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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:California Southern Law School faculty

Nominator's rationale: Delete California Southern Law School is a small, part-time, non-ABA, non-CBE law school in which a limited number of notable people have taught as instructors. Moreover, they are not full time "faculty" (e.g., professors), which is the normal usage of the term in proper context. Please note I am a major contributor to the CSLS article and have declared my COI.--S. Rich (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: WP:OC#SMALL applies. --S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (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 - this category is about biographical films which are American, not about biographical films about Americans. If any films in this category aren't about Americans, anyone can feel free to remove them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American biographical films to Category:Biographical films about Americans

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The person who made the category gave no indication of whether this was intended to be for films that were made in America and were biographies or for films that were biographies of Americans. With a couple of exceptions the contents appear to be the latter so I suggest renaming. Biopics by the nationality of the subject seems like a good use of categories. Biopics by the country of origin of the film doesn't, in part because of the potential for confusion of purpose noted in this nomination. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I find the category fairly irrelevant but the fact is that it's not a category for biopics about Americans. See Amadeus, Evita, Persepolis, Hanna's War. Pichpich (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well of course if it is renamed to specify the focus those films that are not about Americans would be removed. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that a category for biopics produced in America (which is what this is currently) is of much interest. But I am convinced that a category for biopics about Americans is unnecessary. Pichpich (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is deemed an unnecessary category I have no objection to its deletion. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It contains American films which are biographical, not necessarily those which are about Americans. I would agree it's a mildly pointless category, but it does fit in with a large-scale scheme (Category:American films by genre) and should therefore not be deleted unless all the related categories are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• :::sigh::: Obviously if the desired scope of the category is established as "biographical films that are about Americans" then those films which are not about Americans would be removed. That some of the films that are currently in the category are about non-Americans is beside the point of whether the category should be for biographical films about Americans. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is significant because you misunderstood the current content scope. Not only does it have biopics about non-Americans, it also fails to have biopics about Americans that were not produced in the US. You're not asking for a renaming, you're asking for a) the disappearance of this category and b) the creation of a new one with a different scope. I might agree to a) but I don't think b) stands a chance. Pichpich (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Defining the scope of the category is exactly what this nomination is about because the creator didn't bother to do it. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films about artists to Category:Biographical films about artists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I was looking through Category:Biographical films and removed several of the subcategories because they mixed films that were biographies with films that weren't. This category looks to be all biopics and the rename would make the category's purpose clear. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish you had not removed those subcategories: it makes it harder to assess how the category was previously being used, and for what. Would you please restore the deleted content while this CfD is open? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I didn't think it would be a problem. I was just trying to clean things up. I removed Category:Films about actors, Category:Films about media people, Category:Films about educators and Category:Films about music and musicians each with the edit summary many of these are not biopics; they would need to be sorted into a separate category to be sub-categorized as such. Harley Hudson (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. And so I guess a film is not a biopic unless it focuses on the artist in question as its main protagonist, and many you saw did not? --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the categories that I did because they were a mix of films about real people and films that were not about real people, so they weren't categorized correctly under "biographical films". The nominated category does appear to all be biographical films about real people, hence the suggested rename. The films in the categories I removed can be sorted into "Films about..." and "Biographical films about..." categories and the biographical ones put back under the parent, but there are several hundred articles and frankly I didn't want to take on the job. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine: I was just trying to get a sense of what you had found. Indeed, a film "about an artist" does not have to be about a real artist, as in a biographical drama. So if this is deemed to be a meaningful distinction, then perhaps a solution might be to create a sub-category such as the one you propose, rather than a rename. I have no strong feels on the matter. I generally focus my work in the documentary area, where the "realness" is not at issue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• However it shakes out is fine with me. If it's easier to make a new category and move the contents of this one into it, great. But again, it's not a job I want to take on. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The category contents were all moved to the Category:Doctor in the House, which is exactly what I would have done. That said, User:Figaro should take heed of the fact that just because an editor is the creator of a page, that doesn't mean he or she has carte blanche to control its destiny. Also, deleting another editor's comments is particularly inadvisable. So I would ask Figaro to exercise restraint once a category comes to the CfD page, so everyone can have a chance to comment with full information. Thanks in advance.--Mike Selinker (talk)

Propose renaming Category:Doctor in the House - and TV sequels to Category:I don't know

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is very strangely named with the hyphen in the middle of it. Should probably be renamed to something but I don't know if it should just be "Doctor in the House" or if there's something better. Or it could just be deleted because of it small size and a template used instead. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Doctor in the House (TV) as the main article for all the TV series is Doctor in the House (TV). There is also Category:Doctor in the House - and sequel films which may need renaming, perhaps to Category:Doctor in the House (films), although the main article for that is Doctor (film series), which seems ambiguous. There is also an article Doctor Series for the books, films and TV series. There is already Template:Gordondoctor for all versions of Richard Gordon's Doctor series, but the categories are useful for linking the articles within other categories, so the category should be kept. Cjc13 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this CfD and the tag on the category page was blanked by creator User:Figaro. I have rolled back both edits and posted a comment on his Talk page. I have not issued a warning out of respect for the fact that he appears to be an experienced editor, but will if this continues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment above was blanked as well by category creator Figaro. I have restored it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now merged the two "Doctor in the House" categories (for Films and Television) into a single category called Category:Doctor in the House - and its sequels. Therefore, the two replaced categories Category:Doctor in the House - and TV sequels and Category:Doctor in the House - and sequel films can be deleted. Figaro (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but as Harley points out above, the use of the hyphen, and an "and," is still problematic. A simple eponymous category Category:Doctor in the House with a pair of clearly defined film and TV subcats would resolve that. Although as Harley points out in his nom, there might still be a WP:SMALLCAT problem, and so a template may be the way to go. I am neutral on this point. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have just created a new category which I hope will be more satisfactory to everybody. The category, which is now simply titled Doctor in the House, supersedes all previous category titles i.e.:

Category:Doctor in the House - and sequel films and Category:Doctor in the House - and TV sequels and Category:Doctor in the House - and its sequels, all three of which can now be deleted. Figaro (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Figaro, it would be best if you did not create multiple versions of this category based on comments here. The way it works is that after everyone's had a chance to comment, an Administrator will close the discussion and take action, if necessary. I had placed a speedy delete tag on the old category, per your request to now delete it, but it's best to let the CfD take its course now, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Revolving restaurants to Category:Buildings and structures with revolving restaurants

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The articles here are about buildings that contain a revolving restaurant. Few of these articles give more then a passing mention that they contain a revolving restaurant. In some cases there is no mention at all. If anyone thinks it necessary, this could be done as a split keeping the present category when the primary topic of the article is about the revolving restaurant. A quick look shows that there are 3 articles about revolving restaurants, one a list, one a redirect and the last being the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support should be fairly uncontroversial. Pichpich (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sally Zahran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Probably useless category, the subject does not have its standalone article, and is only prolly worthy of a small mention on the Egyptian protests article. Diego Grez (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I just saw this and was going to nominate it. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in strings to Category:Wikipedians interested in string theory

Nominator's rationale: To avoid confusion with the many other competing meanings. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think the original was meant to be humorous.... --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 22:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is so than we should delete the category entirely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the title may have been intended to be humorous (when I first came across it, I half-expected to see Category:Feline Wikipedians as a parent category), the category itself is populated by ((User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Strings)), which links to String theory. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian San Francisco Forty-niners fans to Category:Wikipedian San Francisco 49ers fans

Nominator's rationale: Per San Francisco 49ers. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection. Pichpich (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Categories named after railway lines by country to Category:Categories named after railway lines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As an eponymous category with few entries, I don't see a reason to limit this to only by country categories. It should be available for any and all rail related categories that need an eponymous parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Star Trek series to Category:Star Trek television series

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are a lot of Star Trek series other than TV series and the name change makes the category scope completely clear. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Common sense disambiguation from the film series, comic book series and novel series. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2011 (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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christmas films to Category:Films about Christmas

Nominator's rationale: As a follow up to the related nomination below for "Christmas short films," I suppose this category title is a bit ambiguous as it could be mistaken for films released at Christmas? If so, a rename wouldn't hurt, which would bring it in line with most of its siblings at Category:Films by topic. (BTW, I just moved it to Films by topic from Films by genre and Films by type: Christmas films can be in a number of narrative genres, and the other categories in Films by type refer to structural, distribution or production aspects). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I've seen people apply this category to films that take place during Christmas, regardless of whether the films were about the holiday. The proposed name should clear up that confusion. - Eureka Lott 01:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The current name is consistent with other categories in Category:Christmas by medium, eg Category:Christmas novels, Category:Christmas music, etc. "Films about Christmas" suggests religious films rather than what is included in the category. Cjc13 (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn by nominator With all due respect to Eureka's support !vote, I was in error in not taking Cjc13's point into account and so would like to withdraw this. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time with this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2011 (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: redirect to Category:Women anthropologists. If desired, that category can be nominated for deletion for discussion of the problem identified by Johnpacklambert. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female anthropologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Category:Women anthropologists already exists with better parent categories GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Oppose' Nominator has emptied the category in violation of our guidelines and has failed to provide any rationale as to why this is not a bona fide sub-category of Category:Women scientists. I would also strongly urge the nominator to revert his edits emptying this category, if he wishes this CfD to be considered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – but make it a category redirect to Category:Women anthropologists. (Category:Anthropologists is placed as a subcat of Social scientists, subcat of scientists, which sounds about right to me.) Occuli (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women anthropologists is already a sub category of Category:Women social scientists which in turn is a sub category of Category:Women scientists GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed it is: I was expanding your rather succinct rationale. Occuli (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Occuli. Categories at CfD should not be emptied, but that was an overreaction on my part. Sorry.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Category:Women anthropologists --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any reason to categorize women anthropologists seperately from men in the field? Categorizations by work by gender are generally discouraged unless there is sound and strong reason to do so. I think we need to seriously consider getting rid of this category entirely. The notion that female anthropologists are a distinct group worth seperate identification does not seem to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Christmas short films to Category:Christmas films

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Neglected since its creation by User:Stefanomione almost a year ago, I believe the nominated category sets a bad precedent. We do not have a Short films by topic category nor do I think we should create one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Pichpich (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2011 (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:Climbing areas for now. There's uncertainty about whether a distinction exists in English; if clarity can be found then the position may need to be revisited. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Climbing rocks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Duplicate of Category:Climbing areas, which is the correct title. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am not a climber, but there would seem to be a difference between a "climbing area" which could just be a rock face on the side of a hill, or a number of rock faces within an area, and a "climbing rock" which is a stand-alone pinnacle used by climbers. I recommend we check this out with the other experts at WikiProject Climbing. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a climber, for over 25 years; I wrote practically all the climbing content in the Category:Climbing areas of Ireland articles. I have never heard or seen the term "climbing rock" being used. A "climbing area" refers to either a single cliff (whether a standalone rock or not), or a collection of cliffs in a small area; in Ireland and UK, "crag" is also used in the same way, though generally a smaller area. There is no special term among climbers for a standalone rockface; maybe "climbing crag" might be a better fit, but it's really just a local UK-IE term, unfamiliar to climbers operating in other regions as far as I know. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How about putting them into a new "Category:Rock pinnacles" as well as "Category:Climbing areas of ..."? That would be an interesting new category, as well as avoiding fragmenting the climbing areas category. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know which term is used for a single rock in other climbing areas, in Saxon Switzerland (my local climbing area) the german words "Kletterfels" or "Kletterfelsen" (translated: climbing rock) are common terms for rocks like the Lokomotive or the Teufelsturm. Greetings, --Wahldresdner (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wahldresdner is right and its those articles I've been working on. It may be that this is a term peculiar the German language. Either way they use a variety of terms e.g. climbing region (Kletterregion), climbing area (Klettergebiet), climbing rock (Kletterfelsen), climbing peak (Klettergipfel) and climbing wall/face (Kletterwand). In terms of categories, German Wikipedia makes a clear distinction between climbing areas (Klettergebiet) and climbing rocks (Kletterfelsen). Click on the links to see the difference. Ultimately I'm happy to be guided by English-speaking climbing experts on which way to go, but let's be sure it makes sense. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chief Justices of the California Supreme Court to Category:Chief Justices of California

Nominator's rationale: "Chief Justice of California" is the correct title for this office. On the official web site, the big message in the middle of the screen reads, "The Honorable Tani Cantil-Sakauye is the 28th Chief Justice of California, lead justice on the California Supreme Court, and Chair of the state Judicial Council."^[1] In the official biography of the Chief Justice, it says, "Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye was sworn into office as Chief Justice of California on January 3, 2011."^[2] The California Supreme Court Historical Society also calls the post "Chief Justice of California" in its list of Chief Justices.^[3] The California Constitution also calls the post "Chief Justice of California" in Article VI, Section 2 ^[4] OCNative (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to correct title. Neutrality^talk 08:41, 19 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft arquitecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not only is the category name spelled wrong, but it is entirely redundant with Category:Aerospace engineering and Category:Aircraft. It looks like the category was created to serve as a "sister" category for one on another wiki. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 06:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it doesn't matter how Spanish Wikipedia organizes things, this is the English Wikipedia. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't know Spanish but in French, the word "architecture" is used somewhat more broadly than in English. In any case, who cares what es.wiki thinks? :-) Pichpich (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like the original creator of this category has created a (properly spelled copy) at Category:Aircraft architecture. I've nominated that for deletion as well, under the same rationale, but perhaps they should be combined into a single deletion discussion? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 19:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a category of use in English. - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed renaming Category:Alumni by historically black universities or colleges in the United States to Category:Alumni by historically black university or college in the United States

Nominator's rational: the new name would reflect the general rules for pluralization in this type of category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge back to Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States. Universities might be 'historically black' but their alumni are not 'historically black'. (It is not a sensible way to group alumni.) Occuli (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• We have Category:Alumni of Jesuit universities and colleges in the United States although the alumni of these institutions are largely not Jesuits, and many are not nor ever were Catholics. We asl have Category:Ivy League alumni which is a category that clearly delineates alumni by a characteristic of the institution, and not of the alumni themselves. Historically black universities and colleges are a recognized group of institutions, and we have shown a williness to group alumni by recognized institution groups, as opposed to just by alumni characteristics. In fact, even categories like "x law school alumni" that form sub-categories of "Alumni by law school in the US" focus on the school not the alumni. As long as the institution is a law school its alumni are put in these categories, without regard to whether they even took a bar exam, let alone passed and in any way practiced law. The general rule is "can you create an article covering the group defined by the category", and there have been actual studies done about what percentage of African-Americans with bachelors degrees have them from HCBUs, and probably also studies done into what percentages of graduates of HCBUs in a given year are African-American. There is ample precedent that the alumni sub-categories group by school characteristics, not by the alumni characteristics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on, an article on X will say 'X attended Foo University', not 'X attended the historically black university Foo'. The idea of cfd is to challenge the various assumptions that editors make when categorising articles, or, as in this case, categories. (The UK alumni categories are not categorised by 'Russell Group' or 'historically polytechnic': see Category:Alumni by university or college in England, so there is equally a precedent for not doing this.) Law schools is a different case. Category:Ivy League alumni should also be upmerged IMO. Jesuit universities are at least not merely historically Jesuit. Occuli (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with your first point, of course. Just as an article will not say so-and-so attend an Ivy league university. But this category is just a container to group a limited and well-defined set of schools in the alumni by school tree. I'm not sure what assumptions you are trying to "challenge." Historically black colleges and universities exist as a well-defined group of schools, per List of historically black colleges and universities. It remains an historically significant grouping -- recognized in US government education law -- and there is no shame or stigma in us documenting that, including in category space.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per similar categories in Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States. I agree with John about the relevance of the category: historically black colleges are a well-defined category group and we do group alumni by school characteristics, in other cases. Retaining the category offers us a way to reflect that and one more way to aid navigation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If you do not think this category should exist you should advocate the category be deleted, not upmerged. This category, as well as Ivy League and the Jesuit colleges and universities, are an alternate categorizing branch. All of the sub-cetegories are also grouped by specific state or territory they are in, so there is no reason to talk about up-merging, we would just delete the category entirely. On the other hand, the fact that there is not a Russell Group alumni category seems irrevlent. A lot of categories that could exist do not, so the non-presence of a category is not a good argument against other categories. Lastly since this is a category of categories, Shawn is 100% right that it does not matter what articles would say, articles would not link to the category, only other categories would.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Although this would require a different AfD, my personal preference (for the record) would be to delete the Ivy league, Jesuit and historically black categories. Pichpich (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by county in Wales to Category:People by principal area in Wales

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The all inclusive term for any kind of locality (county, county borough or city) at this administrative level in Wales is 'principal area'. Mayumashu (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Principal area article: "Outside local government legislation the term "principal area" is rarely, if ever, used in Wales. On the street and in the media the terms 'county' and - less commonly, even for areas designated as such - 'county borough' are the norm." Cjc13 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Cjc13. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1779 architecture in the United States to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1779

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No reason to have the year a building was built broken out by country. All of the entries are here based on the date of their completion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is especially a bad year to chose to break out by country since it was during the American Revolution. If structures show up built in Michigan or northern Ohio or in Mississippi their inclusion or non-inclusion is open to complexed debates, while any structures built in Florida or west of the Mississippi (including in California, which is relevant since this is the time period of Junipero Serra construction the California missions) there would be very strong arguments for exclusion from the proposed to be merged category. Due to the British occupying New York City in this year, whether things built in that city that year could be classified as "architecture in the United States" is even debatable. Put another way, we do not even breakdown birth categories to country by year, there is no Category:1982 births in the United States, so why break down buildings by year categories to countries, when these categories, at least in this comparison, are less than 1/1000th the size?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2011 (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.