< January 12	January 14 >

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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Modern American anti-submarine rockets and missiles to Category:Anti-submarine rockets and missiles of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Establishing "X of Y" naming which is standard and is used by the only other existing subcat of Category:Anti-submarine rockets and missiles. Also, "Modern" qualifier creates a rather small category with little chance for expansion and nebulous inclusion criteria (what is "modern"?). Should be for all American ASW rockets/missiles, and this would make it so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Rename per nom. Modern is uselessly vague. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean rename, not merge? :) Since the presumed merge-to category (Category:Anti-submarine rockets and missiles of the United States) doesn't exist yet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing that out. I do indeed mean rename, and have corrected my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- "modern" is redundant since there is no corresponding ancient category (nor is one likely, whereever one draws the line. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 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: merge to Category:Knives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Not likely to be populated. Also Knives are related to cultures not countries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Knives as 'Japanese knives' are definitely knives. Occuli (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Occuli. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 20 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New South Wales Country Origin team players to Category:New South Wales Country rugby league team players

Propose renaming Category:New South Wales City Origin team players to Category:New South Wales City rugby league team players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This move will bring the two categories in line with the article pages and other similar categories. Mattlore (talk) 19:30, 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: administrative close: already done by category creator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shot blasting to Category:Abrasive blasting

Nominator's rationale: To move the category name to the same as the article name (Abrasive blasting). This name is also more inclusive. Also see User_talk:Andy_Dingley#category:shot_blasting. Wizard191 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename - sorry, just wasn't thinking when I created this alongside category:shot peening Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support when I saw it I immediately thought of firearms shot blasting, then of shotcrete blasts... 65.93.14.196 (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW I've created the new cat, ((db-u1))'ed the old. Seems no sense in waiting any longer. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 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: Procedural close. Nominator agreed to withdraw so that category could be emptied and tagged for C1. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Article for artist doesn't exist. The album is a small section in an article for a video game series. Categorization by artist here is unnecessary. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the single article isn't an album; the album referred to within the article was not recorded by Chikayo Fukuda so it is not a 'Chikayo Fukuda album'; and CF has no article. Is some ill-directed script producing these random categories? (I see again that its text is generated entirely by the mysterious ((Albums category)).) Occuli (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no reason for this to slog through CFD. Completely uncontroversial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no objection, I will withdraw my nomination to allow for speedy deletion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:05, 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: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sunday Best albums to Category:Sunday Best (music company) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest matching to article Sunday Best (music company). Sunday Best can also refer to a TV programme (or a song), so confusion is possible. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 15:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – and then the mysterious template which provides the entire text will link to the correct page. Occuli (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, what a bonus! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Malvern to Category:Malvern, Worcestershire

Propose renaming Category:People associated with Malvern to Category:People associated with Malvern, Worcestershire

Propose renaming Category:People from Malvern to Category:People from Malvern, Worcestershire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Malvern, Worcestershire; Malvern is ambiguous. Tassedethe (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Consider a disamb cat or 2 as there is Category:People from Malvern, Arkansas (but not Category:Malvern, Arkansas). Occuli (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I oppose renaming articles on English places, whose name has been used elsewhere, but it is necessary to dab categories to prevent articles on non-English places being added in error. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 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: self close; deleted by category creator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm reasonably sure we don't want or need a category for albums that were originally released on Mr. Bear Records but then reissued on Spigot Records. I would suggest breaking this into two categories, but do not have articles for Mr. Bear Records or Spigot Records. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:36, 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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Thorne to Category:Thorne, South Yorkshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Thorne to Category:People from Thorne, South Yorkshire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article; Thorne is ambiguous. Tassedethe (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. Occuli (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Maldon to Category:Maldon (district)

Propose renaming Category:Politics of Maldon to Category:Politics of Maldon (district)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, Maldon is ambiguous. Tassedethe (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom (I was the creator of Category:Politics of Maldon). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. Occuli (talk) 11:41, 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: Merge. Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bootsy's Rubber Band albums to Category:Bootsy Collins albums

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There's a large amount of duplication here. Bootsy's Rubber Band redirects to Bootsy Collins, so I just suggest we keep the older target category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every article in Category:Bootsy's Rubber Band albums is already in Category:Bootsy Collins albums. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and add a soft redirect. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:58, 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: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The records label is actually "Happy Face Records, but on WP that just redirects to Diamond Head (band), which set up their own label. My understanding is that if the label doesn't have a WP article, we don't categorize albums by that label. If kept, it needs to be Category:Happy Face Records albums. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get clarification on that? User:Rich Farmbrough created a ton of these albums by record label categories, and many of the labels don't have articles. I started removing them out of process because of that, and then I agreed to go through some of the ones created because I kept finding errors. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not 100% sure if it's been settled this way in the past, which is why I have brought it here. I know we routinely delete categories for albums by redlinked producers, so it would be consistent to do so with redlinked labels. I agree with that approach, at least. If it's not notable enough to have an article I don't see why we would want a category for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I would distinguish between producers/labels/songwriters who have no article but could/should have one, and those for whom an article would be wholly excessive, and this seems to be the case here. Occuli (talk) 11:47, 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; may use WP:CFDS for ones like this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Freedom of the press per country to Category:Freedom of the press by country

Nominator's rationale: To follow convention and better grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

Rename/Agreed I created the category but I was not aware of the convention and since English is not my first language I was not sure what was the best grammar. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, creator, grammar. Uncontroversial. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom. (C2B, I think?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 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 as a redirect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category was nominated for speedy deletion by another editor. This was declined. I suggest this redirect is not necessary. meco (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this has been left as a redirect as an attempt to avoid cfd following the article move from Punjab (Pakistan) to Punjab, Pakistan (see eg this diff). The 'rename' seems perfectly reasonable (and various subcats should be renamed too), as does this delete. ~~I would also say that Category:Punjab should be a disamb category (as Punjab is a disamb page).~~ [Category:Punjab groups both together.] Occuli (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover we have Category:Punjab (India) but the article is now Punjab, India. Occuli (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This redirect is a valid search term. I disagree that Category:Punjab should be a dab-category. Historically the Punjab was one province and earlier one kingdom. It is thus appropraiate to retain this category, which is well-populated, though it is possible that some of the articles need to be recategorised into daughter categories for its current divisions. If there is an inconsistency, it is that Category:Punjab (India) is not Category:Punjab, India. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 1 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, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: I suggest we ignore the distracting issue of what to do with Category:Punjab for now and just decide the core issue of the nomination: is this category redirect is to be kept or not? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect. It does no harm, and may be useful in some cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a plausible redirect. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a category redirect or rename Category:Punjab, Pakistan to this name and make that the redirect, to match the Indian category. We certainly need one of these as a category redirect to the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 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; only one comment asking for more information after two weeks.. Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Geologic provinces of California to Category:Geomorphic provinces of California

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The introduction points to Geography of California as the source of information. That article claims there are 11 and not 12 provinces as stated in the category and that they are geomorphic provinces. In any case neither of of those numbers seems to be mappable to the contents of this category. So while this is proposed as a rename, I suspect that some cleanup is called for here. A delete is also a possibility since I suspect that the current contents are not appropriate for inclusion since their reason for inclusion here is not mentioned in the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 2 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, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, perhaps needs editors' clarifications/consensus on whether cat. is for Geologic province focused articles, or broader Geomorphology inclusiveness with additional factors. If USGS/geology criteria is used perhaps current name is more accurate? Are other factors already in Cat:Landforms, Cat:Drainage Basins, etc? Not my expertise area, and will listen now. — Look2See1 t a l k → 20:56, 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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ely to Category:Ely, Cambridgeshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Ely to Category:People from Ely, Cambridgeshire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article Ely, Cambridgeshire as Ely is ambiguous. Tassedethe (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match head article and to disambiguate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 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 all. Note that all the place names are ambiguous, and nearly all of them the page with the name of the place name is a disambiguation (the only exception is March, where the page with that title is about the month). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Eton to Category:People from Eton, Berkshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Ascot to Category:People from Ascot, Berkshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Crook to Category:People from Crook, County Durham

Propose renaming Category:People from Holt to Category:People from Holt, Norfolk

Propose renaming Category:People from Kingswood to Category:People from Kingswood, South Gloucestershire

Propose renaming Category:People from Prestbury to Category:People from Prestbury, Gloucestershire

Propose renaming Category:People from Coleford to Category:People from Coleford, Gloucestershire

Propose renaming Category:People from Olney to Category:People from Olney, Buckinghamshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Winslow to Category:People from Winslow, Buckinghamshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Marlow to Category:People from Marlow, Buckinghamshire

Propose renaming Category:People from St Ives to Category:People from St Ives, Cornwall

Propose renaming Category:People from March to Category:People from March, Cambridgeshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Malpas to Category:People from Malpas, Cheshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Penryn to Category:People from Penryn, Cornwall

Propose renaming Category:People from Callington to Category:People from Callington, Cornwall

Propose renaming Category:People from Alston to Category:People from Alston, Cumbria

Propose renaming Category:People from Keswick to Category:People from Keswick, Cumbria

Propose renaming Category:People from Kington to Category:People from Kington, Herefordshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Reepham to Category:People from Reepham, Norfolk

Propose renaming Category:People from Morpeth to Category:People from Morpeth, Northumberland

Propose renaming Category:People from Wallingford to Category:People from Wallingford, Oxfordshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Watlington to Category:People from Watlington, Oxfordshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Dorchester to Category:People from Dorchester, Dorset

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All the same these; to match the main article as the name is ambiguous. Tassedethe (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom to match main article and to dsiambiguate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but a few (including Holt, St Ives, and Dorchester) may need recreating as dab categories; not sure how many more. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support only if ambiguity exists, but I don't see it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Comment. There are several existing disambiguated categories: Category:People from Prestbury, Cheshire, Category:People from St Ives, Cambridgeshire, Category:People from Wallingford, Connecticut. There are also categories for various counties, e.g. Category:People from Dorchester County, South Carolina. Not sure that they are ambiguous enough but if they are then that would mean dab categories for the Holt, Crook and Dorchester pages.

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.

January 13

Category:Modern American anti-submarine rockets and missiles

Category:Knives by country

New South Wales Country Origin team players

Category:Shot blasting

Category:Chikayo Fukuda albums

Category:Sunday Best albums

Malvern

Category:Mr. Bear Records, reissued on Spigot Records albums

Thorne

Category:Maldon

Category:Bootsy's Rubber Band albums

Category:Happy Face albums

Category:Freedom of the press per country

Category:Punjab (Pakistan)

Category:Geologic provinces of California

Ely

People from