< December 31	January 2 >

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:Ayurvedic companies.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ayurvedic Companies of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow categorization. If kept rename to Category:Ayurvedic companies of India. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep (Rename & Populate): Since there is no parent category, it would make sense to rename this Category:Ayurvedic companies if it is kept. There are a decent number of articles in Category:Ayurvedic organisations that appear to be for-profit companies (end in "Ltd") that might fit better under a corporate category. If the cat is deleted, upmerge Organic India somewhere into the Ayurveda subject tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:35, 4 January 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: looks like a withdrawal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geographic taxonomies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A rather strange one from Hike796, imo. A taxonomy "is the practice and science of classification." The category description states, rather obliquely, that "This category is for grouping wikiarticles associated with similar geographic taxonomies (e.g., 3 taxonomies for United States ecoregions)." Well, Category:Geography-related lists abound with all manner of things classified and grouped according to shared characteristics. A look what the creator envisions as category contents is also puzzling: the redirect Great Basin Province? His newly created Borders of the oceans? What doesn't belong in this category, I wonder? Delete as a redundant and confusing addition to the geography tree, one that has to the potential to absorb vast numbers of articles and categories into an unnecessary branch simply because they contain a "geographic taxonomy" of one kind or another. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Some of these cats are kind of like clouds, I can imagine that there is something there. Maybe this could could have been a viable group of different types of geographic classifications (political divisions, eco-regions, agricultural usage, climates, etc). I then I look at what is actually in the cat and realize it's vapor. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in fairness to Hike those categories do all exist in one form or another. In fact, I see that Category:Ecoregions is a sub-cat of -- surprise! -- Category:Classification systems. And another sub of that very cat is... Category:Taxonomy. So I'm thinking of withdrawing this. This could be useful as a container category. I've added the some master cats and tried to populate it with a couple of viable groups as RevelationDirect| suggests, while removing individual articles. Still not sure this isn't just an unneeded duplicate branch. Please take a look. Working on Hike's categories make head hurt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like our little system: Hike will create some cat, I'll try to imagine some way it might actually be useful, and then Shawn will make it happen! Keep.
• Just to speak things along, I am now at least neutral and have struck through my deletion rationale. RevelationDirect, above, has changed to keep. So I think we can close and keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 11 January 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) 01:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Upcoming mixed martial arts events to Category:Scheduled mixed martial arts events

Nominator's rationale: To match parent category Category:Scheduled sports events. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Upcoming is the term most often used in this sport, Scheduled mixed martial arts events sounds awkward and improper.(Justinsane15 (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename for consistency. I don't think this is an issue that we can defer to what is used in every different sport. This is a descriptive category, not a proper name category, so there is no harm in adopting a standard Wikipedia naming convention for events that are in the future, and right now this is "scheduled". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 13 January 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Wikipedia birthdays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category simply doesn't work. It's listing users with userboxes that say November 11, while it is now January 1. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surely this is a problem with template code of ((User Wikipedian for)) that would add a user to this category when today's date coincides with the user's birth date. I suggest that is where this should be addressed properly. __meco (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this: Help:Category#Adding a category by using a template. If people's userpages don't get updated or the cache doesn't get cleared, it takes a long time for them to leave the template. As for whether the category should be used in general, see the outcome of the previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_5#Category:Current_Wikipedia_birthdays. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is useful for the Wikipedians who go around and want to wish those who are celebrating their birthday. I'm sure the problem can be fixed but there's no reason that it should be deleted because of a mistake like this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine it would be fairly easy to fix with a bot that goes through the category once a day and null-edits the pages in it. That wasn't necessary in the past because I was doing it by hand, but I haven't been doing that for a while. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Congratulating people on their birthdays is social networking but supporting that is not Wikipedia's mission. Compare with WP:NOTMEMORIAL Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site, which expressly rules out use of article space for general recording of deaths. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not article space and it's not a memorial; I don't see how any of your comment is relevant. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete. As the person who nominated this for deletion a long time ago, I still believe categories should be for encyclopedic use. However, wishing users a happy wiki-birthday potentially does have morale-boosting effects on Wikipedia so I wouldn't totally discount the process, just not via use of a category. The lag problem seemingly would be eliminated if listified as well. Someone would have to go through transclusions of the template to properly listify it though, which would be a good amount of work unless a bot was brought in. VegaDark (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I already explained at the last deletion discussion, which was closed as "keep", a list wouldn't do the same job this does (a list can't be automatically be populated by a template like a category can). You are suggesting a bot to solve the problem; if your solution and my solution (above) both need bots, what makes yours any more efficient? rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My solution wouldn't require retaining a category for an unencyclopedic purpose. While Wikipedia space pages have some leeway in that regard, categories traditionally do not. VegaDark (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The outcome of the previous CfD was a consensus that this category is not harmful and can be helpful to collaboration. So the arguments you are using to vote 'delete' are ones that have already been out-consensused once in the past and are irrelevant to the reason the nominator opened this CfD. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Consensus can change, and discussions to delete are not restricted to the original reasons the nom happens to bring up. VegaDark (talk) 03:46, 8 January 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 for now, without prejudice to a broader nomination that discusses a broader group of categories that use "prehistoric". (Category was also untagged, so we probably didn't get the level of participation that we might otherwise if notification were properly made on the category page.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Prehistoric animals Nominator's rationale: Too broad – basically includes all animals, alive or fossil. Poorly defined and not practical. Suggest use of Category:Cambrian life and similar categories. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This category can't reasonably be considered on its own. It's currently the parent of an extensive subcategory structure, going as many as four levels deep in some cases and all using "prehistoric" in their names. A search shows nearly 700 categories beginning with "prehistoric", the vast majority of which appear to be for animals. So deleting this would just leave all of those without an obvious parent. Even assuming all of those were tagged in a mass deletion nomination, it's also possible that many articles would need to be merged somewhere, such as into period-specific categories or into "Extinct foo" categories. So overall, deleting all "prehistoric" animal-related categories would be a very massive category change, regardless of its merits. postdlf (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in principle. "Prehistoric" is a rather poor mode of categorization; instead, I'd prefer for organisms to be categorized according to the geological period (e.g., Cambrian) in which they occur. As Postdlf says, that would be a huge operation, however. Ucucha 16:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep for now This is part of the Category:Prehistoric life category tree. If 'prehistoric' is not a good word, then a complete alternative category tree needs to be proposed or built first. And anyway 'prehistoric' is a very popular term. Proof should be offered that is so unscientific as to be untenable for use in WP. Hmains (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- "Prehistoric" refers in England to BC in some regions to a period as late (or later than) 1000 BC. The fauna for this period (part of the Holocene) is much the same as today. I presume that the object is to deal with fauna that became extinct in past geological eras. If so, I would suggest a rename to Category:Extinct animals. This will no doubt need to be followed up by a mass rename nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 3 January 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:Opposition against Islam in Europe. There's no consensus on anything greater than capitalization here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Opposition against islam in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates other categories such as Anti-Muslem Organisations Snowded ^TALK 18:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no duplication. The category is a run-of-the-mill diffusion of Category:Opposition against Islam, which along with the nominated category also was created today. Category:Anti-Muslim organizations (created two weeks ago) is a subset of that category albeit along a different vector (organizations) than the nominated category (by region). I would also admonish nominator not to depopulate the category while the CfD is on.[1][2]. __meco (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it might make sense to combine the two then Meco, otherwise admonish all you want the BNP and EDL pages see lots of efforts to try and make out that those organisations are not far right and in the former case fascist organisations. Creating categories is one tactic that has been used. --Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Islam, not islam Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Roscelese's comment below. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Category:Opposition against Islam (grammar fail) is redundant to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. The latter should probably have regional divisions, but this entire category tree is redundant. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rename. I agree, it should capitalized. Regarding to the 'Anti-islam sentiment' remark, I'd like to refer to my reply to Chrono1084's comment. Pereant antiburchius (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I meant to create an umbrella category for general opposition against islam in Europe, NOT (only) anti-islam organisations, but general opposition: opposers (people/politicians) from Europe, opposers (groups) in Europe, movements and ideologies, islam-opposing events and demonstrations in Europe, discussion platforms, interviews. Indeed, this can be further sub-categorized, but all subjects above show a strong connection between them. Therefore I contest the deletion, because this broad spectrum should be viewable as one entity. Also, the term 'anti-islam' is a superlative; it implies agression and violent extremism against islam. Opposition is milder. By this reason the two categories cannot be merged. IF any merging should occur between the subjects 'anti-islam', 'opposition of' and 'criticism of', the subject 'opposition of' should be chosed because implies the broadest spectrum. Pereant antiburchius (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I'd like to add that anti-islam implies that it denounces the faith as a whole, where opposition implies denouncement of certain elements of the faith (such as the status of women or freedom of speech). The lable 'anti-islam' is more harsh and severe and does not always apply to these articles and/or categories. Pereant antiburchius (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. (We still capitalize "Islam," though) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Of course, that's my bad. Pereant antiburchius (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete An ungrammatical POV category cannot override BLP, regardless of what the numbers end up being in this !vote. This is not in any way helpful. IronDuke 01:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. Could you please point out where this category violates BLP policy? And if it does, why doesn't a category like 'anti-islam sentiment' violate this very same policy? Pereant antiburchius (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: [[Category:Criticism of Islam]] + [[Category:Anti-Islam sentiment]] are already enough.--Chrono1084 (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although those categories can have an overlap with 'Opposition against Islam', they are not the same. The argument 'are already enough' does not apply if categories simply aren't the same. Yes, they can be closely related, but consider the following. Someone can be critical of Islam, but can still be a Muslim. When we talk about opposition of Islam, there's a considerable shift in the pro-/con- spectrum. Anti-Islam is the extremist/radical (negative) far end category for extremism against Islam, containing articles about besmearing or arson of mosques, violence against Muslims and ritual Qur'an burning. You can't just pile them all together in one category 'criticism of..' or 'anti-islam'. Pereant antiburchius (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to sources that make that distinction? I've never heard "anti-Islam" only used to mean violence, and I doubt most of the other editors here have. Occasionally you get these forks that people think are distinct phenomena (other discussions I've been in: "anti-abortion" and "pro-life" are apparently two separate movements because "anti-abortion" is secular and "pro-life" is religious, "matriarchy" apparently only ever means rule by mothers so a separate article has to exist on rule by women) that just...aren't distinct phenomena. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we have Category:Criticism of Islam for the stuff you mentioned above viz. opposition to the subjection of women and whatnot. I think the categories are conflated a lot, but that's a separate problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Pereant antiburchius, I'm still not convinced by your arguments--Chrono1084 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Preserved railway stations to Category:Heritage railway stations

Nominator's rationale: Looking at the other contents of parent Category:Rail transport preservation, I see that the adjective "Preserved" seems to be reserved for rolling stock. Suggested rename also brings category into line with its sole contents to date, the subcategory Category:Heritage railway stations in England.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Category:Railway stations on the National Register of Historic Places could be added. Occuli (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see we have just deleted Category:Heritage railway stations (December cfd) because of confusion between stations on heritage railways and stations whose buildings have been deemed historic. Category:Heritage railway stations in England should be renamed (per Category:Stations on heritage railways in the United Kingdom) to Category:Stations on heritage railways in England and its parents and contents reconsidered. There is already Category:Railway stations by heritage register so Category:Preserved railway stations might well be redundant. Occuli (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Are all of these on operating heritage railway lines? If not, then both the current and proposed names may not be correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh boy,here we go again. Well, I've added the nominated category as a parent for Category:Railway stations on the National Register of Historic Places, with the rationale that if a station's on an historic register, it is being preserved in some way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since items on the register do not have to exist, how can you assume they are being preserved? While not a railroad related structure, the Moulin Rouge Hotel is an example of a listed property that no longer exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't realize that. And I see that Category:Historic railway stations was recently deleted at CfD, too. As an admin, can you see if this deleted category was created by the same editor? And are the adjectives -- heritage, historic and preserved -- close enough that this can be speedied as effectively a recreation of previously deleted material? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it can be speedily deleted along with the rest of Hike's contributions to category space. Listed buildings in the UK are quite often far from preserved. Matlock Riverside railway station is on a heritage railway but is a temporary wooden structure moved from elsewhere. Occuli (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support re-purposing this to a deletion based on the results of the CfD discussions for both Category:Heritage railway stations and Category:Historic railway stations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Stations on preserved railways, at least as far as British categories are concerned. The concept of a "heritage railway" is too vague for my liking. Some of the British railways with the greatest heritage remain in use as part of the national system. "Preserved railways" are ones that were closed and reopened as a tourist attraction or purchased by a preservation group to keep them going. I have no objection to categories for other parts of the world having a different designation according to local usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What a mess. This category consists of the following:

• A subcat with British stations on heritage railroads which have legal protections against demolition.
• A subcat with American railroad bridges, tunnels, engines, districts and, yes, stations on commercial lines which do not have protection from demolition.
• Loose articles on the Long Island commuter railroad whose legal status I'm unsure of.

In other words it's the same thing as the Historic and Heritage Railroad Station cats before it. I don't see a workable subcat that brings these three groups together. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:59, 3 January 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:ATP Challenger Series to Category:ATP Challenger Tour

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, because ATP Challenger Series is the former name of the ATP Challenger Tour. Don't see why there should be two categories, for essentially the same thing. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. LtGen (talk) 10:03, 2 January 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Eastern Uusimaa to Category:People from Uusimaa

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The region of Eastern Uusimaa was consolidated with Uusimaa today. Eastern Uusimaa existed as a separate region only from 1997 until 2010, and many of the categorized people did not actually live in the region during this period, so I don't see a reason to keep the category as historical reference. --Silvonen (talk) 08:43, 1 January 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 Category:Deaths from motor neurone disease
rename Category:Motor neuron disease to Category:Motor neurone disease
rename Category:People with motor neuron disease to Category:People with motor neurone disease
with redirects on categories with alternate spellings. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Deaths from motor neurone disease to Category:Deaths from motor neuron disease

Nominator's rationale: I has started to speedy this before realizing it's a judgment call rather than a clear x of y (or spelling mistake, as I had first assumed). The top-level Category:Motor neuron disease spells it without the "e" as does the intermediate Category:People with motor neuron disease. The parent article uses the "e" per Motor neurone disease, while displaying Motor neuron as an alternate spelling in the lead. Nowhere on its Talk page is this addressed as problematic. Suggest simply renaming this category so that the entire branch is consistent. Alansohn and others may wish to use use the title article as the model and rename the rest of category branch to neurone: I'd have no objection to that, either. But note that the article name and the term used in the lead are inconsistent in yet another way, as article begins in the plural with "The motor neurone diseases (or motor neuron diseases)..." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename the others using 'neurone' throughout, as Motor neurone disease has been stable for many years (there was desultory talk of moving it in 2006: see Talk:Motor_neurone_disease#Page_moves). Occuli (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename the higher level categories per Occuli. While WHO uses "neuron" (G12.2), they normally default to American spellings in the English editions, and therefore don't provide guidance on spelling differences. WRT to Shawn's note on singular vs plural: MND is a cluster of similar conditions and therefore "disease" is being used in its group noun meaning in these categories. The alternatives would be Category:Deaths from a motor neurone disease or Category:Deaths from one of the motor neurone diseases. While these would both be grammatically correct, the original is also fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative nom: Keep Category:Deaths from motor neurone disease

Rename Category:Motor neuron disease to Category:Motor neurone disease

Rename Category:People with motor neuron disease to Category:People with motor neurone disease adding "e" to match main article. I hope I have tagged the additional subjects correctly. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reverse rename as nominator. This seems to be the unanimous choice so far, with good arguments aplenty. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reverse rename to match the title of the parent article and to reflect the nominator's revised opinion on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems that there are several permutations here, each of which has some justification. Whichever formulation is adopted, please can editors ensure that there are ((category redirect))s from the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 12 January 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway-related National Historic Landmarks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. DB OC small. While expansion is possible, these articles are already in ample historic railway categories so it is not clear that this specific category is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The National Historic Landmarks parent cat states that "All NHLs are also listed on the National Register of Historic Places," and this nominated category is also a sub-cat of Category:Railway-related listings on the National Register of Historic Places, so this would seem to be an unnecessary splinter category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks like NHLs are currently categorized by location except for this cat and lighthouses, both of which are fairly recent. I'll post a notice on the NRHP WikiProject to get more feedback. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A good way to sort those train-related items that have a large historical merit to them. Would be ridiculous to get rid of.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 05:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define large. Your reasons are really a subjective view on what should be here. How do the existing categories not meet your requirements? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The NRHP subject tree contains a large number of articles which support an infrastructure subcat with a transportation subcat under that with a railroad cat under that. Upon reflection, I don't think it makes sense to create subgroups for the much smaller number of Landmark articles since they are a subgroup of the NRHPs anyway. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:03, 7 January 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:San Juan Basin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another small single entry category with limited short term growth potential. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A bunch of articles where added to the category after nomination. I just went though these and removed those that were added without inclusion justification being included in the articles. That left three articles. Of these, more removals may be justified with a detailed reading of the articles. But I'll leave that for others. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 5 January 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Laguna Madre Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category that already rolls up into Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:24, 3 January 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.