in Hims to Category:Mosques in Homs

Propose renaming Category:Churches in Hims to Category:Churches in Homs

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Hims to Category:Buildings and structures in Homs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Homs is the normal English name for the town and the district and the governate and the gap and the lake. See discussion at Talk:Homs#Requested move for more detail. Apparently in Spring 2009, this category was speedily renamed from Homs --> Hims. --Bejnar (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Talk:Homs#Requested move. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous discussion, to rename and redirect existing categories to new ones. -- Orionist ★ talk 22:59, 12 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who used to think that Sherlock Holmes was a real person (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: User category that probably was never meant to seriously include more than one person. Pichpich (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Acather96 (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; note also that there's a long-established consensus that user categories are only appropriate for groupings that can facilitate collaboration among Wikipedians (such as "Wikipedians from A Specific City", etc.), and I'm pretty sure I can't see how this would meet that standard. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 7 September 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 both. — ξ^xplicit 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Translations of Tolkien to Category:Translations of J. R. R. Tolkien

Propose renaming Category:Translations of Carroll to Category:Translations of Lewis Carroll

Nominator's rationale: Rename or Upmerge - rename to use the authors' full names per their articles and associated categories. In the alternative these could be upmerged to their respective parents as small categories with unclear growth potential. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Pichpich (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Asia to Category:Transport in Asia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most of the countries contained in this category use "transport". Also most of those in Category:Transport by continent use "transport" TruckCard (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is Category:Water transport in Asia and Category:Road transport in Asia. TruckCard (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. This matches Category:Transportation by continent which has been in place since 2005 and which you unilaterally replaced out of process and without any consensus. Since this is a mix, it should remain with the long established top level category names. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Exactly this shows, that it should be Category:Transport by continent. Every bold edit to fix the mess is 'unilateral' - how else does one edit? TruckCard (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you had taken more time to familiarize yourself with how things are done on Wikipedia before jumping in like this you would have known that Categories are dealt with in an entirely different way than articles, because they are fundamentally different from articles. Cgingold (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – this whole discussion is subverted by earlier moves by TruckCard, such as redirecting and emptying Category:Transportation in Vietnam around 31 August. I have no reason to believe that the Vietnamese are particularly attached to Br Eng. Occuli (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any rationale arguments aside from ad hominem talk? For Vietnam - but you have reasons Vietnam is particularly attached to US Engl? Because of the war crimes they committed there? TruckCard (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now there is a first-rate argument. I'm sure that will sway lots of editors. Cgingold (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as most of the categories use the "transport" form. - Darwinek (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delay until the earlier discussion is closed. First off, I welcome TruckCard's nomination of this category. It's clear now that he understands that the CfD process is one most of us respect. I support this change, though I am concerned that it is prejudiced by TruckCard's out-of-process overwrites of many categories. So for now, I recommend that we analyze those overwrites and decide which we would support. Let's do what the original nomination suggests we should: figure out whether Transport or Transportation (or both) is right for us.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. TruckCard (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me, but you don't get to weigh in again with a second !vote on your own nomination. Cgingold (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote, I only proposed. TruckCard (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vote on your own nominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Discussions over British English usage vs. Americanisms is usually fruitless. The solution is don't change it for consistency's sake. (Avoid hobgoblins!) Only change when an instance is undeniably one or the other. This is not such a case, therefore don't change it. --Bejnar (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has nothing to do with BE vs AE. The solution is to go for consistency. TruckCard (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is entirely BE v AE. Some countries use one, some the other. It is futile to impose consistency when there is none. Occuli (talk) 13:46, 9 September 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 three as

Category:Sporting knights to Category:Sports players and officials awarded knighthoods

Category:Cricketing knights to Category:Cricket players and officials awarded knighthoods

Category:Football knights to Category:Football players and officials awarded knighthoods. Ruslik_Zero 18:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sporting knights to Category:Sportsmen awarded knighthoods

Propose renaming Category:Cricketing knights to Category:Cricketers awarded knighthoods

Propose renaming Category:Football knights to Category:Footballers awarded knighthoods or Category:Football personalities awarded knighthoods

Nominator's rationale: Rename per sibling categories for actors and actresses. I didn't check whether everyone in the category was awarded a British knighthood but if so the modifier can be included if desired. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename if only because the current titles sound rather silly. Ucucha 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename however use Category:Sports players and officials awarded knighthoods, Category:Cricket players and officials awarded knighthoods and Category:Football players and officials awarded knighthoods. Revised category names are more descriptive and align with other categories. Categories should incorporate officials not just players and hence making this clear in the category title. AusTerrapin (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Category:Sporting knights is parented by Category:Sportsmen and so should probably match. The list article for the football people is at List of football personalities with British honours which is why I suggested the second name. I find "players and officials" on the wordy side. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The implication of naming 'Sportsmen awarded knighthoods' is that officials are excluded and would need their own category. Distinguishing between players and officials in separate categories is pointless and would often result in ambiguous categorisation of articles. I acknowledge the wordiness of the other category titles, I knew this when I proposed them but couldn't think of anything more suitable that conveyed the intended breadth of the category without unwanted connotations. The term 'personalities', when used in connection with sports and entertainment frequently conveys a connotation that the individual is a media celebrity which I am not convinced is a useful connotation to have here. AusTerrapin (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no officials in the category. Of the 35 articles (there were 36; I removed Richard Hadlee because he was already in the cricketing subcategory) only Peter O'Sullevan did not participate in sport (counting mountaineering as sport) and O'Sullevan owns/owned horses and so can be considered a sportman on that basis IMHO, so at present this is not an issue. As for the "personality", I have no particular attachment to the word and it can be "Football people" (and "Cricket people" for that matter) as far as I'm concerned.

• David Gerald Richards appears to be a 'football person' rather than a footballer. Occuli (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming to "players and officials" The change provides a more understandable and more descriptive title. --Bejnar (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But there are no sports officials in the sportsmen category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Maharajkumar of Vizianagram was knighted specifically for his services as a cricket administrator and a quick check shows several other knights who were both cricket players and subsequently administrators. Thus both sub-categories contain articles on people who were created knights for their services to sports administration. The solution to the issue of there being no sports officials in the sportsmen category (other than in this sub-tree) is to change the parent from Category:Sportsmen to the current grandparent, Category:Sportspeople. The description of this category specifically includes officials; arguably the category title should also be modified to reflect this. The argument that there are no sports officials in the "Sportsmen" category (with the implication that it shouldn't contain sub-categories with officials) undermines the argument that "Sporting knights" should be changed to "Sportsmen awarded knighthoods".

I am of the view that category schema should be established based on a well thought out and enduring taxonomy, not just on what is currently contained within them, with the caveat (given current Wikipedia policy) that categories within the schema are not raised until there are articles to populate them. On its own, the fact that the full range of article types intended to be covered by a category may not presently be represented, is not a reason to define the category title more narrowly - this just causes problems later. Either an editor can't find a suitable category and doesn't add the category when they ought to; or they create a new category (which in this instance is undesirable for the reasons I gave above); or they add to the existing category when it doesn't properly cover them (which can cause problems for readers using the category system to locate articles). That said, I am not entirely sold on having any of the knights by profession categories however, an isolated CfD is not the place for that discussion. I have been developing (off-line at present) a series of proposed guidelines for WP:ODM articles and a comprehensive category schema. My intent is to garner cross-project discussion and consensus between the key stakeholder projects: WP:ODM, WP:BIO, WP:MILHIST, and WP:CATP (I am a member of all less WP:BIO). This CfD has beaten me to the mark, so my proposal at the moment is to improve the existing titling with the expectation of a future, comprehensive review. AusTerrapin (talk) 13:49, 9 September 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 to merge Category:Knights by occupation; as such, Category:British knights by occupation will be merged into it. — ξ^xplicit 07:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Knights by occupation to Category:Knights

Propose merging Category:British knights by occupation to Category:Knights

Nominator's rationale: Merge - not needed for the subcats. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge; unnecessary complication of the category tree. Ucucha 18:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:British knights by occupation, Oppose Category:Knights by occupation; May consider reinstating Category:British knights by occupation if a wholesale schema knights/dames by occupation implementation is rolled out across nationalities. Category:Knights by occupation is necessary to grip up several knights by occupation sub-categories across (currently) two fields. It is also a logical sibling category to Category:Knights by country, this assists with a clear delineation between the roles of different categories. AusTerrapin (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was surprised to find Category:British knights by nationality ... this needs a rename and better parents. There are other types of knight: eg show business ones, political ones. There is Mick Jagger for instance, who is in Category:Knights Bachelor, a subcat of Category:British knights. Occuli (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "British knights by nationality" groups knights of the British chivalric orders by the ethnicity of the knight (English, Welsh, Australian, Canadian, etc). The current master schema for knights groups knights variously by order-nationality/order/order-grade, profession, and nationality of the knight. The first sub-schema is the primary sub-schema and is reasonably well populated, the latter two sub-schemas currently have only a very limited implementation. As detailed in the CfD above for "Sporting Knights" I am intending to initiate a comprehensive review of the category schema for orders, decorations and medals. I anticipate that the Knights by ocupation schema will either be removed entirely or significantly expanded to cover other professions, including those detailed above. The current structure is an accident of which professions a few editors have sought to group, rather than a comprehensive, well thought out taxonomy - the lack of representation of other professions merely reflect a lack of anyone raising and populating the appropriate categories. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, particularly as a starting point, but ultimately such endeavours do need to be gripped up into a deliberate and agreed schema. AusTerrapin (talk) 14:36, 9 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Afrosoricidans to Category:Afrosoricida

Nominator's rationale: To match main article Afrosoricida. Ucucha 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:29, 7 September 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:Prehistoric carnivorans. — ξ^xplicit 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric carnivora to Category:Prehistoric Carnivora

Nominator's rationale: Spelling; as Carnivora is a scientific name here, it should be capitalized. Ucucha 17:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Prehistoric carnivores. All of these types of categories use the English plural (that is, with an -s in most cases).--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carnivores" (meat-eaters) is not the same as "Carnivora" (members of the order Carnivora). We need to be precise. Ucucha 01:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reasonable point. Perhaps Category:Prehistoric carnivorans, then.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be fine with that, too. Ucucha 11:26, 7 September 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:Mustelids as nominated, no consensus for Category:Prehistoric mustelids. — ξ^xplicit 07:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mustelids to Category:Mustelidae

Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric mustelids to Category:Prehistoric Mustelidae

Nominator's rationale: In accordance with main article, Mustelidae. Ucucha 17:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least the Prehistoric one. The "Prehistoric (X)es" subcategories use the common name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:11, 7 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chaerephon to Category:Chaerephon (bat)

Nominator's rationale: As with Mops and Molossus below, rename to match main. Ucucha 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The main article on Chaerephon concerns the Athenian philosopher nicknamed "the bat". Dimadick (talk) 08:17, 7 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mops to Category:Mops (bat)

Nominator's rationale: As with Molossus below, rename to match main article. In this case too, I'd have no problem with upmerging, and I just renamed the main article. Ucucha 16:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent article and avoid confusion.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The main article on mop concerns the cleaning tool. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention that mops is a dab page. Ucucha 12:09, 7 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Océan class Ironclads to Category:Océan class ironclads

Nominator's rationale: Correct capitalization as per the other entries in Category:Battleship classes.  Sandstein  16:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, my mistake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename—I'm sure there's a criterion that covers this. Ucucha 18:32, 6 September 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 both. — ξ^xplicit 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Moldavian films to Category:Moldovan films

Propose renaming Category:Soviet-era Moldavian films to Category:Soviet-era Moldovan films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Moldovan" appears to be the prefered term for the present day country, as per other categories such as Category:Moldovan culture, Category:Moldovan people, Category:Moldovan society, etc. PC78 (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as these categories refer to the country of Moldova, not the region of Moldavia. Ucucha 18:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Per nom (speedy?) Lugnuts (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 08:13, 7 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Molossus to Category:Molossus (bat)

Nominator's rationale: Per name of main article (which I just renamed from Molossus (genus)). I wouldn't have a problem with merging this up into Category:Molossidae either. Ucucha 16:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent article. I think this cat have enough members to warrant its existence.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 7 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Photographs of Indian politicians to Category:Images of Indian politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match categories such as Category:Images of American politicians. Pichpich (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The new name makes more sense. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:26, 6 September 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: Administrative close—deleted by SchuminWeb as recreation of previously deleted content. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Portmanteus to Category:Portmanteaus or Portmanteaux

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This one cound be speedied (it's a mis-spelling), but since there are two possible plurals I brought it here. I tend to use the -x plural myself, but I'm a notorious pedant... if the -s ending is preferred I'll grumble and accept it :) It's a shame the key article isn't at "portmanteau words", as that would solve any problems (perhaps it should be?) Grutness...wha? 13:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Belay that - I see that both Category:Portmanteaus and Category:Portmanteaux have been deleted in the past, so this one probably needs deleting too... Grutness...wha? 13:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - as recreation of previously deleted content. Tagged. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:32, 6 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:North Carolina beaches to Category:Beaches of North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Rename to stick to our naming conventions and to match other categories in "Beaches of the United States" cat. Darwinek (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Also matches Category:Landforms of North Carolina. Pichpich (talk) 13:56, 6 September 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 September 14#Category:Star Control. — ξ^xplicit 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with zero growth potential. Last game released in 1996. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Small categories are not necessarily useless. It makes sense to group these and the parent category seems full of similarly small categories: Category:Descent (video game), Category:Alien vs. Predator games or Category:Homeworld series. If that's how the parent cat is organized, then the present category should be kept. Pichpich (talk) 13:40, 6 September 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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 18:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Indian Theatre to Category:Theatre in India

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge duplicate to correct category. Tassedethe (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as proposed. Should be pretty uncontroversial. Pichpich (talk) 16:11, 15 September 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:East Carolina University divisions as not all articles are about colleges, schools, or departments. Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:East Carolina University Academics to Category:East Carolina University

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Academics usually refers to people, but this category contains colleges and departments etc. Upmerging to the parent category seems sensible. Tassedethe (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the category. My assumption is categories are made up of very like things. The East Carolina University category is the "mixing pot" for the university. By creating this category it put all of the universities schools and colleges in the same category. I am a /relative/ novice when it comes to categories rationale. So if the category gods believe this upmerge should occur, then so be it. But I still think it is good to keep this current category. PGPirate 18:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Academics means academic staff in the UK and the Commonwealth, but academic deaprtments, etc. in the US. It is best to not use the term for a category and upmerge is the best solution. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:East Carolina University academic units or Category:East Carolina University divisions or some such. It is quite reasonable to subcategorize out the subdivisions of a university, but there is no standard terminology in use. Representative analogous categories include Category:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill schools, Category:University of Texas at Austin schools, colleges, and departments, Category:Colleges and schools of Cornell University, Category:Yale University schools, and Category:Colleges, schools, and departments of Ohio State University.- choster (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed above but I'm not sure what the best target is. Given the current contents and potential for expansion, I'd suggest Category:Colleges, schools, and departments of East Carolina University. Pichpich (talk) 16:14, 15 September 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 September 14#Category:Kipling stories with Mrs. Hauksbee. — ξ^xplicit 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kipling stories with Mrs. Hauksbee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per several recent deletions in which dividing up Kipling stories based on specific characters being in them was deemed not a good idea. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Keep; unlike the other categories (several of which I voted to delete), the main character has an article, and there are several stories here, not all of which seem to be listed at that article. It is certainly defining. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 10 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Submissions for Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award (by country) to Category:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award submissions by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename - reword to less awkward alternative and parentheses are unnecessary. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Someone's done a lot of work in this area. This category is populated entirely by national lists and I'm wondering if the rename shouldn't contain the word "list," to make it clearer that this cat is not entitled for individual films. Academy Award nominee categories were deleted several years ago (over my strong objections) and my concern is that categorizing individual films simply for having been submitted (not even nominated) for Foreign Language Oscar consideration would be even less defining, in the eyes of the community. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I see it's categorized under Category:Lists of films by award so my concern is pretty moot. Rename per nom (or Category:Lists of Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award submissions by country if others feel it's any better). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 11 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mountain Bike Hall of Fame to Category:Mountain Bike Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a category for inductees so the name should indicate this. The inductees are already listified at Mountain Bike Hall of Fame; I am unsure about whether this is important enough to be kept as a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:48, 6 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Constituent Assembly members of Nepal to Category:Members of the Nepalese Constituent Assembly

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Currently worded a little bit awkwardly, I propose renaming this category to match the main article Nepalese Constituent Assembly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Pichpich (talk) 14:01, 6 September 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Marimba players to Category:Marimbists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The term marimbists is shorter, and is also analogous to the term vibraphonists (vibraphone, another keyboard percussion). See Category:Vibraphonists. --Opus88888 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Absolute consistency is not vital. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 29 August 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 06:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for the sake of clarity - I thought this was a Turkish football club I'd missed (see categories below). Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This would be consistent with other categories, such as Category:Guitarists, Category:Harpists and Category:Saxophonists. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Pichpich (talk) 16:14, 15 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Incomplete buildings and structures in Romania to Category:Unfinished buildings and structures in Romania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the new name of the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 6 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eskişehirspor players to Category:Eskişehirspor footballers

Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with other articles in Category:Footballers in Turkey by club. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. For consistency. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Invisibletr (talk) 18:21, 12 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ankaragücü players to Category:Ankaragücü footballers

Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with other articles in Category:Footballers in Turkey by club. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. For consistency. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:23, 7 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gençlerbirliği players to Category:Gençlerbirliği S.K. footballers

Nominator's rationale: Category should have same name as parent club Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. To match the main article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Invisibletr (talk) 18:21, 12 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Trabzonspor players to Category:Trabzonspor footballers

Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with other articles in Category:Footballers in Turkey by club. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. For consistency. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Invisibletr (talk) 18:21, 12 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Can Lao members to Category:Can Lao Party members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Can Lao Party. (Can Lao redirects there.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:37, 6 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Çaykur Rizespor players to Category:Çaykur Rizespor footballers

Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with other articles in Category:Footballers in Turkey by club. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. For consistency. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Invisibletr (talk) 18:21, 12 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Vestel Manisaspor footballers to Category:Manisaspor footballers

Nominator's rationale: The football club is now known as simply Manisaspor Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. To match the main article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Invisibletr (talk) 18:21, 12 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Manisaspor players to Category:Manisaspor footballers

Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with other articles in Category:Footballers in Turkey by club Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. For consistency. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Invisibletr (talk) 18:21, 12 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vestel Manisaspor to Category:Manisaspor

Nominator's rationale: To agree with present name of football club Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. To match the main article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Invisibletr (talk) 18:21, 12 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gençlerbirliği OFTAŞ footballers to Category:Hacettepe S.K. footballers

Nominator's rationale: Category should have same name as parent club Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. To match the main article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Invisibletr (talk) 18:21, 12 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gençlerbirliği OFTAŞ to Category:Hacettepe S.K.

Nominator's rationale: To agree with present name of football club Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. To match the main article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Invisibletr (talk) 18:21, 12 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:B.B. Ankaraspor footballers to Category:Ankaraspor footballers

Nominator's rationale: Category should have same name as parent club Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. To match the main article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Invisibletr (talk) 18:21, 12 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:History of the Canterbury Region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per recent renamee of all other categories relating to Canterbury to "xxx of/in the Canterbury Region. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment that is somewhat ambiguous, given that "region" is a generic term, and the best known Canterbury is the one in England with the ghost. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)S[reply]
  • If it was "Canterbury region" it would be ambiguous, but there's only one Canterbury Region. Grutness...wha? 14:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match main article Canterbury Region and main category Category:Canterbury Region and all the other subcategories of it. The place in England doesn't call itself the Canterbury capital-R Region as a proper noun. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (as category creator) to match main article and the others in its category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 7 September 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 12:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of Otago to Category:History of the Otago Region

Nominator's rationale: Per naming convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support rename Heh. We got ajn edit conflict on nominating this one! Grutness...wha? 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match main article Otago Region and main category Category:Otago Region and the other subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent article and cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:41, 7 September 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 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of the West Coast, New Zealand to Category:History of the West Coast Region

Nominator's rationale: To match other, better name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per earlier category moves to "XXX of/in the West Coast Region". Grutness...wha? 02:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "West Coast region" is horribly generic. Could easily refer to the Left Coast of the United States. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match main article West Coast Region and main category Category:West Coast Region. There may be West Coast regions, but no other place calls itself the West Coast capital-R Region as a proper noun. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:24, 6 September 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. If someone wants to create Category:Hindu terrorism they free to do so. Ruslik_Zero 18:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saffron Terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: My understanding of Indian politics is admittedly close to zero. Still, it seems that the term Saffronization and Saffron Brigade are used only by critics of nationalists. Accordingly, there is no such thing as a Saffron terrorist or at least nobody who would claim that label. So the category seems wholly inappropriate. On a related note, Category:Hindu terrorism was deleted 18 months ago because it was empty. Pichpich (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that the main article Saffron terror (or "Hindu terrorism") have been through AfD and Deletion review. I've added this otherwise empty (or depopulated?) category to the main article solely in the interests of alerting anyone who may be watching the main article that this discussion is underway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Hindu Terrorism I would say that Saffron Terror should be put instead under the Hindu terrorism category, since that seems far more appropriate, regardless of the category having been deleted before. A "Saffron Terrorism" category is far too specific and would be unlikely to encompass anything beyond the main article, Saffron Terror. Silverseren^C 03:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "Hindu terrorism" outside of Saffron terror, which has been used in an official context by Indian government officials, and the Indian media. Not only that but Hindutva (of which Saffron is the de facto color) has been divorced by numerous experts, commentators, and even the philosophers behind Hindtva from Hinduism, and has never even been alleged to be based in any fundamental Hindu beliefs.Pectore^talk 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason why Saffron Terrorism and Hindu Terrorism is so seldom used in those words, as explained here, is because of the aggressive campaign by BJP and officials in India over the past few decades to not have those words be used, even when they might very clearly apply. There have been events in the past that can be described as terrorism initiated by extremist Hindus, as seen here, here, and here. Readers of WP articles clearly understand that the term "Hindu terrorism", much like Christian terrorism or Islamic terrorism, is meant to be a term applied to extremists of those religions and not indicative of the religions themselves. Silverseren^C 01:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. Verifiability is the most important pillar. Its not up to us as editors to make such a judgment. Its up to the media to make such judgments and the media uses the term "Saffron terrorr" at a far higher rate than "Hindu terror". It really does not matter who likes what term, all that matters is the question "Are we reporting on the issue the same way reliable sources report on the issue?". With the term Hindu terror, the answer is no.Pectore^talk 12:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Rename - Anybody who has ever spent any amount of time around the Hindutva/Indian politics articles knows that they are bitterly contentious -- on a par with the Israel/Palestine articles. On that basis I feel quite certain that Category:Hindu terrorism was emptied out purposely in order to get it deleted. It's really quite absurd and frankly unacceptable that Hindu terrorism, which most assuredly does exist, should be granted an exclusion from Wiki categories when there are sub-categories of Category:Religious terrorism for Islamic, Jewish and Christian terrorism. In short, the obvious thing to do here is simply to rename this category to Category:Hindu terrorism. Cgingold (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Saffron terror" is alleged terror used to promote Hindutva, not a movement based in any fundamental application of Hindu philosophy or the like. Again the most important issue is what do reliable sources call the terror described on the Saffron terror page? "Saffron terror" merits about 133 google news hits, Hindu terror about 12 google news hits, and "Hindutva terror" 10 google news hitsPectore^talk 14:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The nominator Pichpich's statement above is correct. I also agree with Silver seren's suggestion to rename this to Hindu terror because it describes what an outsider not influenced by the political correctness of the Indian style of speaking would call "Hindu terrorism." Cnigold makes an accurate observation, but where this editor is going wrong is by not recognizing that sources meeting WP:RS have historically rarely used the term "Hindu terrorism" and even now no media of any country uses the term. If anyone has sources describing events as "Hindu terrorism", then contact me. Saffron terror means Hindutva terror, and to the world outside India Hindutva means Hindu, but few or no reliable sources make this connection. Blue Rasberry 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to point out that the issue is not the use of the specific term "Hindu terrorism", but rather the existence of religiously-motivated terrorism committed by Hindus. The same point could also be raised vis-a-vis the terms "Jewish terrorism" and "Christian terrorism", but again, in both cases the existence of religiously-motivated terrorism is not in question. Cgingold (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• False analogy. This is not religiously motivated terrorism at all; this alleged terror is purely political. Hindutva is not and has never been a religious movement grounded in Hinduism. This should not be taken as a parallel to Jewish or Christian or Islamic terror.Pectore^talk 14:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Silver's suggestion. The category should not have been deleted in the first place. Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and no rename - Saffron terror is the official word used by the Indian government, however no one has been convicted of any crimes and therefore the application of the category is extremely problematic. Bluerasberry has a good rationale for deletion as well; India has a (rather weak) but still thriving English language media. Since this is English Wikipedia, we need not see the issues how American English speakers perceive the subject if a large English media (the most relevant one at that) uses a different term. Pectore^talk 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Pectore's various interspersed remarks - The same sorts of arguments have been made with respect to the terrorism carried out by extreme adherents of the other religions, i.e. that the people doing it and the particular sets of religious beliefs they hold are not real examplars of the religions in question. Understandably, the great majority of ordinary adherents of any religion will be unhappy when the name of their religion is linked with the word "terrorism". The irreducible fact, however, is that the people who hold those extreme beliefs are quite insistent that they are *REAL* Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Hindus -- and their acts of terrorism are carried out in furtherance of their beliefs. Cgingold (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Saffron terror quite literally has NO LINK with Hinduism. Not even a tenuous one like the meaning of jihad. There is no talk of advocating for REAL Hindus of any sort. You are again making a false analogy unsupported by facts (on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which by the way is not enough to support your contention). "Saffron terror" is allegedly handiwork of ultra-right wing groups, some with connections to the Indian security services, some even with connections to Islamist groups, all with an agenda against Muslims. It is not, nor has it ever been, a movement that claims to be "Hindu" in character at all, apart from phrases gleaned from the Sangh Parivar like "Hindu rashtra". These groups (which exist) are basically along the lines of the Indian KKK (hatred against one group), not Al-Qaeda (hatred against all others) as a rename would suggest. Saffron terror is pure and simple far right wing politics, with no link to religion. Oh, and in terms of your other implicit assumption, I am not a Hindu.Pectore^talk 23:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I'd appreciate it if you'd strike thru your last remark, Pectore. There was no such "implicit assumption" on my part. I made a statement about "the great majority of ordinary adherents of any religion". Period. (And btw, I had already seen your User page, so I knew that you are a Buddhist.) Second, I see that an editor (apparently you?) has removed all of the contents save the article on Saffron terror from the category -- contrary to the explicit instructions on the CFD template. They should be restored while this CFD runs its course so that participating editors can make an informed judgement as to what should be done. Cgingold (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what an implicit assumption is, something unstated. Next I did not remove the contents of the category, some SPA removed them (its not like Wikipedia isn't teeming with Hindutva followers). They should have been removed because the entries violated WP:V, and I reverted Wasifwasif on that justification. Some attacks attributed to Islamic terrorists and other riots and communal disturbances were added which have never been described by the media as Saffron terror. Sorry but WP:V does not stop applying just because a discussion has begun.Pectore^talk 12:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not remove the contents of the category, some SPA removed them. Hmm. I wish everyone could be up-front about what they've done, especially since it's so easy to check and be caught out in misrepresenting what happened. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wrong. Mubarakjay (talk · contribs) (who is probably Kuntan) removed the categories (and a couple of diffs down from the one you cited on the page history). I merely reverted Wasif's vandalism on all the pages of my watchlist, which means I [re-removed them. But hey, its easier just to see what we want, isn't it? Pectore^talk 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Re-removing" is still removing. It's not hard to comprehend the basic principle: don't remove articles from a category while a CFD is ongoing. You have done that—and more than once—by your own admission. If you're concerned that a user is improperly using a category that has been created while a CFD for that category is ongoing, please raise the point at the ongoing CFD, but don't just assume that the rules don't apply to you. To do so puts your judgment above everyone else's when it's already been pre-determined by the nomination that the community needs to assess what's been going on. (Incidentally, there is a side benefit to following this advice—if you cease from reverting the questionable edits, it would actually strengthen your argument that the category should be deleted. But if you and others do too much reverting and removals, it confuses the issues for everyone else and it starts to look just more like a garden-variety edit war, which may cause you and your arguments to lose credibility in the eyes of other users.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • To start out with, I removed the categories from the other 4 or 5 pages before I posted on the CFD, unaware that one was going on. Secondly, the most basic principle is verifiability, which leads to the question: "Was there a single citation of 'Saffron terror' on the 2002 Gujarat violence page?". The answer was (and is) no. The rules certainly apply to me, and I have followed to the best of my ability. However, if we are arguing about policy, actual Wikipolicy most certainly trumps mere guidelines. Entries can and should be removed if they are not grounded in citations. Just because a category is at CFD does not mean it is holy, and that its contents cannot be removed when there are no reliable sources on the page supporting the page's inclusion (just like if someone cited Barack Obama as Saffron terror, you would instantaneously remove it). You will notice I did not remove the pages which have arguably been defined as "Saffron terror" (even though, again no person or group has been convicted of any attacks in the name of "Saffron terror").Pectore^talk 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Look, ultimately you can do what you want, of course, but what you were doing just makes you like you're edit warring (to most edits who won't immerse themselves in the minutiae of the topic), so others are considerably less likely to think you are assessing things rationally or neutrally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Getting back to the main subject:
                  1. Saffron terror should not be renamed to "Hindu terror" because it is a "specific" brand of terror with a specific agenda (reprisal against Muslims), and because the terror is not related to Hinduism the religion in any way or form. Hindutva is inherently non-religious, a point that you can read further about on Hindu_nationalist#Evolution_of_ideological_terminology ("Hindu" in this sense is like "Hindustan", another word for pre-Islamic Indians).
                  2. Saffron terror should be deleted because no person has been convicted of any crime. We do not and should not make categories based on pure speculation. Already the addition of numerous pages has proved contentious because there are allegations that Islamic groups were behind a number of the attacks attributed to the Saffron terror craze. Without any verifiability this category is doomed.Pectore^talk 15:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin note. I've attempted to restore the contents of the category. Please do not remove the articles from the category while the CFD is ongoing. (For reference, there are currently 5 articles in it.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed 2002 Gujarat violence, because that is not considered Saffron terror. The others are at least discussed on the main page, so I will leave the category be for now.Pectore^talk 12:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - Someone should watch the category page. Wasifwasif (talk · contribs) keeps removing the CFD template.Pectore^talk 13:55, 13 September 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.