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/merge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Space exploration to Category:Spaceflight

Propose merging Category:Space exploration timelines to Category:Timelines of spaceflight

Propose merging Category:Years in space exploration to Category:Years in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1949 in space exploration to Category:Spaceflight before 1951

Propose merging Category:1950 in space exploration to Category:Spaceflight before 1951

Propose merging Category:1951 in space exploration to Category:1951 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1952 in space exploration to Category:1952 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1953 in space exploration to Category:1953 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1954 in space exploration to Category:1954 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1955 in space exploration to Category:1955 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1956 in space exploration to Category:1956 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1957 in space exploration to Category:1957 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1958 in space exploration to Category:1958 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1959 in space exploration to Category:1959 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1960 in space exploration to Category:1960 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1961 in space exploration to Category:1961 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1962 in space exploration to Category:1962 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1963 in space exploration to Category:1963 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1964 in space exploration to Category:1964 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1965 in space exploration to Category:1965 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1966 in space exploration to Category:1966 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1967 in space exploration to Category:1967 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1968 in space exploration to Category:1968 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1969 in space exploration to Category:1969 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1970 in space exploration to Category:1970 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1971 in space exploration to Category:1971 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1972 in space exploration to Category:1972 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1973 in space exploration to Category:1973 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1974 in space exploration to Category:1974 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1975 in space exploration to Category:1975 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1976 in space exploration to Category:1976 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1977 in space exploration to Category:1977 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1978 in space exploration to Category:1978 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1979 in space exploration to Category:1979 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1980 in space exploration to Category:1980 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1981 in space exploration to Category:1981 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1982 in space exploration to Category:1982 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1983 in space exploration to Category:1983 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1984 in space exploration to Category:1984 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1985 in space exploration to Category:1985 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1986 in space exploration to Category:1986 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1987 in space exploration to Category:1987 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1988 in space exploration to Category:1988 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1989 in space exploration to Category:1989 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1990 in space exploration to Category:1990 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1991 in space exploration to Category:1991 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1993 in space exploration to Category:1993 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1995 in space exploration to Category:1995 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1996 in space exploration to Category:1996 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1997 in space exploration to Category:1997 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1998 in space exploration to Category:1998 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:1999 in space exploration to Category:1999 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:2000 in space exploration to Category:2000 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:2001 in space exploration to Category:2001 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:2002 in space exploration to Category:2002 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:2003 in space exploration to Category:2003 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:2004 in space exploration to Category:2004 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:2005 in space exploration to Category:2005 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:2006 in space exploration to Category:2006 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:2007 in space exploration to Category:2007 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:2008 in space exploration to Category:2008 in spaceflight

Propose merging Category:2009 in space exploration to Category:2009 in spaceflight

Propose renaming Category:Space exploration templates to Category:Spaceflight templates

Propose renaming Category:Space exploration infobox templates to Category:Spaceflight infobox templates

Propose renaming Category:Space exploration stub templates to Category:Spaceflight stub templates

Propose renaming Category:United States space exploration templates to Category:United States spaceflight templates

Propose renaming Category:History of space exploration to Category:History of spaceflight

Nominator's rationale: Although the terms spaceflight and space exploration do have different meanings, they are closely related and frequently used synonymously. As a result of this, two separate category structures have arisen with virtually identical scopes, and any differences in scope that do exist are being largely ignored in the categorisation of content. Several members of WikiProject Spaceflight have expressed concerns over the existence and necessity of the second category, an all participants in the discussion there recommended that the "space exploration" categories be merged into the "spaceflight" categories. Five categories would need to be renamed since equivalent spaceflight categories do not currently exist.

To move into more specific issues, in theory "spaceflight" refers to all flights and vehicles which enter or pass through space. "Space exploration" refers to the exploration of space, by means of spaceflight or otherwise. In practise, most of the "space exploration" categories are full of spaceflight articles with questionable or no relevance to exploration, for example: Category:Space exploration contains many articles like MetOp (a weather satellite programme), United States Space Surveillance Network, Kessler syndrome and Orfeo Programme (a series of reconnaissance satellites). Monitoring the weather is not exploration, tracking spacecraft is not exploration, turning low Earth orbit into a cloud of debris is not exploration, and spying on other countries is not exploration. These are not isolated examples. On the other side of the coin, the exploration categories contain few non-spaceflight articles, and none which could not easily be recategorised under Category:Astronomy. I believe that there is not a sufficient distinction to warrant separate categories for the two subjects.

Given the previous discussion on the WikiProject talk page, I will post on that page advising other project members that this discussion has been opened. --GW… 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Big thanks for a carefully explained and well-reasoned rationale for this. Space stuff isn't my forte, so I have a bit of further reading to do before deciding whether to support, but a rationale as clear and helpful as this makes that job much easier for the non-expert. Thank you :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the Spaceflight WikiProject discussion. The distinction between these "space exploration" and "spaceflight" categories is unnecessary and confusing. Mlm42 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It seems unlikely that most people will want to distinguish exploration from flight. Such a difference has clearly existed for over 50 years, but I don't think Wikipedia is crying out for such a categorical distinction. I don't believe in its practical utility. Furthermore, while satellites like those in the Landsat programme were earth-observing, nevertheless they also counted as space exploration in the sense that they were early exercises in the discovery of space as an operating environment. Also, some missions have combined scientific and military objectives, so overlap can occur. — O'Dea 22:27, 16 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. The entire category is suspect, as the header indicates at least some of these have been "validated" as divine. But there's no move to delete, and the rename hasn't taken hold either.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Divine apparitions to Category:Theophanies

Nominator's rationale: Rename? Theophany is the main article and divine apparition redirects there. Do we want to use the term "Theophanies" or are we happy with the current name? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- My initial reaction was that Theophany belonged only to the Judaeo-Christian tradition, but i see that the main article covers Hinduism too. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Theophany can also refer to the feast day of Epiphany, so the current name seems clearer and less ambiguous. Cjc13 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmmm Two problems here: first, most of the category entries were just flat out wrong (most had to do with the RC devotion of Divine Mercy). Second, theophany itself needs to be split between the EO term and the general concept, and the EO content needs to go over to Epiphany (holiday). At present we're left with just three entries, of which theophany isn't really a proper member either. It looks to me as though nobody really wants to use this category, as for instance the avatars of Vishnu could go here and any number of other incidents. Also, a look at the history of Category:Visions shows that it has been deleted three years ago (see here) which suggests a reluctance to use these categories. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming. "Theophany" is not exactly a common term, and it meant nothing to me until I saw the explanation here. Wikipedia is written for a general audience rather than for specialists, so I don't think it is helpful to readers to use an obscure term for a category name when a Plain English one is available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nom). I think I tend to be more in agreement with those who have opposed this. However, I'm not withdrawing this in case someone else has something to say. I could accept either name, so best to assume here that as nominator I am neutral. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 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. I made sure the alcohol-related ones got into that category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British politicians convicted of driving offences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as a trivial intersection per WP:OCTrivial. There is no evidence of a connection between being a politician and having committed a driving offence, and there is no general Category:People convicted of driving offences. I do not think that is appropriate in general to categorise people by summary offences (and most driving offences are summary), because it is rare that the commission of a summary offence will be a defining characteristic of a person. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I tend to agree with the nomination, but just to point out, there are the more specific categories of Category:People convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses and Category:Politicians convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses that do exist. So if the people listed in this category were convicted of an alcohol-related offence then they could be merged into the former. I'm assuming that a driving offence is classed as an "crime" in Britain, in which case all can be merged into the wider parent category of Category:British politicians convicted of crimes (of which there are other national variants). Zangar (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two grades of crime in the England&Wales: summary offences and indictable offences (with some being either way). While summary offences are technically crimes, that they are not all commonly viewed in that way, and I don't think that is appropriate to lump them together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wondering that might be the case. So I think delete this category per nom and merge any alcohol-related offence politicians into Category:Politicians convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses. Zangar (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I created this category as there were editors insisting certain politicians (eg Harriet Harman) should be placed in Category:British politicians convicted of crimes for their summary driving offences. This created an overbroad category IMO ruining the usefulness of the category (which would fill up with driving offences). Creating this category was my attempt at a compromise, unsuccessful in the case of Harriet Harman. If a view was taken that summary offences should not be in Category:British politicians convicted of crimes, as BrownHairedGirl seems to be suggesting, and that is implemented, this category would not be needed anyway. Rwendland (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after some one has verified that contents do not include those convicted or serious driving offences, ones that regularly lead to imprisonment; not only alcohol related ones, but causing death by dangerous driving. Being caught speeding; using a mobile phone; with defective lights; etc are reprehensible, but not defining. Now Ms Harman's offence is out of the news, they need for the category disappears. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A particularly non-defining and trivial characteristic. More serious offences would be caught by the existing category scheme. __meco (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have long believed that these categories for people convicted of summary-type offences (like alcohol and driving offences) should be deleted because they are almost never defining characteristics of people. If they were imprisoned, they can go in the prisoner categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem was that there were at least 7 politicians with summary-type offences in Category:British politicians convicted of crimes, which in some cases editors insisted stay there. Creating this category was an attempt to compromise at moving some summary offences out of such a defining category. If/when this category is deleted we will still have the underlying issue to deal with somehow - perhaps by noting in the intro of Category:British politicians convicted of crimes that only indictable offence convictions are recorded in that category? Rwendland (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Good idea. It may also be appropriate to rename Category:British politicians convicted of crimes to clarify the restriction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nom makes a good argument, even though I created this category (see my comments above for reason). Rwendland (talk) 10:24, 14 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. Ruslik_Zero 15:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalle: For clarity - the people in these categories are from the Democratic-Republican party, not from the "Kentucky (or any other state) Democratic-Republican" party. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that this is probably clearer. However, the reason these were named as they were was to follow the pattern that was initially adopted for categories like Category:Kentucky Republicans and Category:Kentucky Democrats. Now most of the subcategories of Category:American politicians by state and party use the "STATE PARTYMEMBERs" format. Are they all going to be nominated for changing? If not, I wonder why these need to be changed but not the others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this discussion be closed as rename, I do intend to procede with other parties. It's just that when you have a mass-nomination, the details in a sub-section of it is likely to go unaddressed; for that reason, I think that each party should get a separate discussion here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• do not change These categories follow the naming pattern used for every other party for every other U.S. state. And politiical parties in the US are local, state-based. States (and their counties) conduct the elections, not some national entity. One does not actually belong to a national party; citizens register to vote in the context of state parties. Hmains (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I agree that this is the way to go with these, for clarity's sake if nothing else. (But only if the categories for other parties are nominated, as discussed above. Otherwise we are just creating inconsistencies in the category tree.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Object to the less clear naming. If this carries throughout the tree, we end up with Barney Frank belonging in Category:Democrats from New Jersey (where he was born and raised, i.e. "from"). He never held office there, and I don't know if he even ever voted there. He is known as a Massachusetts Democrat, and that is an appropriate category. "From" is just too non-specific to work effectively. If someone has held office from a particular party in more than one state, then they would belong in multiple categories. The current names may not be the best option, but they are better than the proposed renames. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:21, 23 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: Reverse merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Computer file systems to Category:File systems

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. Main article is File systems and is fairly unambiguous. Pnm (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• reverse merge "Computer file systems" has been around since 2004. "File systems" is much newer and should be removed as the newer almost unpopulated version. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merge: Neutral on which one we keep and which we get rid of. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. When I hear the word 'file' I think of the paper version. 'Computer' needs to be in there to avoid any ambiguity. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: (1) I think age is not a good argument for which name is preferable. (2) At least in American English, systems for paper files are usually called filing systems, not file systems. --Pnm (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a US/UK usage thing again, but I work with files - both paper files and computer files. If we have a category the name should be as unambiguos as possible. Keeping computer in the name makes it crystal clear that it has nothing to do with a paper based system. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: It appears that the result may very well be reverse merge. As the target category in the nomination had not been tagged, I think that relisting here is necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Reverse merge -- It may be necessary to have a separate "filing systems" to deal with hard copy filing. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 10 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. This category now has the parent Category:Official residences in the United Kingdom. It's possible further splitting may be needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government Houses of the British Empire and Commonwealth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not sure what the point of this category is - there's already an official residences tree at Category:Official residences, particularly the "by country" subcat. The entries in this cat mostly seem to be also classified in the official residences cat, so the nominated cat seems to be just a parallel cat. Anyone who really wants a "Government residences in the Commonwealth" type cat can just put one together by parent catting Category:Official residences in Australia, Category:Official residences in Canada, etc etc for every Commonwealth or former Commonwealth country.

Not all of the residences are called "Government House" either, so at a very minimum the name of the category is incorrect. Miracle Pen (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- According to Government Houses of the British Empire and Commonwealth, there are in fact quite a lot of them, though not all appear to have articles. Most are called "Government House", though not all. It may be that the present category should be pruned of entries for Canada and Australia, whose Government Houses should only be in subcategories - though to this category. However, those in colonies and former colonies certainly belong here. This is accordingly a legitimate category. If a few have official residences of governors have (or had) other names, does it matter? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My main point is that the category is setting up a parallel (ie. redundant) system of categorisation when we already have the Category:Official residences hierarchy. A better solution is just to recat the Category:Government Houses of the British Empire and Commonwealth entries into Category:Official residences by country, if they aren't already. If you really, really want a "British Empire" official residences cat, then you can just form that by putting Category:Official residences in Canada, Australia, etc as subcats of the British Empire category. Miracle Pen (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Query How do these categories distinguish historic GHs and current GH's if at all? If not should they? Rich Farmbrough, 13:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • Comment Some of the articles are titled "Old Government House" (because that really is the name of those buildings), it's probably safe to assume they're former rather than current residences. There's only a few articles like that, though. To solve the problem properly, I guess parallel category trees will be needed, probably something like Category:Current official residences in Elbonia and Category:Former official residences in Elbonia. Miracle Pen (talk) 15:11, 14 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mercury to Category:Mercury (planet)

Nominator's rationale: There are 2 primary meanings of mercury, the planet and the element. Georgia guy (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but re-create the subject as a dab-category. There is actually a third meaning - the original Mercury was a Roman god; if anything that is the primary meaning, albeit obscure today. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but retain as a disambiguation page per Peterkingiron. __meco (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article and eliminate ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 02:19, 14 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:Commonwealth Government agencies of Australia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Government entities of Australia to Category:Commonwealth Government entities of Australia Category:Commonwealth Government agencies of Australia

Nominator's rationale: Rename to free up the "Government entities" category as a parent cat for government entity categories of all Australian goverments: Category:New South Wales government agencies, Category:Queensland government agencies, Category:Government agencies of Western Australia, etc. Miracle Pen (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but re-create the subject as a parent category to it and the state government categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Er, yes, that's what I said. Miracle Pen (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dan arndt (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Orderinchaos 03:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SatuSuro 14:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• support no bainer with federal/cmmonwealth, state and LGA, also Category:Government agencies of Western Australia should be renmaed to Category:Western Australian government agenices Gnangarra 08:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The passive-sounding form is customary for categories. The other six agency cats are like that, at any rate. I'll get them changed as well. Miracle Pen (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target for uniformity with the other cats in Category:Government agencies of Australia. Just did some reorganisation in Category:Government agencies of Australia, so now recreating Category:Government entities of Australia after deletion won't be necessary. Miracle Pen (talk) 08:00, 16 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 both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National Register of Historic Places in Fort Wayne to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Fort Wayne, Indiana

Nominator's rationale: Name of state should be attached to category. DanTD (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National Register of Historic Places in Evansville to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Evansville, Indiana

Nominator's rationale: Name of state should be attached to category. DanTD (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match full name of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have combined these since they raise the same issue Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both renames -- Standard format for US places is to include the name of the state. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for combinging the two. If I had found the one for Fort Wayne at the same time as Evansville, I might've done it myself. ----DanTD (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom This will mean all the children of Category:National Register of Historic Places by city will have the same naming pattern Hmains (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Both Per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 15 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:Road interchanges.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Named interchanges to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm very unsure what to make of this category. One would surmise that any interchange which warrants a Wikipedia article has been given a name, and looking at the sub-categories within this category, that seems to have been taken for granted. meco (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest rename to Category:Road interchanges as the root phrase of most category names. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Road interchanges. There are other sorts of interchange (eg rail, bus/train etc); and it is a little difficult to see how would produce an article on an unnamed interchange. ('Named' should be dropped from various subcats too.) Occuli (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Named road interchanges to match several subcategories. "Named" is useful to exclude those that are numbered or are merely the intersection between two numbered roads. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look at the articles you'll see that most of the names are descriptive or are nicknames. In general, however identified they are notable because of notorious complexity, volume, or hazard; it isn't naming per se that makes them notable, but their notability that leads to their being named. The only subgroup that are formally named are the traffic circles/roundabouts, which do not need the "named" qualifier either. Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It looks like the naming of the subcat is because it exists under Category:Road junction types which are not specific intersections. The issue here might not just be renaming the cat, but moving it to the correct heirarchy, but moving it up to Category:Road junctions. Of course, maybe these should be loose instead of in a sub-cat.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 15 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) 18:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Punches to Category:Punches (combat)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose disambiguating to match Punch (combat). There are a number of other possible meanings of punches, including a pluralization of punch (drink), punch (tool), or punch (numismatics) ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, despite his scandalous and unforgivable omission of Mr Punch from the list of other uses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puppets frighten me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 18 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 to delete. However, as those in favour of deletion pointed out, these terms are highly context-specific and may mean a great variety of things depending on the place and historical period being referred to. They can also be used as attack labels. For these reasons, these categories must be applied to articles and other categories with extreme care. They should not be applied to articles about people, and especially not to those of living people. As one participant noted, these categories are best used to categorize articles and subcategories about ideas, not articles and subcategories about people or organisations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Traditional left-right spectrum is quite controversial and a bit dated. Category:Political theories is suitable as parent category, instead of categorizing different ideologies as left wing or right wing. Say for example, Category:Capitalism is included within this category, which is both controversial and inaccurate. Neptune 123 (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Left-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Traditional left-right spectrum is quite controversial and a bit dated. Category:Political theories is suitable as parent category, instead of categorizing different ideologies as left wing or right wing. Neptune 123 (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• this isn't a rationale. If we started deleting categories because they were about something "controversial", I think we could save time by just abolishing the categorization system altogether an be done. --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this isn't a rationale". Huh. Political spectrum is a way of modeling different political positions, when there are so many multi-axis models, why create categories on a two-dimensional model? Again, Category:Capitalism as Right-wing politics is inaccurate. --Neptune 123 (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- In my country (England), left and right wing in politics are still live terms. The capitalist/communist conflict is behind up, but the conservative/socialist divide is still with us. We deleted the designation of people as Conservative/liberal, save as party labels, because a person who is a liberal one one issue may be conservative on another. However the issues still exist, even if our nom does not like them. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what is right and left is locality dependent. What is right in one region is left in another and vice versa. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Categories both have main articles and an established set of proper subcategories. Saying there is no left or right is a politicial position (POV) and WP is not bound to honor or advance that political position. Hmains (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying there is left and right is also POV, and there is no universal definition of left and right. Anyway as 65.94.71.179 suggested, what constitutes left and right depends on regional culture. For example what is known as left in Pakistan may be viewed as right in the UK. --Neptune 123 (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while useful in a local context, the terms "left wing" and "right wing" are pretty much meaningless on their own outside this context and certainly not useful for categorisation purposes. It is little different than categorising animals as Category:Big animals and Category:Little animals. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The concepts of left- and right-wing politics are too loose and flexible for the categorisation of individuals, but the concepts goes back to the French Revolution, and provide one way of grouping some articles on political theory. They should not be used for the categorisation of individuals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These terms are simply obfuscatory and go counter to the encyclopedic effort of promulgating understanding and insight. They are widely used in tabloid media prose (which regrettably does not limit itself to the tabloid media) and their most prominent application is when derogatorily labeling "the other side", pandering to emotional responses in the reading audience. __meco (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Liberals might not like being categorized with communists, and conservatives might not like being categorized with fascists, but the terms are in common usage and there's nothing especially inaccurate about them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In some places the conservatives are the left wing, like in places where the fascists are in power. And "Liberals" of Australia are a right wing party in Australia. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the Liberal Party of Australia is categorized in Category:Conservative parties in Australia. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These merely emphasises my point that this category should be used as a category of ideas, not a category of political organisations or politicians. If editors don't want to restrict the category in this way, then I will switch to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I see the nomination has been altered to remove the deletion of the right-wing category and so just delete the left-wing category. What is going on here? Hmains (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the result of a well-meaning but wayward edit. I've restored the nomination to its original state. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies for sloppy refactoring. Things have now been restored, which is appreciable! __meco (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In Cuba, the Communists in power are popularly known as right-wing among the Cuba people, and the pro-capitalist reformers are popularly known as left-wing. --Neptune 123 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Readers should look at Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics to find the reality of the WP consensus on use and meaning of these terms. There is nothing there to indicate these are simply POV nor that their purpose is confusion. Hmains (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Whether WP has the appearance of consensus of not (and I don't believe it does), the rest of the world clearly doesn't. Left- and right-wing descriptions are completely context-sensitive: as others have started to point out, they mean vastly different things in different places and times. They are the categorical equivalent of a loaded question: they are highly susceptible to abuse by the writer and misinterpretation by the reader. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:22, 19 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Powerpuff Girls arcade and video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, links only into 4 articles. JJ98 (Talk) 08:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Four is enough. Video games need subcategories, and PPG related material should have organization. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Endurance Riding to Category:Endurance riding

Nominator's rationale: rm caps. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match capitalization of name of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename to correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 10 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cloud Engineering to Category:Cloud engineering

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Cloud Engineering is not a proper name, just a subject or topic. Jojalozzo 04:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can be populated with something more than Cloud engineering. If it can be populated, rename as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is fine also. This cat and the article are a bit puffed up. It was approved through some new articles process so I figured it was ok but I'm fine with it going. Then the article can be categorized under Engineering. Much cleaner. Jojalozzo 16:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happens now? I cannot delete or rename a category. What is the process to get this done? Jojalozzo 03:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination may be closed by an admin after being open for 7 days. Assuming everyone agrees that it should be deleted, the discussion will be closed and the category deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:23, 15 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. The issue about whether the lists are legit needs to be handled at AfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there BLP/privacy issues here? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by default. Incomplete nomination. I find it exceedingly hard to give an informed opinion based on the information provided by nominator. HAve the lists themselves been Afd'd? __meco (talk) 12:54, 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) 18:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football Federation Australia Football Hall of Fame inductees to Category:Football Hall of Fame (Australia) inductees

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is at Football Hall of Fame (Australia) and Football Federation Australia Football Hall of Fame redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Football" is ambiguous in Australia but "Football Federation of Australia" is not. Given the existence of the Australian Football Hall of Fame I am not sure that using "Australia" as a disambiguator is sufficient. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is an issue, I think it needs to be worked out vis-á-vis Australian Football Hall of Fame and Football Hall of Fame (Australia), not with the categories, at least at first. The categories merely follow the lead of the article names since they are proper nouns. (Personally, I don't see a problem since the two have distinct names. But if the names are somewhat problematic, it may simply be a case of two institutions that selected names for themselves that are ambiguous.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably right -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:57, 10 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) 02:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 1#Category:Opposition against islam in Europe → Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 2#Category:Anti-Muslim organizations

Category:Opposition against Islam in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. In addition to the category being gramatically incorrect, this is a BLP-violating POV magnet. IronDuke 01:16, 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. 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) 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As I said at the ongoing discussion, the existing Category:Anti-Islam sentiment might call for regional divisions, but this entire category tree is redundant, and PA's contention that "anti-Islam sentiment" and "opposition to Islam" are distinct things is silly. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Best handled with an article. Categories are yay or nay with no room for discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no BLP concerns with this category (actually I cannot even conceive of what they would be) and as with any category related to a contentious issue, sure there will be NPOV issues, which we as a community deal with as a matter of course all the time. Alas, I see no problem in that regard either. I will also mention that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 1#Category:Opposition against islam in Europe was closed as default keeo (no consensus), although the nomination rationale was completely different in that CfD. __meco (talk) 13:07, 14 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: administative close: it looks like this was speedied. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:King of Italy (1861-1946) to Category:Kings of Italy (1861–1946)

Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at speedy CfD, I am bringing this to a proper CfD —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – this is a speedy (unlike the attempted speedy). Occuli (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename, the reason I thought this should be brought to full CFD is that the nominator had proposed renaming this to Category:Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946). But if this is the proposal it can be done speedily. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• REname but recreate present version as a category redirect, as I think is usual for em-dash categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per Good Ol’factory, and create category redirect per Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 10 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.