< January 21	January 23 >

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim American film directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorizing, this is a non-notable intersection of religion and occupation. Karppinen (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable triple intersection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
• Delete, not at all clear how this would be a defining intersection. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 25 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) 22:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:American politicians by religion
• Category:American atheist politicians
• Category:American Catholic politicians
• Category:American Roman Catholic politicians
• Category:Muslim American politicians

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Politicians by religion and most of its subcategories were discussed and deleted in 2007, and Category:Atheist and agnostic heads of government was deleted in last year. I see no reason for these categories to be kept. Karppinen (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and restore the deleted parent. A person's religion is likely to be fundamental to his political attitude. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Consider that bishops feel compelled to refuse the eucharist to pro-choice Catholic politicians, or overwhelmingly Mormon-dominated city councils approve benefits for same-sex domestic partners, and no one can seriously say that a person's religious affiliation, even if an active practitioner of it, has any predictive value in American politics.- choster (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Most have already been deleted; I see no reason to retain these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 31 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) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hawaii articles needing expansion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is the only topic-specific subcategory of Category:Articles to be expanded. I see no reason why Hawaii should get its own "expand" category when no one else does. Either upmerge or delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Posted a notice on the WikiProject Hawaii page. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not an article-space category. It's a project-space maintenance category of WikiProject Hawaii; it's a sub-sub-cat of WikiProject Hawaii articles, applied (quite properly)to talk pages. The only reason to delete it would be if WikiProject Hawaii no longer found its useful, and I see no suggestion that is the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Category is a handy tool for keeping track of these articles and for keeping the project editors' focus on needs. Why does nobody else get his own expand category? Is it expressly disallowed or is there an available superior organizational tool? –Newportm (talk • contribs) 07:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think I see what the OP means though - for some reason it shows up under here, which is a hidden category. I assume it's automatic due to the way the template is created? I don't see that it would be a problem for it only to show up as a subcategory of Category:Hawaii articles needing attention (frankly I don't see it as a big problem as it is, but whatever). In any case, it certainly shouldn't be deleted. After all, it's more useful than 99% of the categories that are out there. KarlM (talk) 06:45, 24 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Documentary films critical of Islam to Category:Documentary films about Islam.

Rationale: Both categories are basically the same thing. Yes, some are more critical then others, but where do we draw the line? Is it critical if questions are asked about the religion? Perhaps, but it seems all too subjective to me. Besides, it's not like hundreds of articles have been written about Islamic documentaries. I propose to merge the category into the parent category Category:Documentary films about Islam. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. When The Moors Ruled In Europe would be misrepresented to call it critical - the issue arises of what to do with the category Category:Criticism of Islam already used in the sub-cat - it can't really be applied to the main category. Similarly to call Islam: Empire of Faith a film critical of Islam is incorrect.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- There will also be films supportive of Islam (even propagandist for it) and those that are neutral. This is accordingly better kept as a subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hugely POV and subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bombardier (aerospace) to Category:Bombardier Aerospace

Nominator's rationale: Renamed as per commonly used company division name, see Bombardier Aerospace Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename To match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bombardier (rail vehicles) to Category:Bombardier Transportation

Nominator's rationale: Use standard and commonly used company division name, also allows the category to then contain other non-rail transportation products, eg Category:Bombardier people movers and List of Bombardier Transportation products Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but keep parent: Support rename. Since 90%+ of this division is rail though, it should remain under Category:Rail vehicle manufacturers though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename To match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 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: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stamford A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is serving only as a parent for Category:Stamford A.F.C. players, which already has a valid parent category. The only article that could possibly be included in the category is the main article, Stamford A.F.C., but this is not enough for the category to be considered worth maintaining. – PeeJay 17:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 17:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:57, 22 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: Relisted, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 2. Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Timelines in comics with Category:Comics in-story histories.

Rationale: Both categories are small. I took the liberty of moving the last three entries from "in-story histories" to "timelines" where they were a better fit, making one category empty. The distinction isn't strong enough to warrant two categories for these few articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Functionally an "in story history" covers more than just a timeline, so it seems wrong to move, or force, articles that fall outside "just a timeline" to the narrower category.
  There is also an issue of whether the articles are in story ot not. The 3 article currently in Comics in-story histories are trying hard to present the real world history of the characters, not just a plot dump detailing their in-story "biography". The should be in a different category at this point.
  The timeline category also contains mostly chonology based lists presented in a real world context (the lone exception is currently up for AFD). It likely shouldn't have been subbed to Comics in-story histories. - J Greb (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just not seeing a compelling reason to have two categories for less than 10 articles. There has to be a better way to organize these. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The long and the short of it? It's miscategorization.
      At this point it would likely be best to inter-link the 3 pub history artices at "See also", de-parent Timelines in comics, and deep six Comics in-story histories. Especially since the premise for histories - the in-story toned bios - is a no-go by recent AfDs. - J Greb (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support that as an alternative to merging the categories. We definitely have a consensus that the current state of affairs doesn't make sense. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:55, 31 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 in an attempt to stop the soap opera. User:Laurel Lodged has been blocked for 31 hours for continuing to manually empty categories. This topic has been raised with the user many times over a number of months now, and the community's patience appears to be wearing thin. The contents of this category are to be fully restored. If any user would like to renew this proposal, that may be done. Any further attempt to empty categories after the block expires may be brought to my attention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Irish Government to Category:Executive Government of the Republic of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: To distinguish it from the Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland which applies all 3 branches of government (judicial, legislature, executive. Also, to distinguish it from governments that may have been in the whole island, not just the republic - Category:Government of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge and delete. Doesn't even need to exist as a separate category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Some category like this is needed, and it does need to be distinguished from previous govts, but the terminology needs more consideration: judicial, legislature, executive are American terms not used in Ireland. More importantly, this category has been extensively depopulated by the nominator, who even removed from it Tánaiste [1] and Taoiseach [2]. I am in the process of repopulating it, and suggest that a procedural close is appropriate: any decision on renaming should be left aside until it has been repopulated.
  Please note that the nominator has for months been engaged in a highly destructive process of recategorisation, most of which has been reversed. I have now asked Laurel Lodged to stop further edits which affect the category namespace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note for "highly destructive process of recategorisation" read "recategorisation with which I happened to disagree". Note also that most of these concerned to creation of categories for Dublin city and the other counties of the Dublin Region. User BHG resisted most of these common sense moves. As a result user BHG enforced block reversions, interim creations until finally relenting and going along with a scema that was almost identical with one that I had myself started. It's clear that most of the squealing on the part of BHG had little to do with sensible categorisations and a lot to do with preciousness and a desire to maintainan old schema of her own design. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Laurel, that's not what happened.

My objection was not to the creation of categories for the 4 local authorities in Dublin; on the contrary, I explicitly supported that. My I objected to: a) your out-of-process depopulation of dozens of sub-categories of Category:County Dublin, which should have been retained as parent categories for the local authority categories, and which I have restored; and b) your adoption of names for the new categories which did not match either the official names of the new areas or their common usage.

The correct names for the new sub0cats have been upheld at CFD; if you want to propose the deletion of Category:County Dublin and its sub-cats, do so at CFD. That's what you should have done in the first place; instead you unilaterally emptied them, and tagged them for speedy deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The government of Ireland categories need a good debate on the category tree structure. This could have been done by initiating a discussion on the wikiproject ireland page. The re-org of these categories has been due for a while. It is most regrettable that a debate has not been started on Wikiproject Ireland about them. Sadly, Laurel Lodged, has chosen this course of action as usual. How disappointing. Snappy (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2 I took the behaviour of BHG as my model for going directly to CFD. In doing the makeover of the Dublin categories, BHG, instead of contributing to the (still) open debate on the Wiki Ireland project, went directly to CFD. I complained about the lack of protocol. BHG in her defense stated (to the effect) that as the Project had been too indecisive and the debate had been going on for many months, that she decided to go directly to CFD, by-passing the Project. What's sauce for BHG is sauce for LL. At least I had the good grace to notify the Project, which is more than BHG did at the time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, are you still going on about the Dublin categories? You lost that argument, get over it already. Snappy (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel says I didn't notify the WikiProject, which is demonstrably untrue. I nonminated a bunch of categories at CFD Dec 8, and notified WT:IE here and here. Before nominating the Dublin (city) categories, I launched a discussion at WT:IE here, and notified the project here when the CFD nom was made.

All of this is still on the on display at WT:IE, unarchived. I don't know what LL is trying to achieve by this effort to mislead CFD, but it is not the conduct of a good faith collaborative editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The nom introduces an unnecessary complication. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to the debate between BHG and Laurel. BHG is an experienced user (and I think an Admin). Her restructureing of the Dublin categories has eben done according to the CFD procedure, by bringing them to a CFD debate. Those who empty categories out of process prevent any one else form participating in the discussion and should be disciplined. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all humility I think that the solution is quite elegant and simple. It is the current state of affairs that is complicated: this proposal seeks to remedy that situation. Clearly more work is necessary in the general area of government, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Re the unseemly spat with users BHG and Snappy, it is not me that starts the personal comments - they are always the first to descend to ad hominem attacks. But I have no difficulty in defending myself robustly. Perhaps I should try harder not to rise to the bait. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should try harder to observe the many warnings you have had from many editors not to depopulate categories out-of-process. When you stop depopulating categories, you will no longer be criticised for doing so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ULEB Eurocup 2010–11 to Category:Eurocup Basketball 2010–11

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:58, 22 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) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ULEB Eurocup to Category:Eurocup Basketball

Propose renaming Category:ULEB Eurocup seasons to Category:Eurocup Basketball seasons

Propose renaming Category:ULEB Eurocup navigational boxes to Category:Eurocup Basketball navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:ULEB Eurocup roster templates to Category:Eurocup Basketball roster templates

Nominator's rationale: The event was renamed to Eurocup Basketball. Thus this is the main article of the categories. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2008 Baton Rouge Pro Tennis Classic to Category:2008 Price LeBlanc Lexus Pro Tennis Classic

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:56, 22 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Islam-related violence in the United States

Rationale: Another attempt at recreating an extinct category.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete as point of view pushing. Too vague. Don't want to see a dozen categories for any violence involving Latinos or Christians or anything else. I don't trust Wikipedians to know when race or religion are relevant/irrelevant in a crime. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vague, and a POV-magnet. "Islam-related violence" is a concept which could cover everything from 9/11 and the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to two men having a fight outside a mosque. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think this is too vague and is POV. --Kumioko (talk) 21:20, 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of Roman Catholicism in Britain to Category:History of Roman Catholicism in Great Britain

Nominator's rationale: Per Britain/Great Britain —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:History of Roman Catholicism in the United Kingdom, which is what "Britain" is usually taken to mean. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom. The alternate proposal is not needed. The History of RC in Ireland is a very different matter to that in Great Britain and splitting it between Eire and the Northern Counties, which would be required, would be fraught with POV problems. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Per Beeswaxcandle, do not rename to United Kingdom, because that would include Northern Ireland. The major Christian Churches in Ireland are all organised on an all-Ireland basis, and their history is distinct from the history of christianity in Great Britain, particularly in the case of Roman Catholicism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom, though it is possible we need separate categories for (1) Englanfd and Wales (2) Scotland. Its hisotry in Northern Ireland is so different that that needs to be ekpt as a quite differnet category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:French wine AOCs to Category:French wine appellations d'origine contrôlée

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, as best as I can figure, without knowing French. If the plural is misplaced, pardon me. If this passes, I will suggest speedy renaming for the subcategories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per common usage. It's more likely that people would recognise AOC than appellations d'origine contrôlée. Also the cat scope says that it includes VDQS type wimes. So "French wine quality categories" might be more appropriate in taking in both regimes of wine quality. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this rename but I've never been 100% thrilled with the plural AOCs either. Common usage is overwhelmingly to refer to a French wine region as an "AOC" rather than the long, original French term which technically isn't 100% correct either. If look at most French wine labels, for example, the d'origine is usually replaced with the name of the region. So the wine from the Crozes-Hermitage AOC would be listed as appelation Crozes-Hermitage contrôlée, etc. We need to keep the common use AOC in the title but I agree we should avoid the plural AOCs. Perhaps Category:French AOC wine regions? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we already had this discussion just over a year ago and the consensus was to leave unchanged. [3] Justinc (talk) 18:01, 24 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) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Twelve apostles to Category:Twelve Apostles

Nominator's rationale: Proper name —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, but whichever form of capitalisation is adopted the other should be a ((category redirect)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; Create redirect if necessary; rename main article to match the present category. Apostle is not a proper name. There are in fact about 24 people so designated in the New Testament. The word means something like "missionary", which is likewise derived from a word meaning "sent". The uniqueness of the 12 is that they were traiend by Jesus. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are correct that "apostle" itself is not a name, but "The Twelve Apostles" is. Similarly, "christ" is a title, but is applied as a name to Jesus/Yeshua. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:36, 24 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Apostle Peter to Category:Saint Peter

Nominator's rationale: Per main article (and add hatnote at the top to dab) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose this is a dab category, so clearly indicates ambiguity. Are you proposing that you yourself will patrol the category all the time to make sure inclusions are correct? 184.144.170.159 (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: While the article may have concluded that this is the Saint Peter, there are multiple saints by that name.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Peter the Apostle, which is a better title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose proposed rename. Replacing the clearly-needed disambiguation category Category:Saint Peter is at best daft and careless, because the the nominator is experienced enough at CFD to know better. It's not just that there are other Saints called Peter; there are also many other uses of the term "Saint Peter": see St. Peter (disambiguation). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match article and primary usage. The other saints called Peter are much lesser known. The places named after him are named St Peters, not Apostle Peter or Peter the Apostle. The disambiguation page indicated above consists of the Apostle Peter category, 2 categories for parishes named after him (one category with 1 member and the other with 3) and a category for the city of St Peters in Missouri (a category with only 1 member). The 2 parish categories should probably have parish in the title to match Category:Saint Peter Parish, Dominica. I do not see these categories as being a reason to stop the proposed rename. Cjc13 (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename as Necrothesp. "Saint" is an honorific and thus inappropriate in an article title. I do not think we need a churches by dedication category; and places called St Peter or St Peters are best dealt with by a list - the usual kind of dabpage. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 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 to Category:Andrew the Apostle.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Andrew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I did some searches and brought the cat up to 5 articles. I did not include include individual churches dedicated to him, although I see we do that for the Virgin Mary. Adding these would expand the cat considerably. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction: I did include one church, but it was based on his relics being hosted there.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – both St Andrew (disambiguation) and St Peter (disambiguation) above are somewhat ambiguous. One would expect the 2 (if kept) to be consistently named (ie both disambiguated, or neither). Occuli (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Andrew the Apostle to avoid ambiguity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Andrew the Apostle per Necrothesp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to match article and primary usage. The other saints called Andrew are much lesser known. The places named after him are named St Andrews, not Andrew the Apostle. Cjc13 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Necrothesp; and the main article too if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 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.