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, as desired. I'm not going to try to determine which of these options is the best for which area. Clearly Category:University-preparatory schools makes sense, so when anything that needs to move out of that has moved out, we can rename this category to that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Preparatory schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Split as a confused mix of two very different types of schools. The term "preparatory school", or "prep school", means very different concepts in different parts of the English speaking world, hence Preparatory school is a disambiguation page. In the United Kingdom it means a middle stage private school that prepares children for entry to senior private schools at the ages of 11 or 13. In the United States and Canada it means a senior private school focused on university entry. Of the other English speaking countries with entries in the category the sole Australian school (Mosman Preparatory School) follows the UK usage, whilst the sole Pakistani school (Habib Public School) follows the US/Canadian usage (but a search of the school's website suggests they don't actually use the term at all) and the Indian entry (Super 30) doesn't appear to be a school but a special entry programme for particular universities. I've got a feeling some of the entries in this category from other, non-English speaking, countries have been added merely because they conform to one or other definition rather than the concept really existing in their own countries. The two types of prep school don't belong in the same specific category as they're just so different and shared the name. I don't think there's a way to salvage the category. New transnational categories could be created - one would be fairly easy to name as Category:University-preparatory schools but the other could be trickier to find a distinctive term for. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support splitting per nominator. Category:University-preparatory schools makes sense to me. The other meaning of "preparatory school", or "prep school", is a school which prepares children (originally boys) for what in England is called a "public school", and that is why in the British Isles at least the term "private school" is widely used to mean that kind of prep school. I am struggling to find the right name for the second category, but I don't think it can be a geographical one. This meaning of "prep school" is also used in other countries, although not throughout the Commonwealth, as Canada seems to follow the US. Australia certainly has secondary schools with attached junior schools called "prep schools". Perhaps we should keep Category:preparatory schools as the second (junior school) category, with a suitable summary to explain what it's for? Moonraker (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into Category:University-preparatory schools using University-preparatory schools and Preparatory schools (United Kingdom) per Preparatory school (United Kingdom). Or first rename Preparatory school (United Kingdom) to something like Preparatory school (Junior level) or Preparatory school (Commonwealth); Kenya has such schools, eg Nairobi Academy or Kenton College Prep School ("Old Kentonians"). At present the category is bringing together different things with the same name, 'categorization by shared name'. Occuli (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Preparatory schools (United Kingdom)" is likely to get confused with the UK specific category. The transnational one really needs a unique disambiguator but it's hard to come up with one - "Commonwealth" has the Canadian problem, "middle school" has the problem that in some places the private sector is two-tier not three-tier (and confusingly we don't have an article for Pre-prep schools, just a redirect to the preps) and may be associated with just the state sector in some places, "Common Entrance Examination" isn't taken by all prep schoolchildren and isn't known too well outside those directly involved with it - just what term does clearly distinguish this sort of prep school? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the subcats are already there. Just delete the parent cat as it is not a 'real' parent to the subcats. Fmph (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per Occuli. Preparatory school (Commonwealth) seems a good idea so schools from other countries can be included. Cjc13 (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think Preparatory school (Commonwealth) is likely to be the best name. For one thing, Canada seems to be in the other camp. For another, there are probably such prep schools outside the Commonwealth, for instance in Hong Kong and the Gulf. Moonraker (talk) 01:22, 16 August 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 to Category:1924 establishments in India. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:1924 establishments in Pakistan
• Nominators rationale There is no Pakistan before 1947. Modern Pakistan is at that time an integral part of India. There might be justification for establishment cats for the various pricely states in what later was Pakistan, suhc as part of Kashmir. There might also be justification for sub-dividing the establishment cats to the various sub-division of British India (Bombay Presidency, Bengal Presidency, Madras Presidency, etc). However Pakistan does not exist until the division of India at the time of indepdence so describing things as being established in Pakistan before 1947 is 100% anachronistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Either keep per existence of "1759 establishments in Scotland" etc., or create a category à la "1759 establishments in the Thirteen Colonies" that conveys the information that it is in modern Pakistan but was India at the time. In the meantime, restore the category to the article or articles it was on so it isn't open to speedy deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to 1924 establishments in British India, as the one item in this cat uses the term, and make the same adjustments to the relevant decade cats that are parent to it, such as 1920's establishments in British India, etc. MSJapan (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC) per nom, as I can't really disagree with his train of logic as laid out below. MSJapan (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:1924 establishments in India. Tim! (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is no real reason to use the anachronistic form "Briths India" unless we plan on creating sepeate cats for Portugese India and Frech India. The place was called India. One can see this from reading the Brittanica aArticle (in the 1984 edition of the Britanica) on a Muslim movement in India in the 1920s, they always refer to it as India and the people emigrating from India to Afghanistan as doing such a movement. What next, are people going to want to put Kim (novel) in Category:Novels set in Pakistan because a good chunk of it occurs in Lahore? Kipling sought to capture the essence of India with this novel, to put its setting anywhere else would just violate the nature of proper usage of English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to(or merge into) "1924 establishments in India". No need to include "British", as it is clear from the date that one is referring to the territory of India prior to its independence. Davshul (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The category is currently empty, so rename/merge would end up being an entirely academic move with no practical effect, unless we want to make this a soft redirect category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 16 August 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:The media by war to Category:War and media

Nominator's rationale: I want to proceed carefully in the larger war & media/works scheme: As the subcats and article here all concern war "and" the media, and this truly does generally seem to be for media and not creative works misnamed, I suggest this category from User:Stefanomione can simply be upmerged, with sort key rankings to arrange things, if needed. The target master category may need more work, however. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He also had war historians under "the media" category, I've removed those subcats. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There is already a subcategory Category:Media by war within Category:War and media.Curb Chain (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but those are for two different things, we need to remember, as Stefanomione had grouped all creative works under "media," too. That's the distinction he's trying to make between creative works and the news media with this oddly named source cat, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – someone who can create Category:The media by war, Category:Media by war and Category:War by media is treading the thin line between genius and madness. We have Category:Media by medium by the same creator but where is Category:War by war? Occuli (talk) 17:00, 10 August 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Uruguayan Civil War media to Category:Uruguayan Civil War

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT and because a novel is categorized in this project as a creative work and not media, as noted in previous CfDs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge' per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 16 August 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gilbraltarian Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Soft redirected category that is simply a mispelling. This is the only category that has this misspelling as a redirect. Category:Gibraltarian Canadians already also exists and shares the same soft redirect target. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – serves no purpose whatever. Occuli (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question do some people pronounce it Gilbraltar/Gilbartarian? If some people do it might be worth having this redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 11 August 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fraternal and magical organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Magical organizations. There's too much categorical overlap with Frat & Service below because of the "Fraternal" portion, and a lot of miscats due to the "magical" part. Again, as below, fraternal and magical are not necessarily the same, and I'd rather see two distinct cats that clearly define the topics than one catch-all that doesn't. MSJapan (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Magical fraternal organizations or Category:Magical organizations There could be frats which focuses on the illusionist discipline, but if that's overcat, then a rename to Category:Magical organizations would be warranted. Category:Magical Fraternal organizations may also be valid.Curb Chain (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Illusionists would fall under stage magic societies or something similar. The gist of what's in this cat is more Aleister Crowley-type magic. MSJapan (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be upmerged to Category:Religion or something similar.Curb Chain (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's likely a forced fit. MSJapan (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well a belief is religious; I'd think this is objective criteria.Curb Chain (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Magical organizations. If that cat is then too large, we could create Category:Magical fraternal organizations. This "x and y" organizations is a horrible formation because it is unclear whether an organization should be both x and y, or all organizations that are either x or y should be included.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the precedent of categories that Military units and formations established in 1861 would suggest that any organization that is either magical or fraternal belongs in this cat, since there we include all military units and all military formations, and all things that no one is sure whether they are a formation or a unit, in the cat. Of course that is a little different because it is two things of the same type instead of two types of the same thing. However it is roughly analogous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 11 August 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 to Category:Fraternal service organizations . Timrollpickering (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fraternal and service organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. One of the orgs in the cat is not necessarily the other, so I'd like to see the cat split into two: Fraternal organizations and Service organizations. MSJapan (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There does seem to be different articles about these: Fraternity and Service club. But I am wondering if there wouldn't be some advantage to just creating subcategories that divide them and keeping this as a parent category. I'm unsure at the moment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I thought about that, but when I looked at the list, Rotary International and the National Organization of Italian-American Women are not fraternal service groups (because they are either not gender-based or not for men, and the latter is not a service group and does not claim to be), and there's a lot of culture-and military-based stuff in the cat which really doesn't belong either (because shared cultural or military background is an association, not a fraternal order as such). There probably need to be other cats, but the split needs to be made first to start putting the appropriate stuff in the appropriate cats. The reason there's so much stuff in it is because it's too vague. I'd rather have to cat twice with very specific cats and be right than have one that isn't.MSJapan (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Cateogory:Service organizations Fraternal organization existed in Ancient Greece, which would the be the modern Service organizations. Ancient Greek society was paternal, so only men could really participate in public life. If sourced backs contempary fraternal organizations, I would propose a Split.Curb Chain (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide and rename the service ones to that or rename the category to that without dividing? Aren't some fraternal organizations non-service organizations? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct, see Apprentice Boys of Derry, and the more I look at this cat, it has all sorts of non-fraternal non-service orgs in it as well. It's going to have to be cleaned up regardless. MSJapan (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per nominator and delete. On balance I don't see a benefit to keeping the overall parent if these are divided into different types. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Split: This category was created on 15 May 2005 with the explanation "new name as per cfd to follow naming conventions". There was no particular decision on this subject in CFD around that time so I assume that it was created to match the lead article of the day. There is a messy and confusing history in the related articles. Fraternal and Service Organizations moved to Fraternal and service organizations then List of general fraternities; at one stage its title was as long as List of civic, fraternal, service, and professional organisations. Fraternal organization was merged to that list, see Talk:Fraternal organization, but later redirected to Fraternity. It seems that (i) the term has a strong history in North America; (ii) the main meanings of "fraternal organization" are college fraternities and mutual organisations providing services; and (iii) there is a notable overlap between these. However, I agree that it is desirable to split this category. Any articles that belong in more than one can happily bear two or three categories instead of one, out of Category:Mutual organizations (which currently has no hierarchical connection to this), Category:Welfare and service organizations, Category:Fraternities and sororities, Category:Clubs and societies and perhaps others; I haven't checked whether there are sufficient categories for military-based associations. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also Fraternity (disambiguation) which leads to yet more meanings, some of which have categories, e.g. Category:Chivalric orders. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing my mind: Rename to Category:Fraternal service organizations. On further reflection, I think I lost the plot here! There is a need for a category for clubs in which people find friendship and mutual support and do charitable fundraising and other community work. "Fraternal" should be explained on the page as not gender-specific but referring to the equality of status within such organisations for people from different backgrounds. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:23, 16 August 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) 22:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the National Council of Provinces to Category:Chairpersons of the National Council of Provinces

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The title is Chairperson, not President, as can be seen from the Parliamentary website. Not entirely sure if it should be "Chairpersons" or "Chairpeople" though? htonl (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per National Council of Provinces. Occuli (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I would think "Chairpersons" would be more common? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 10 August 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) 22:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comedy Writing Emmy Winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Overcategorization. Here's another overcat from Drunkenpeter99. Is there a way to see all the categories created by a user, given the amount of overcats he's created in the past month as I'm sure there's a few that people have missed, such as this one. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – this seems to include all of them. The award seems to be for the writer, not the show; so it should be Category:Comedy Series whose writer or writers won the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series (in other words it is impossible to describe succinctly and thus should be deleted). Occuli (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per guidelines against award cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 12 August 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 to all parents. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History books about the Argentine Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:History books about the May Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:History books about the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:History books about the Argentine War of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:History books about the Viceroyalty of Peru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:History books about the United Provinces of South America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are very few articles, only six. The parent category Category:History books about Argentina should be enough. Even more, the "Los mitos..." book is about the history of Argentina as a whole, not about a specific event or time period. Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to all relevant categories. With the small number of articles on such books that currently exist, such subcategorization is not needed. (And in looking to see whether we did a similar thing with events in English-speaking countries I cam across the horrible series of categories attached to this category, oh god, I don't want to deal with it.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:History books about Argentina. Someone has seen fit to break down every "history books about" category into very specific country names, as these with Argentina. It is a big mess, it looks like. Category:History books about the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan? Oh boy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to parent cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 12 August 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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Spinners members to Category:The Spinners (American band) members

Nominator's rationale: per main article/cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as there are 2 bandsCurb Chain (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per The Spinners (American band) (as opposed to The Spinners (UK band), with several members, although none seem to have articles). Occuli (talk) 11:11, 9 August 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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Spinners songs to Category:The Spinners (American band) songs

Nominator's rationale: per main article/cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as there are 2 bandsCurb Chain (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per The Spinners (American band) (as opposed to The Spinners (UK band)). Occuli (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as there are 2 bands. Night Time (talk) 14:42, 9 August 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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Spinners albums to Category:The Spinners (American band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article/cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as there are 2 bandsCurb Chain (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per The Spinners (American band) (as opposed to The Spinners (UK band), who produced several albums, although none seem to have articles). Occuli (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as there are 2 bands. Night Time (talk) 14:39, 9 August 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 to Category:Mental and behavioural disorders. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD to Category:Mental disorders diagnoses by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems

Nominator's rationale: per mental disorder/mental illness, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, also pluralize "diagnosis" to "diagnoses." Alternate proposal: Personally, I'd like to see it simply renamed Category:Mental disorders and then have a subcategory system by DSM and ICD criteria, but I figure that's probably not going to pass as some violation of POV. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to the already existing Category:Mental and behavioural disorders. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of my reasoning. In RL I am a nosologist and I deal with both of these classifications on a day-to-day basis. The structure and the codes in the DSM classification are directly based on the Ninth Revision of ICD—the main modification being the addition of definitions. In turn the DSM-IV had an influence on the Tenth Revision of ICD and the definitions used in DSM-IV were incorporated into the Mental and Behavioural Disorders. The only DSM-IV concepts that are not classified in ICD-10 are "Axis I diagnosis deferred" and "Axis II diagnosis deferred". As these are not mental illnesses in themselves, this means that all relevant DSM concepts are in ICD.

Turning to the terminology used in the category name: The term "illness" is old-fashioned and in both DSM and ICD the term is now "disorder"; WP categories usually use the plural and "diagnosis" is singular; "by" in a category name usually indicates sub-categories are needed (but they are not); and, in clinical classification terminology "and" usually means "both foo and bar", whereas "or" means "either foo or bar but not both". So for this category to make sense from a nosological point of view it would need to be renamed at the very least to Category:Mental and behavioural disorders as defined by DSM or ICD. However, this is what Category:Mental and behavioural disorders is defined to cover. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per Beeswaxcandle's explanation and common usage. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment First, I would like to know the reasons why you want to make this change in name, because in general usage, even in spoken word, is DSM and ICD. Also, DSM and ICD have differences definitions. So.... I have to know specific reasons for this name change. Mental disorder is a proper way to refer to it because illness or disease suggests it is something you can catch, and actually mental disorder is something you are genetically prone to and born with, so I would agree with you on that issue--but overall I can't really "vote" unless I know your reasoning for the renames. Also I'm not sure that ICD vs. DSM would be POV. DSM is used more in the United States, and ICD is used more in the rest of the world. It's just different ways to referring to disorders--so your argument could be made. The question is if people who are educated on the field of psychology would be voting, which can be an issue. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I suggest renaming it per the main article/category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep keep as is -- common usage -- as well as common sense -- justifies using the abbreviations DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge diagnosing body is not a defining characteristic of a specific mental illness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 12 August 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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Executive Secretaries of ECLAC to Category:Executive Secretaries of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as ECLAC is ambiguous.Curb Chain (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, ECLAC does redirect to United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, so I'm not sure it's ambiguous. I personally don't know anything else this abbreviation may stand for. But if not ambiguous, it may be mysterious to some users. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "mysterious" then.Curb Chain (talk) 13:13, 10 August 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) 07:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Visitor attractions in Chandigarh Capital Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is not a defined area, and ought to be deleted per many discussions, including this one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as subjective and far too broad. MSJapan (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Chandigarh. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete locations need to be defined not amorphous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 12 August 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: No consensus to delete; rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Federal political office-holders in South Africa to Category:National political office-holders in South Africa

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although the South African system of government has some federal aspects, it is not considered a federation, and the word "federal" is almost never used (by South Africans; sometimes it is mistakenly used by foreigners). The word "national" is the usual term for that level of government. See, for example, section 40 of the Constitution: "In the Republic, government is constituted as national, provincial and local spheres of government..." htonl (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If one looks at the contents this is a cat of cats with an unnecessary specification, so it's overcat. It is unnecessarily specific because I am not certain that local or provincial officials would meet GNG in the first place to require the distinction to have to be made. MSJapan (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's overcat; you see identical three-level categorization in, for example, Canada, Australia and the US, with the names varying appropriately. There definitely are notable provincial and local office-holders; see for example Helen Zille, Mbhazima Shilowa, Patricia de Lille. Indeed, WP:POLITICIAN states that provincial officeholders and legislators are notable, as are "mayors of cities of at least regional importance". - htonl (talk) 18:23, 13 August 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 all to based in. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health organisations in Australia →

Category:Medical and health organisations in Australia or Category:Medical and health organisations based in Australia

Category:Health organisations in India →

Category:Medical and health organisations in India or Category:Medical and health organisations based in India

Category:Medical organizations based in Israel →

Category:Medical and health organizations in Israel or Category:Medical and health organizations based in Israel

Category:Health organisations in New Zealand →

Category:Medical and health organisations in New Zealand or Category:Medical and health organisations based in New Zealand

Category:Health organisations in Norway →

Category:Medical and health organisations in Norway or Category:Medical and health organisations based in Norway

Category:Health organisations in Pakistan →

Category:Medical and health organisations in Pakistan or Category:Medical and health organisations based in Pakistan

Category:Medical organizations in Romania →

Category:Medical and health organizations in Romania or Category:Medical and health organizations based in Romania

Category:Health organisations in the United Arab Emirates →

Category:Medical and health organisations in the United Arab Emirates or Category:Medical and health organisations based in the United Arab Emirates

Category:Health and medicine related organisations in the United Kingdom →

Category:Medical and health organisations in the United Kingdom or Category:Medical and health organisations based in the United Kingdom

Batch renaming proposal. As you can see, the problem here is that these subcategories are currently named in wildly varying fashions, and need to be standardized on a consistent convention. As the parent category is Category:Medical and health organizations, I'm proposing that we standardize on that wording; however, I wanted to establish a consensus as to whether we should go with "Medical and health organizations in Country" or "Medical and health organizations based in Country". Note that in every case I've kept the organi(s/z)ation spelling in the same form as the existing category used.

There are also three other categories which are already named in one of the two proposed formats, and will need to be renamed only if the other format is chosen:

Category:Medical and health organizations based in Canada (→ Category:Medical and health organizations in Canada?)

Category:Medical and health organizations in Slovenia (→ Category:Medical and health organizations based in Slovenia?)

Category:Medical and health organizations based in the United States (→ Category:Medical and health organizations in the United States?)

So what do we want, "in Country" or "based in Country"? Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to talk about what "based in" vs "in" means, "based in" means that the central location is in that country, but it can be located all over the world. "In" means it is only in that country. So you might want to check out the articles when making name changes for the categories. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I can only speak to the New Zealand category as this is where I live and work. Keep as is - a little bit of clean up is needed but "Health organisations in New Zealand" is correct terminology for both the contents of the sub-categories and what we call our health system. I would not be happy with a rename to "Medical and health" because the focus of our health system is not the medicine, it's health. Medicine is just one of the tools used to assist health. I believe this is similar in other countries in this nomination. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you argue that the subcategories Category:Hospitals in New Zealand and Category:New Zealand medical associations do not relate to both health and medicine? Of course "medicine" is practiced in hospitals and the conntection of health to medical associations is obvious. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you'll find that almost every country on earth devotes a good proportion of its health care spending to health promotion and health maintenance initiatives rather than being exclusively focused on the medical treatment of things that have already gone wrong — but unless you're saying that a New Zealander with cancer or AIDS or psoriasis or whatever has to leave the country for treatment because the country's system doesn't treat disease at all, I don't see how one really precludes the other. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename preferably to the "based in" version. I don't see a problem with using "Medical and health" for all categories. Using exclusively "health" is a nice propagandistic move to focus on health rather than medicine, but let's be realistic: the overwhelming majority of these organizations (including those in the NZ category) involve issues of medicine and health, not just health alone. Hospitals and medical associations, which are common subcategories, as with the NZ category, of course relate to both. I prefer the "based in" format because it makes it so that an international organization that works in many countries will only be placed in the country category that it is based in rather than every category for countries in which they have a presence, however small. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to Medican and Health organizations based in X form. We want "based in" because in is too ambigious. Generally something is only "based in" one place, but it may be "in" lots of places. Medical and health are dintinct but related and the line is hard to place, so it is not practical to try to create two related trees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 12 August 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) 07:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Motorola four-letter series to Category:Motorola mobile phones

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Four is an arbitrary reason for a category. Also usage seems confusing. Why is A1600 there? So probably needs some cleanup if kept. I think this could just be a delete since all of these are already in the parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep Motorola is well-known for odd names that sound like they're being read by a strobe light. RAZR, ROKR, ect. seems like a legitimate subcat to me. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. This appears to me to be overcategorization by shared naming characteristic. Unless phones with some underlying common characteristic were given four-letter names instead of longer or shorter names, this is simply grouping phones together because their name has four letters in it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom; WP:OCAT by shared naming characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Occuli (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge The reasoning behind keeping is what convinced me. Wikipedia cats are based on the thing, not the name. A cat that works for something in the English wikipedia should also work for something in the Russian wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 12 August 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.