< September 8	September 10 >

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 20. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as author requested

Nominator's rationale: Not every page here is a userpage, and the author of an article or template shouldn't be referred to as its "user". — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The "user" is referring to a user of Wikipedia. -- œ^™ 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Rationalizes the category naming system to match other Candidates for speedy deletion as ... categories. Categorizing as by user could be misinterpreted as intended to be broken out by creator or something silly like that. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but my English-o-meter makes me want to say "... for speedy deletion as requested by author" Skier Dude (talk 04:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I know my suggested name sounds clumsy, but really any name that removes "user" and mentions the author requested it should be fine with me. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The meaning of the present category name was clear to me when I first saw it four years ago, as I imagine it is to most experienced Wikipedians. I've thought about the proposed change for the past week and do not see a real benefit from renaming the category. – Athaenara ✉ 05:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Current name makes sense, proposed change is much more awkward. Conforming to the category naming system is a lousy reason to make such a change. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:03, 20 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Literary series by number of entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Literary series with four entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Literary series with five entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Literary series with six entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Literary series with seven entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Literary series with ten entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Literary series with more than ten entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with television series (nominated here) and film series (nominated here), non-defining of the literary series. There is no encyclopedic relationship between one series and another just because they both happen to have four or six or more than ten entires. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Though I somehow feel true trilogies of things are defining, but none of these. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all totally arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some of these. The Alexandria Quartet for instance is obviously a work in 4 parts, and 4 is a defining characteristic of it. Palliser novels in contrast happened to end up with 6, so 6 is not defining. (Categories are determined by 'defining characteristics', not by anything else.) Occuli (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest populating Category:Tetralogies which is currently a redirect to the four entries category. Being a tetralogy is a defining characteristic whereas happening to peter out at four is not. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete already - ten day old discussion, no arguments advanced for maintaining the category structure, structures for TV and film series by number of entries deleted, sack up and delete these already. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that this is arbitrary and for that reason is material better addressed by lists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 20 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 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honorary doctorates of the University of Calcutta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We have always deleted categories for recipients of honorary degrees based on the category guidelines for awards. If this scheme were fully developed it would result in tremendous category clutter on the article pages of especially prominent individuals who often receive dozens of honorary degrees in a lifetime. A list of similar categories deleted is found here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As you say, we've discussed these categories repeatedly. I think we should consider adding this sort of category to the list of criteria for SPEEDY DELETION. Cgingold (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Agree with Cgingold - put it in the criteria as I can't think of anywhere I would except. Occuli (talk) 10:46, 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: merge. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ancient Old Jade to Category:Jade

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The nominated category essentially duplicates the contents of Category:Jade. There is not enough in Category:Jade to subcategorize at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom; both the articles need merging too. Possible copyvio. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 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: no consensus. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Be consistent. It is the only one in Category:Transport in Europe to use "transportation" instead of "transport". And the two contained subcategories use "transport" too. TruckCard (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename not per nom but per Ministry of Kosovo. Occuli (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That citation uses "Transportit" which is not helpful. --Bejnar (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose under the rubric don't change what isn't broken. Neither of the terms is correct in the local languages. There should be no push for consistency on this topic transport/transportation for the obvious reason that has been laid out is so many of these CFDs. q.v. --Bejnar (talk) 15:05, 18 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 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lost ITV episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with the BBC category below, this new category is holding series that are missing one or more episodes, which is non-defining of the series. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:16, 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 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Middle-earth radio to Category:Middle-earth radio adaptations

Nominator's rationale: Rename ambiguous; could be read as meaning radio of Middle-earth which is absurd. In line with adaptations parent. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:13, 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: procedural keep as nominator is blocked. If a split is warranted, that's at the discretion of editors which doesn't necessarily need CFD. — ξ^xplicit 06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lost BBC episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - contrary to its name, the category is not only capturing articles about actual missing episodes of BBC programmes but BBC programmes which have been entirely lost through wiping and BBC programmes that are missing one or more episodes. Unless something changes radically in this CFD the very near future, missing some episodes is not an appropriate way to categorize articles. I reviewed everything that's in the category. Of what's currently housed there, 22 articles are for TV programmes that are completely lost (either broadcast before recording was possible or wiped), four articles are actual lost episodes, four are for lost one-off programmes and one is for a lost radio series. See breakdown here with some additional comments. I also removed about ten articles that made no mention of the programme's being lost in full or in part. There are also a few oddball articles like British television Apollo 11 coverage and The Goon Show episodes and archiving along with a couple of articles that are about lost episodes at the programme level like Doctor Who missing episodes. Everything else is for programmes that are simply missing some episodes. This category should be deleted as non-defining, with a new Category:Lost BBC television programmes created for the completely gone series and a new Category:Lost television episodes for the individual episode articles and the programme-level lost episodes articles. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Split into Category:Lost BBC television programmes and Category:Lost BBC radio programmes for programmes that are missing in their entirety (that is, no episodes are believed to have survived to the present day, e.g. 199 Park Lane), and Category:Lost BBC television episodes and Category:Lost BBC radio episodes for programmes that have survived, but with a number of episodes missing (e.g. Dad's Army). An alternative would be to group all lost British programmes and episodes into Category:Lost British television programmes and Category:Lost British radio programmes, and Category:Lost British television episodes and Category:Lost British radio episodes. Either of these approaches should make the differences the nominator describes more clear-cut. Andrew (My talk) 12:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* There is only one article for a lost BBC radio programme (The Lord of the Rings (1955 radio series)) in the category so there doesn't really need to be a separate category just for it. I cross-catted it in Category:Lost radio programs where it's one of two entries. Given the deletion of Category:Television series with missing episodes I can't agree that creating two new categories which would be the children of a deleted parent category is an appropriate outcome. I went ahead and created Category:Lost television episodes. Since I gleaned its contents from this category they are all BBC episodes but since there are probably non-BBC lost episodes that are notable I don't see the need to restrict it just to BBC episodes. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I seem to recall a discussion like this about a year ago. Can't seem to recall what it was. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 17 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 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Proposed public transportation in Germany to Category:Proposed public transport in Germany

Propose renaming Category:Proposed transportation infrastructure in Germany to Category:Proposed transport infrastructure in Germany

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like Category:Transport in Germany and 95% of related articles and categories. There are ca. 100 categories and articles that use "transport" and only these two categories use "transportation" TruckCard (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Germany-related categories use the "transport" form throughout the whole categorization scheme. - Darwinek (talk) 19:17, 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: delete. — ξ^xplicit 06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Bernard Partridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category with only 1 article and 1 image: not useful. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category will grow as he was a significant artist. Creating the category now gives future uploaders somewhere to collect images of his work. Deleting the category in contrast adds no value to Wikipedia. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. Also an eponymous category for a person which should be avoided unless the material about the person is so complex that normal textlinks are insufficient for navigating it. If other PD images are uploaded they should be placed in a category that is image-specific, not a general category for the person. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 16:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ) I do see some possibility for growth, but at the moment it seemed too small. If Rcbutcher thinks it's likely we'll upload more images for Mr. Partridge in the next 5 years before they will be eligible for commons, and can explain his reasoning well, I'd be willing to concede. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 20 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 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brainstorm albums to Category:Brainstorm (German band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate from Category:Brainstorm (Latvian band) albums. Tassedethe (talk) 12:46, 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 to Category:Colombian presidential candidates. — ξ^xplicit 06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidential Candidates Colombia 2010-2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category not needed for a single individual, and probably not a good idea to add to individuals anyway. This could lead to very large number of categories on the bios of career politicians . Tassedethe (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – but rename to eg Category:Colombia presidential candidates, 2010 (or 'Colombian'). There is a fully-fledged system for the US (such as Category:United States presidential candidates, 1800) and if we look at Colombian presidential election, 2006 then there would be a good case for categorising these as Category:Colombia presidential candidates, 2006 (or similar). A given politician is not likely to be a presidential candidate all that often, and it is surely a defining characteristic. (I doubt if there is only one candidate for 2010.) Occuli (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Or, alternatively, rename to Category:Columbian presidential candidates and populate, per most in Category:Presidential candidates which are not subdivided by year. Occuli (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Columbian presidential candidates and populate, which would not be difficult. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Columbian presidential candidates. A headnote should specify that elected candidates should not be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 30 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 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leona Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category and therefore overcategorisation. Every article within the category can be accessed from the article Leona Lewis and the template ((Leona Lewis)). AnemoneProjectors 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – it is some years since an eponymous musician category with 3 subcats has been deleted. (overcategorisation relates to category clutter, in other words potentially large numbers of articles being placed in tangentially related categories, rather than this elegant collection of 3 tightly defined subcats + 3 pages which evidently belong at the top level.) Occuli (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have taken lesser eponymous cats to CFD (at most the main article, discography, navbox template, and subcats for albums and songs), resulting in no consensus or keep. This one not only has those but a third subcat (tours) and a list of awards page, making it more useful as an additional aid for users. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:OC eponymous categories should be avoided unless normal textlinking is impractical because of the volume and complexity of the material. That is not the case here as the lead article is going to contain links to the material about albums, singles and tours, and the template further links the material. This arbitrary "three subcats and it stays" rule of thumb is just that, arbitrary. It's having a category for the sake of having it, not an actual useful aid to categorization. Overcategorization is not just about "category clutter". It's also about category maintenance and the overall utility of the category system. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Occuli, etc. It's no more "arbitrary" than any other common-sense rule of thumb that most editors have agreed on with regard to Categories. Cgingold (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it's completely arbitrary, especially when a leading proponent of this "rule of thumb" advocates keeping categories with only two subcats as well. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - I note that we are keeping (or failing to muster a consensus to delete) such eponymous categories with just 2 subcats these days, in the absence of their eloquent arch-foe Otto4711. Here is another one with 2 subcats in 2010, which was a unanimous keep (apart from the nom): consensus can change, and I merely reflect this. Occuli (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• And another one in 2010. 2 is not arbitrary: it is the precise point at which LL-related categories move from singular to plural. Occuli (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since it is useful to help navigate to other articles. Dew Kane (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why we have a navigation template at the bottom the articles. AnemoneProjectors 00:22, 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.

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 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Boston Bulldogs seasons to Category:Boston Bulldogs (NFL) seasons

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is ambiguous as there are multiple teams known as the Boston Bulldogs. This matches Category:Boston Bulldogs (NFL) players. Tassedethe (talk) 09:51, 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 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Boston Bulldogs players to Category:Boston Bulldogs (soccer) players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Boston Bulldogs (soccer) and to disambiguate from Category:Boston Bulldogs (AFL) players and Category:Boston Bulldogs (NFL) players. Tassedethe (talk) 09:49, 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: procedural keep. Nominator was blocked and there was insufficient discussion to justify a final decision. Category may be renominated without prejudice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pleas to Category:Legal pleas

:Nominator's rationale: Rename - potentially ambiguous, although I don't know if any individual plea (e.g. for assistance) could become notable enough for its own article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A case of over-disambiguating. The parent article is Plea, and the only other article with the same title is Plea (insect), which redirects to Pleidae. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 19#Category:American legal phrases. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American legal phrases to Category:American legal terms

Propose renaming Category:French legal phrases to Category:French legal terms

Propose renaming Category:Scots law legal phrases to Category:Scots law legal terms

Propose renaming Category:Latin legal phrases to Category:Latin legal terms

Nominator's rationale: Rename - the parent is Category:Legal terms but there is diversity among the siblings. Rename all to "terms". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose phrases is more descriptive of the contents. Consistency for consistency's sake benefits no one. There are reason for consistency, but consistency is not one of them. If you want to rename categories, you need a better reason. --Bejnar (talk) 04:54, 18 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 19#Category:English legal terms. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English legal terms to Category:Legal terms of England and Wales

Nominator's rationale: Rename - current name is ambiguous; I would expect it to mean any legal term in the English language regardless of the country where it's used. Could also be Category:Legal terms of England and Wales since England and Wales is the jurisdiction or if there are terms that are used exclusively in one or the other a new category specifically for Wales can be created and populated. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In thinking about this I think that the jurisdiction level rename is most appropriate. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This category has nothing to do with "English language", many of the terms are Latin or French. If changed many of these terms which are legal terms in South Africa (Anglo-Dutch law) and the United States will have to have added categories for the various jurisdictions. Some English legal terms are no longer used in England or Wales, but are preserved in foreign jurisdictions. Should such terms be treated differently? Right now this is not such a large category (74 entries) that it requires subdividing. --Bejnar (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that the category is not intended for all English-language legal terms. That is precisely the reason for the nomination, because a reasonable person would easily be confused by the category name, believing it to mean "legal terms in the English language". If a legal term was at one time used in England and Wales it should still be categorized as such even if the term is no longer used. If they are used in other jurisdictions then the articles should be categorized as such. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:17, 18 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) 10:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Female prisons in England to Category:Women's prisons in England

Propose renaming Category:Female prisons in the United States to Category:Women's prisons in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Female prisons in Texas to Category:Women's prisons in Texas

Nominator's rationale: Rename - prisons and other buildings have neither sex nor gender. Correct name is "Women's prisons". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename All per nom. There's no such thing as a "Female prison" -- the standard term is "Women's prison". Cgingold (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:37, 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: merge. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Political parties in Tuvalu to Category:Politics of Tuvalu

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The sole contents, Elections and political parties in Tuvalu, states twice that there are no political parties in Tuvalu. Thus there is no need for this category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:13, 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: merge to Category:Ancient Levant. — ξ^xplicit 06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Execration texts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Very narrow category with just one article and one list (marked for merger) and a subcat. with four entries. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum This was added with Twinkle and it didn't quite work out, so: Delete as an overly small category. Also, propose deleting Category:Execration text people. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So what is the nom? If it is 'delete', what is to become of Category:Execration text people (not to be confused with execrable text people)? Occuli (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Ancient Levant. I do not see the need to do anything with the people category, for which the article will become the main article, if it is not already. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 30 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like main article, related categories and related articles. TruckCard (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It is
  • Transport in Venezuela
  • Category:Rail transport in Venezuela
  • Category:Water transport in Venezuela
  • Category:Transport disasters in Venezuela
  • Commons:Category:Transport in Venezuela TruckCard (talk) 01:56, 9 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. In some of the examples given, such as Transport in Venezuela the change in the article name from transportation to transport was made "for the purpose of consistency". Which is why we don't do this. --Bejnar (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to achieve consistency with the subcats. - Darwinek (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until the related discussions finish. Does Venezuela favour US or UK usage in its official English? (These transport/ation cfds are becoming disruptive.) It was transportation until 2008. Occuli (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Transport is shorter to type. Tabletop (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If it is correct let it be. Changing to something that is not correct to make it shorter or to conform to some other usage is wrong. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 07:07, 16 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like the main article and most in Category:Transportation in Asia.

It is

• Transport in Iraq
• Category:Transport disasters in Iraq
• Category:Rail transport in Iraq
• Category:Transport companies of Iraq

TruckCard (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. per nom. TruckCard (talk) 01:42, 9 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. --Bejnar (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to achieve consistency with the main article name. - Darwinek (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Iraq uses US Eng as any google search will reveal. Darwinek moved the main article from transportation in Iraq and it should be moved back (per eg ministry of transportation and communication). Occuli (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If it is correct let it be. Changing to something that is not correct to make it shorter or to conform to some other usage is wrong. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 07:00, 16 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like the main article and most in Category:Transportation in Asia. TruckCard (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. per nom. TruckCard (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to achieve consistency with the main article name. - Darwinek (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Iran uses US Eng as any google search will reveal. Darwinek moved the main article from transportation in Iran and it should be moved back (per eg Iran Ministry of Roads and Transportation). Occuli (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iran government is not relevant. Both words are fine. But consistency is needed. TruckCard (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's completely relevant. Why are you exempting the US from this tiresome campaign if local usage is irrelevant? Occuli (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Local != government. American English is not (yet) as prominent as one of the languages of Iran as it is as one of the languages of the United States. TruckCard (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in line with the main article which has been at "Transport" for over four years. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If it is correct let it be. Changing to something that is not correct to make it shorter or to conform to some other usage is wrong. If the main article is wrong, fix that. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. as per Vegaswikian1 Consistency is a tool not a goal. Given the transport/transportation variance in English language usage, consistency on these titles cannot be achieved. To keep pushing these changes would appear to be disruptive. Let it be. --Bejnar (talk) 14:58, 18 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like the main article and most in Category:Transportation in Asia. TruckCard (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. per nom. It is
  • Transport in Indonesia
  • Category:Transport in Indonesia by city
  • Category:Transport disasters in Indonesia
  • Category:Public transport in Indonesia
  • Category:Rail transport in Indonesia
  • Category:Road transport in Indonesia
  • Category:Water transport in Indonesia

Also consistency allows editors to avoid adding wrong category names. TruckCard (talk) 01:43, 9 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. --Bejnar (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to achieve consistency with subcats. - Darwinek (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -main article and subcats - good reason - my support is less less to do with Asia per se - more to do with using Southeast Asia wide issues wherever possible SatuSuro 10:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency and ease of typing. Davidelit (Talk) 12:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – as far as I can tell from a cursory search (eg www.indonesia.go.id, Department of Transportation) Indonesia uses 'transportation' is its official English (which should be our guide, not an insistence upon imposing an artificial consistency on South-East Asia). Occuli (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Ministry itself is inconsistent on its own website (eg http://www.dephub.go.id/read/news/general-news/430 and (http://www.dephub.go.id/read/news/general-news/1700)- "transport" is used on both. Davidelit (Talk) 15:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in line with the main article which has been at Transport for well over two years. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If it is correct let it be. Changing to something that is not correct to make it shorter or to conform to some other usage is wrong. If the main article is wrong fix it instead. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 07:02, 16 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.