< November 14	November 16 >

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. We have plenty of cause-of-death categories, but we have very few proximity-to-object-while-dying categories. I can't imagine a list surviving, but if anyone wants to make one, check Cydebot's edit log.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People who died on aircraft in mid-flight to Category:Deaths aboard flying aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Current name is somewhat...awkward, to say the least. I'm not 100% satisfied with the proposed name here but it's better than the current one; I'm open to better suggestions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Category:Deaths while flying seems like a reasonable alternative. However I will ask, is this category really needed? Is it defining for any of these individuals? If it is for a few, it will be a maintenance nightmare. I'll add that Category:Deaths by location does not seem like a great parent, and what does this have to do with the history of aviation? If this is kept, can we please create Category:Deaths while driving? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the logic here is that people rarely kick the bucket while passengers on an airliner or such, and thus it's a newsworthy (if not, in fact, notable...ecept maybe BDeceasedP1E?) thing when they do - this might be better suited as a list, but I can see the reasoning behind it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do they kick the bucket more often on planes, trains, buses or cars? Yea, a listify would be a solution. In any case, I think virtually every one of these is covered by BDeceasedP1E. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/listfy per Vegaswikian. Unless the person dying during the flight is the pilot, I don't really understand what the significance of this is. We don't generally categorize people by what they were doing when they died. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify per Vegaswikian. Another one of the difficulties with this category is what goes in: presumably, flights that disintegrate (by bomb or otherwise) in flight have some passengers that died at the end of the flight (although in midair) and some who died on collision (again, the end of the actual flight but not the intended flight), but this category seems to ignore those deaths. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That'd be because the intent of the cat is for "deaths by natural causes while aboard an aircraft" (heart attacks and such), but that would just be a still more awkward title! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify per above, particularly Carlossuarez46. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I'm not even sure I see the point of a list. This is trivia. Pichpich (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if appropriate, but Keep. I saw this is as a very natural counterpart to Category:People who died at sea. Some of them at least would have been sleeping in their cabins and died of heart attacks or whatever, nothing to do with their being at sea per se. So, I don't get that that category is not trivial, but deaths in mid-flight somehow is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point of Category:People who died at sea, either. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral as to renaming, but this category is as valid as any other in Category:Deaths by location. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That reference to Category:Deaths by location is misleading. Of the 16 subcategories, 11 are container categories for country-specific classification. Technically deaths that occurred in Italy and deaths that occurred in a pizzeria are both "categorizing by location" but I think we can all agree that classifying by country is much more meaningful and this is what Category:Deaths by location was created for. (Note that two other categories are almost "by country" supercategories. The three remaining are the in-flight, at-sea and in-space categories. The last one is of a completely different nature as people who died in space are known almost exclusively for dying in space. Pichpich (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that people who died at sea or on aircraft didn't die in any country. Therefore to complete the categorisation scheme these categories are necessary and the reference is not in any way misleading. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Necessary? Again, how is the vehicle someone dies of natural causes in encyclopedic? That's something that might be nice to know, hence a list. But I fail to see this being defining for most people. For some it may be defining, but for most it is WP:BLP1E and not appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What he's trying to say is that, if we categorise people by country of death, "aircraft in flight" and "ships at sea" have to be included to allow for people who are otherwise notable, who would not otherwise be able to be categorised by "country" of death - because no country applies in those cases. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't categorize all people by country of death. Suicides are, and accidental deaths are, and some diseases are, but not garden variety deaths where people just expire. If these are just people dying and they happen to be on an airplane—well, they wouldn't get categorized by place of death if they were on the ground, so ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many people who died of natural causes are categorised by country of death, although it's fairly piecemeal. Don't get me wrong, I don't think these are hugely useful categories, but it is an established categorisation scheme and therefore deleting one and leaving the others would leave an odd gap. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any categories that categorize people by place of death when the person died of natural causes. There are suicide, murder, accidental death, drug-related deaths, and death-by-disease categories by place of death. But none for "natural causes" deaths. You'll have to provide some examples of what you mean. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are diseases not natural causes?! For instance Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths by country, which has basically been used to cover people who died of heart attacks. I suspect you'll find that's the cause of death for most people who died on aircraft! It's one of the commonest causes of death in the world. Hardly "not natural causes". -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the categories are being used to categorize people who die in their old age of what newspapers commonly refer to as "natural causes", the categories are being misused. Dying of cardiovascular disease at age 90 is hardly defining for someone. That would be textbook overcategorization. For the most part, from what I've seen they are not used in that fashion. Besides, this isn't Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths on aircraft in mid-flight or similarly specific, so it's hardly opening up a gap in an established scheme. Not everyone is categorized by place of death. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who die "of old age" actually die of heart failure, not heart attacks, so wouldn't be categorised here, but the fact remains that a heart attack or disease is most certainly a natural cause and many articles are categorised in this way. No, the categories have not been applied consistently, but that's not particularly relevant to this discussion. Are these place of death categories useful? No, not particularly. Should we delete one and not others? No, definitely not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one covers all forms of death, though, so it's not one of a series. We don't categorize all people who died of any cause for any given place, except this one and at sea and in space. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the interesting discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename -- In UK, I think that the death certificate shows "location of death" as "at sea"; this obviously measn aboard a ship (etc). A death aboard an aircraft (in the air ) would be similar. I think the discussion, in getting into causes of death, missed the point. Deaths in air crashes would conveniently become a subcategory. Please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of think it misses the point to suggest that if place of death appears on a birth certificate we categorize by that place of death. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - insufficiently defining, in my view. It is worth noting when a person dies due to a plane which crashes or is destroyed mid-flight, but we already have categories for that: see Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents and its subcats. I don't think we need a category for when a person simply dies on a plane, uncommon though it may be. Additionally, this category raises tricky questions about how it intersects with the 'victims of aviation incidents' one: if someone dies on a plane that was destroyed mid-flight (e.g. David Angell, one of the 9/11 victims, or Pam Lychner, victim of TWA Flight 800), should they be in both? Should Category:Pan Am Flight 103 victims be a subcat of this one? Robofish (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not categorize people by location at time of death, only by where they died. What next Category:People who died while on-board ships, Category:people who died while traveling in a car and my all time favorite Category:People who died while riding in a chariot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The "deaths at sea" argument fails here. We categorize deaths at sea not because they are on ships (people die on ships on Lake Michigan, but they would not be in that category) but because "at sea" is not in any country. When someone dies on a plane flight from Salt Lake City to San Francisco, they clearly died in the United States. Yes we categorize deaths by country, but we do not categorize deaths by viehcle in which the person was at the time of death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what your point is here, since people who died on international flights over the Atlantic, for example, also died in no country. Hence the categories are entirely equivalent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they are not. People who die at sea invariably die outside of a country's territory. That's what "at sea" means. People who die on an airplane are sometimes outside of a country's territory but other times are within a country's territory. So they are not mirror equivalents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So just change the wording rather than being pedantic! Personally, I would dispute that anyone who dies on an aircraft dies in a country anyway unless it's on the ground, but there you go. To be equally pedantic, they might die in a country's airspace, but not in the country. What about people who die "at sea" but within a country's territorial waters? Is that not still at sea? See, we can all be pedants! -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't want to change the wording—I want to delete the category so we don't have to be pedantic. I was just clarifying John's statement for you, since you seemed to think it was irrelevant, but it was actually a good point. As someone mentioned above, "at sea" is usually the designation for "place of death" that is placed on death certificates when someone dies in international waters. If they died in territorial waters, it would not say "at sea" on the death certificate at least. According to most domestic laws, anyone who dies on an aircraft that is registered in a particular country in fact dies within the territory of that country, whether or not it is flying above the country's actual territory, since the aircraft is considered an extension of the country's territory. (The same typically goes for vehicles in outer space.) But no one gets "died on aircraft in mid-flight" put on a death certificate under "place of death". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some one who died on a flight from New York to Las Vegas would clearly die in USA. However, if some one died on a flight from Birmingham to Athens, the death might take place over one of several countries, but none of the transit counties would be likely to assumne jurisdiction over the death: I expect there is an interantional convention on this. Any investigation would probably need to take place in Greece (on landing) or in UK. Death "in flight" thus is as significnat as death at sea, though probably rarer as flights are shorter than voyages. Death on a domestic flight probably does not need a place of death category, but we do need one for those on international flights. The question is what it should be called.
• Suggest relisting Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MEAC Men's Basketball Tournament Venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Over-categorization of articles that have a non-defining characteristic in similarity. The tenuous connection of having hosted the MEAC Tournament is not worth creating a category for, sorry. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:56, 15 November 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. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motorsports Hall of Fame of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This eponymous category contains only the main article and a subcategory for inductees. I suggest it can be deleted as overcategorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Motorsports Hall of Fame of America, and Upmerge Category:Motorsports Hall of Fame of America inductees to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, why? The usual format is to call a category for inductees "HALLOFFAME inductees". See the subcategories of Category:Hall of fame inductees. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, I see that now. In that case, delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Good Ol'factory. Pichpich (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Prisons in New York. Ruslik_Zero 08:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Auburn Correctional Facility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This eponymous category only contains the main article and a subcategory for wardens of the facility. I suggest it is unneeded and constitutes overcategorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why was the creator of the category not notified? Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because he has a watchlist and the category has been tagged, so if it's on his watchlist he has been notified. Plus User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has an interesting way of managing to misinterpret everything I say, so it's best if he only passively gets notified via watchlist. Plus, in a more abstract sense, I tend to get yelled at a lot when I notify users of CFD nominations. The word "spamming" seems to come up a lot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Prisons in New York. Alternatively, the article could become the main article for the wardens category, but would they not be better being listified? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add more to the category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What more could legitimately be added? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As I said before: Upmerge to Category:Prisons in New York. I am not convinced of the value of Category:Wardens of the Auburn Correctional Facility, the only content apart from the main article. This could adequately be linked by a "seealso" template at the head of the list of wardens in the main article. A list in fact exists in the article. On the othe hand, we have Category:Sing Sing prison witrh a subcategory for its wardens. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 17 December 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Schneider et Cie to Category:Schneider Electric

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. The target category is the parent of the nominated category, and the target category is practically empty. Schneider et Cie redirects to Schneider Electric, so it makes sense to just have one category containing all of this stuff. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as proposed to match the main article. Pichpich (talk) 21:47, 16 November 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/split per User:The Bushranger's proposal. I kept the Pluto category as Pluto only, but someone can make a supercategory for dwarf planets that includes the Pluto category if desired. I also kept the asteroids category as asteroids only, but that can be brought up again as a separate discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comet/Asteroid missions to Category:Comet or asteroid missions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not all of these missions visited or will visit comets and asteroids (in fact most did not or will not), so rather than the ambiguous slash, I suggest just using the word "or". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Small Solar System body missions or some such. "Small Solar System body" appears to be the broader term, at least according to that article.- choster (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That option would be fine with me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bushranger's proposal below to split also works for me.- choster (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. I agree the slash has to go, but i'm not sure which of the suggested names is better. I'll ping WP:SPACEFLIGHT for input. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The term "small solar system body" didn't even exist when some of these missions were launched, it should be noted. Suggest Rename to Category:Space missions to comets and asteroids, with the other subcats of Category:Planetary missions being potentially renamed to "Space missions to foo". Should I add them to the nom as such?- The Bushranger _{One ping only}
• Comment what about Category:Minor planet and cometary missions, since SSSB didn't exist when some Kuiper belt missions were created, and asteroids are frequently restricted to non-icy bodies ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.248.23 (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm...that could work. But then we still have some subcats there as "-missions" and others "-spacecraft". I'm leaning strongly torwards proposing renaming all subcats of Category:Planetary missions to Category:Space missions to Foo. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What about simply splitting up the category into separate categories of asteroids & comets? There are examples of some articles which are in multiple categories like Pioneer 11 and Voyager 2, and at least it allows the task at hand to find related missions in a simple fashion. Otherwise, I like the idea of simply "Small Solar System body" as an alternative, but it seems a little too "politically correct" and doesn't seem natural for somebody trying to add categories for new articles that may come up from time to time. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Exactly what missions are these comets and asteroids on? The current naming is far from unambiguous. Yea, I know what is intended, but that is not conveyed by the title. Maybe fixing this issue could lead to a better name for this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• After sleeping on it, and reading Vegas' and Robert's comments above, I've come to the conclusion that Category:Planetary missions is, in fact, a disgusting mess of ambiguity. Not just the "cometary/Mars/solar missions" comment of Vegas', but also that "Mercury spacecraft" could mean Project Mercury, and if we reducio our absurdiums, "Neptune spacecraft", to pick one, could mean "Spacecraft from Neptune"...and even "Planetary missions" itself is ambiguous what with extrasolar planets popping up like dandelions these days.

So, keeping all that in mind, here's my proposal...

• Split:
  • Category:Comet/Asteroid missions to Category:Missions to comets and Category:Missions to minor planets
• Rename:
  • Category:Planetary missions to Category:Missions to the planets or Category:Missions to the planets of the Solar System
  • Category:Jupiter spacecraft to Category:Missions to Jupiter
  • Category:Lunar spacecraft to Category:Missions to the Moon ("the Moon" seems to be accepted as meaning "Earth's Moon" per WP:COMMONNAME)
  • Category:Mars missions to Category:Missions to Mars
  • Category:Mercury spacecraft to Category:Missions to Mercury
  • Category:Pluto spacecraft to Category:Missions to Pluto or Category:Missions to dwarf planets
  • Category:Saturn spacecraft to Category:Missions to Saturn
  • Category:Solar missions to Category:Missions to the Sun or Category:Missions to study the Sun
  • Category:Venus spacecraft to Category:Missions to Venus
  • Category:Neptune spacecraft to Category:Missions to Neptune
  • Category:Uranus spacecraft to Category:Missions to Uranus
• Merge:

**Category:Neptune spacecraft to Category:Missions to Neptune and Uranus

• • Category:Uranus spacecraft to Category:Missions to Neptune and Uranus
  • Category:Pluto spacecraft to Missions to dwarf and minor planets

"Space" might be optional, given that any mission to the planets would, by necessity, be a space mission, of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Given their limited quantity, would it be worth merging Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune into one "Missions to the outer planets" category? Pluto could also be merged into the new minor planets category. I agree that "space" is superfluous, although I would also argue that in the "Space missions to Solar System planets" category, "Solar System" is also superfluous. How about Category:Missions to the planets? Support in principle though. --GW… 20:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "to the planets" is ambigiuous. Which planets? Sol's? Or other stars'? I'd count Jupiter and Saturn seperate, but merging Uranus and Neptune does make a lot of sense. Pluto isn't a minor planet though - it's a dwarf planet. I've modified the above after considering your comments - how does this look?
    • I think that Sol's planets would be accepted as the common usage of "the planets", in the same way that you have justified using "the Moon" to refer to Luna. Besides there are not going to be any missions to other planets in the foreseeable future. I have no problem with keeping Jupiter and Saturn separate, but that still leaves the combined Uranus/Neptune category severely underpopulated. Could we just upmerge it, and possibly the Mercury category as well, into Missions to the planets? With regards to Pluto, I intended to suggest that minor and dwarf planets could be covered together, since they are similar and there are very few missions to the latter. --GW… 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoist on my own petard! ;) But fair enough. I'd prefer, if possible, to keep the individual planets' categories seperate from the parent if possible, but merging Pluto into "dwarf and minor planets" shouldn't be a problem - and simplifies things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, we tend to avoid combining terms in category names. And with something like Neptune and Uranus that would mean that the probe went to both. So neither Uranus orbiter and probe or Neptune Orbiter could be in the combined category. Clearly Neptune and Uranus should not be merged. It may also make sense not to merge Pluto. However, not being up on the space classifications, would Category:Missions to Kuiper belt objects work for Pluto? Not sure that makes sense, given Pluto's history. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmmm...good point. Re-separating those two then. As for Pluto...KBOs could work, but it might be better to have "dwarf and minor planets" perhaps (WP:IAR?) for that as there's KBOs, Trans-Neptunian Objects, the Oort Cloud...
• Comment proposed Category:Missions to dwarf and minor planets does not make sense because all dwarf planets are minor planets. Ruslik_Zero 18:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they are not. Dwarf planet is distinct from Minor planet - in fact, the former is even hatnoted "Not to be confused with" the latter, and the latter "not to be confused with" the former. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then don't we confuse them by including these in a dual topic category? What is gained by doing that. These are notable enough individually so that OC#SMALL should not be an issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough - modified the Master List above again to fit that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every dwarf planet has a minor planet number: Ceres is the number 1. You can read this in the Minor planet article: A minor planet is an astronomical object in direct orbit around the Sun that is neither a dominant planet nor a comet, and thus includes the dwarf planets. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but even so the distinction is otherwise...er...distinct. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposal by The Bushranger. While I have reservations about dropping space and spacecraft, I think that the basic cleanup is a good step. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 22 November 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/delete as nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:International Circus Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename Category:International Circus Hall of Fame inductees to Category:Circus Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Delete/rename. The article is at Circus Hall of Fame. The eponymous category contains only the main article and the inductees subcategory, so it can be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Members of the International Circus Hall of Fame. Once someone has been inducted they are a member, not an inductee. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Inductee" is used by subcategories of Category:Hall of fame inductees, not "members". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 23 November 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 as nominated. Note that this isn't support for this patern; it's only to make these categories match the existing patern of relateed categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Robot Hall of Fame to Category:Robot Hall of Fame inductees

Propose renaming Category:National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame to Category:National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame inductees

Propose renaming Category:Billiard Congress of America Hall of Fame to Category:Billiard Congress of America Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are categories for inductees to the halls of fame, not categories collecting things about the institutions themselves. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Members of the Foo Hall of Fame. Once someone has been inducted they are a member, not an inductee. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Inductee" is used by subcategories of Category:Hall of fame inductees, not "members". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as suggested, but only for consistency with other subcats of Category:Hall of fame inductees, rather than per nom, whose rationale is technically incorrect. Virtually every "Foo Hall of Fame inductees" category does in fact contain at very least the corresponding "Foo Hall of Fame" article, and sometimes another non-bio article or two, so they are all actually categories about the institutions themselves, not just inductees. That said, the vast majority of uses of the categories is for such bio articles, so it arguably makes more sense to keep the "...inductees" de facto naming convention and make this one conform, rather than rename all of them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never suggested an inductees category could not contain an article about the hall of fame itself. But if the vast majority of articles are about inductees, the category is not "about" the institution just because it might contain one or two articles about the institution. You have to look at what the dominant purpose of the category is, which is to group inductees, not to categorize things about the hall of fame. Merely being an inductee into a hall of fame doesn't make that bio article "about" the hall of fame. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 23 November 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 all. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Davy Medal to Category:Davy Medal recipients

Propose renaming Category:Perkin Medal to Category:Perkin Medal recipients

Propose renaming Category:Priestley Medal to Category:Priestley Medal recipients

Propose renaming Category:Sloan Research Fellowships to Category:Sloan Fellowship recipients

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These categories are eponymous award categories but actually they are categories for recipients of the award and should be renamed accordingly. If renamed, one or more parent categories will need to be adjusted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Recipients of the Foo, following our usual structure for such category names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that there is a "usual" format for award recipients categories. They are truly a mess and they use a variety of formats. But I would have to say that on balance, probably overall the categories tend to place the award name first, especially in science award categories. See the subcategories of Category:Award winners generally and Category:Science award winners in particular. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the format should probably be Foo (recipient/laureate/winner). And whether "recipient", "laureate" or "winner" is appropriate opens up another kettle of lutefisk, doesn't it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the subcategories seem to be exlusively "FOO winners/recipients". Take a look at Category:Writers by award: 94 subcategories, and all but a two or three are in that format. Same deal with all of the subcategories of Category:Film award winners. So I don't know how one could say that "Recipients of FOO" is the standard. From what I can tell, the choice of the "recipient", "laureate" or "winner" is dealt with case by case—however the recipients of that award are usually referred to. But I'm sure it hasn't been thought about too much in a broad sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So essentially the r/l/w is selected by common usage - fair enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I thought the policy on award categories was to listify and delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is. But frankly, there are so many award recipient categories now, the full implementation of that guideline would take a herculean effort, and there are always editors who will defend any given one or all of them combined. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on general policy guidlines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I still say: Listify and Delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No need to listify as the lists do exist on each of the main articles to the categories up for CfD here. Simple case of overcategorization by award. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:51, 21 December 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:Ceramics decorators. Ruslik_Zero 17:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:China Decorators to Category:Porcelain decorators

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The capitalization needs to be fixed on this category. In addition, I suggest that we use "Porcelain" instead of "China" for two reasons: (1) prevents confusion with the country China, and (2) matches the general category Category:Porcelain. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm ok with the proposed rename but based on the paragraph of introduction of the category it might be even better to go with the slightly wider scope Category:Ceramic decorators. Pichpich (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Ceramics decorators, I would think. That would be fine. Though then the category would need to be moved to Category:Ceramics, I suppose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ceramics decorators. This is perhaps slightly wider, but will serve the purpose well. I cannot belive that we need separate categories for earthenware decorators or stoneware decorators. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States rights of the accused case law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is largely repetitive with Category:United States criminal procedure case law. It makes no sense to try to differentiate "rights of the accused" from this category. Do we categorize a case as contributing to the "right of the accused" only if the defendant prevails on appeal? Does accused mean something different than criminal procedure? Does it include people who are accused of crimes by newspapers rather than prosecutors? What about the rights of criminal defendants after conviction, i.e. on appeal and habeas, when they are no longer merely accused? In short, this is not a useful way to organize cases. Savidan 20:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As an attorney, I wouldn't differentiate the concepts, except to note that there are aspects of criminal procedure that are purely administrative, and have nothing to do with rights of the accused. However, these are rare, and specific rights are certainly subsumed within the broader topic of crim pro. bd2412 T 02:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, Category:United States criminal procedure case law and its 16 subcategories (self-incrimination case law‎, speedy trial case law‎, etc.) handle this more properly. Neutrality^talk 20:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also technically Category:United States habeas corpus case law‎, placed in the category we're discussion, addresses the rights of the detained/incarcerated/etc., whether or not accused of anything or already convicted of something. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biopower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. No likelihood of expansion in the near future. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and also ambigious - upon seeing this I first thought of Biomass. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 15 November 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Epsilonism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains two articles, one of which doesn't mention Epsilonism. (The main article was deleted last December). Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The conspiracy theory was considered too obscure to warrant a serious article and one of the two articles in the category should probably be deleted on the same grounds. Pichpich (talk) 21:54, 16 November 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' on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_22#Category:Theoretical_physicists_by_nationality. Ruslik_Zero 18:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theoretical physicists by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete (with all subcategories), and carefully undo the edits that moved all of the articles out of the parent categories. This category is redundant with Category:Theoretical physicists and Category:Physicists by nationality. It is not helpful to diffuse the main theoretical physicists category into nationality subcategories. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Don't the subcategories need to be tagged? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/disagree Category:Turkish theoretical physicists and Category:Pakistani theoretical physicists already existed, i just continued the trend for all other mentioned nationalities, and think ((allincluded)) would be more appropiate. (it gives people the option to look at them by nationality)Brad7777 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allincluded seems like a better idea than what we have at the moment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:03, 15 November 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:Baiting (blood sport). Ruslik_Zero 08:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baiting to Category:Animal-baiting (or Category:Baiting (blood sport) Added 00:38 16 November 2011)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Baiting is ambiguous. The main article is dog-baiting, and this is a subcategory of Category:Dog law and Category:Dog sports. While it's true that most of the articles in this category involve dogs, some do not, so the more general "animal-baiting" may be more appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Baiting (blood sport) - "Animal-baiting" could conceivably refer to hunting over bait, so it's still ambigious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "hunting over bait"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's usually used when hunting bears; you put out smelly bait and wait for the bear to show up. Baiting for deer and dove is also done - but, for them, is (very most usually) illegal (making it poaching). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, thanks. In that case, your suggestion is better, in my opinion. I'll add it to the proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Animal Baiting. This refers to a cruel practice of setting dogs on another animal for the pleasure of the onlookers. I am pleased to say that this is illegal in my country and most others, but badger-baiting still occurs. This is not a bloodsport (i.e. hunting). It has nothing to do with putting out bait to attract game or vermin. It is unfortuante that the main article for the category is a dabpage dealing with a lot of uses of the word "bait", including a number unrelated to the subject of the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hunting isn't a bloodsport; this is. And "animal baiting" is badly ambiguous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why would it be Category:Animal Baiting rather than Category:Animal-baiting? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 27 November 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. Ruslik_Zero 09:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Silver ages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a partner category with Category:Golden ages, which was deleted here. This one should be deleted for the same reason: essentially this is just overcategorization by shared name. There is no meaningful connection between the Silver Age of Comic Books and the Silver Age of Russian Poetry, for instance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – it is overcategorization by shared name. Silver age links these things anyway. Occuli (talk) 10:11, 15 November 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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 10:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works about periods to Category:Works about historical eras

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this to match the general category Category:Historical eras. This is not a category for works about, er, menstruation—or the punctuation mark also known as the full stop. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as creator Hugo999 (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about Category:Works by period? Alter to Category:Works by time period as two subcats refer to "time period"? Hugo999 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer Category:Works by period. This removed the ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the nom, or Category:Works about historical periods as an alternative. Category:Works by period (which also exists) is potentially ambiguous, as it could refer to the period of production as well as the subject period. (Also, all the other subcats of Category:Works by topic use 'about'.) I think this category should be for works about specific historical periods, while Category:Works by period should be an umbrella category for Books by period, Films by period, etc. Robofish (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 17 December 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 17:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Goofy (Disney) short films to Category:Goofy short films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There isn't another "Goofy" who has films who needs to be disambiguated. The new name is more simple and is consistent with other similar categories. Pigby (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Earlier discussion at Cfd 2010/Mar/16.- choster (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose "goofy" is a common adjective in English. This are not about shorts that are goofy, and categories should not be highly ambiguous. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I'm in favor of (almost?) always having category and article namespaces match. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Category:Goofy is OK, but once it starts acting as an adjective, as in "Goofy FOO", it really needs to be clarified, since the principal meaning of "Goofy" as an adjective is not the character. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Yes, a movie that is silly, wacky, or nutty could feasibly be called a "goofy film," but it's not like that's a common adjective to apply to films. I don't think that either the possibility of confusion, or the potential consequence of such confusion, is so great that we need to go out of our way to avoid it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Clearly open to misinterpretation; the primary usage of Goofy as an adjective is indeed misleading. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: We also have Category:Goofy video games. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see we do. Well, if this CfD is not carried, the video game can be speedy renamed, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - keep the current name, and speedy rename the video game. Although on second thought, Rename to Category:Disney short films featuring Goofy - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a bad idea, but Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer short films is the only studio-based shorts category we have, whereas the Disney parents would be Category:Disney animated short films. So may Category:Disney animated short films featuring Goofy?- choster (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That would work! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think the proposal is open to misinterpretation because it would only be seen in context, since it's already part of Category:Goofy. Until there really is a legitimate genre called "goofy movies" or there's another character that comes along, I don't think it needs the disambiguation. Pigby (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO Category:Goofy needs to be renamed, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the category:Goofy needs to be renamed. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The potential for misinterpretation is high so the (Disney) disambig would appear necessary in this case. While experienced editors familiar with Wikipedia's MOS (such as those of us who vote on these noms) would immediately recognize that we would not start a category for "silly" films, the casual reader/editor most likely would not. Removing "Disney" would just invite editors to begin adding every "idiotic" short film they'd ever seen to the category. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:16, 1 December 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 - while Category:Goofy is fine, Category:Goofy films would seem to mean that the filmsa are goofy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Goofy (Disney) films to Category:Goofy films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There isn't another "Goofy" who has films who needs to be disambiguated. The new name is more simple and is consistent with other similar categories. Pigby (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose "goofy" is a common adjective in English. This are not about films that are goofy, and categories should not be highly ambiguous. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename See above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Category:Goofy is OK, but once it starts acting as an adjective, as in "Goofy FOO", it really needs to be clarified, since the principal meaning of "Goofy" as an adjective is not the character. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Yes, a movie that is silly, wacky, or nutty could feasibly be called a "goofy film," but it's not like that's a common adjective to apply to films. I don't think that either the possibility of confusion, or the potential consequence of such confusion, is so great that we need to go out of our way to avoid it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Clearly open to misinterpretation; the primary usage of Goofy as an adjective is indeed misleading. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nom proposal, same as in the cat above on the log page. However, perhaps renaming to Category:Disney films featuring Goofy might be in order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 15 November 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: C2C speedied. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Revenge characters to Category:Revenge (TV series) characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this ambiguously named category to match Revenge (TV series) and Category:Revenge (TV series) episodes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename C2C - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 16 November 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: C2A and C2D speedy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian Mafia to Category:Russian mafia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. C2A (WP:LOWERCASE, doesn't seem to be a proper name). Brandmeister t 03:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename C2A - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy C2C. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Apartments in Sydney to Category:Apartment buildings in Sydney

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All of the articles are on apartment buildings rather then individual apartments. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename C2C - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 16 November 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Geography of the Great Basin to Category:Great Basin

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Technical nomination found doing cleanup. Basically the reason appears to be that the geography aspect seems to be covered in a higher level part of the tree for the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 15 November 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:International airports in India to Category:Airports in India

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is not a defining characteristic of airports. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments in related discussion below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears the contents of the cat are already in regional subcats of Category:Airports in India. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not really needed not a defining factor the Airport in Foo cats work fine. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 16 November 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 05:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:International airports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is likely a WP:POINT created category in response to a November 8 discussion that mentioned that it does not exist. In discussions over the years, being an international airport was not considered to be defining. I'll leave it to someone else to dig though the archives. Allowing international traffic is not defining. Within Europe this covers virtually every airport. In the US, you can be an international airport without having a customs facility. So exactly why would this be defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Looks possibly pointy, but certainly doesn't exactly set an airport apart. It almost makes more sense to categorize airports that are not international airports (though I would not recommend doing so, since I have to keep WP:BEANS in mind). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - is there WP:JUSTANAME? If not there should be. The only difference between a "[regional/municipial/insertnamehere] airport" and an "International Airport" is the name; I recall in the 1990s when Daytona Beach Regional Airport changed its name to Daytona Beach International Airport simply because it sounded better... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are absolutely correct about this. The following section is relevant and reading it is worthwhile for anyone who thinks this designation actually means much: International Airport#Naming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not really needed not a defining factor the Airport in Foo cats work fine. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 16 November 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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 18:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT topics in the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:LGBT culture in the San Francisco Bay Area

Nominator's rationale: "Topics" isn't an ideal term for the category, imo. It doesn't appear in any of the three parents, while "culture" is used in two. Another more simpler option would be to use the parent Category:LGBT in California as a model and create Category:LGBT in the San Francisco Bay Area? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, especially if "topics" just means "articles" and is therefore superfluous. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:LGBT culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, per other sibling categories in Category:LGBT culture in the United States by city. I thought the naming of this was problematic the last time I was dealing with it, and can't remember why I didn't do something about it at the time. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 9 November 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, Dana boomer (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Rename to Category:LGBT in the San Francisco Bay Area. All of the categories I have seen for countries and subnational entities use "LGBT in FOO", so I think we should probably use that format until it is changed. However, it's not an ideal format and it probably could be improved upon. Category:LGBT culture in the San Francisco Bay Area would also be OK, per Bearcat's note of Category:LGBT culture in the United States by city, though these and the countries categories previously referenced should probably be brought into conformity at some stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's of any help, as nominator I'm now leaning towards the simpler Category:LGBT in the San Francisco Bay Area too, especially because it removes the question of whether LGBT history in San Francisco should rightly be a subcat of culture. (The Bay Area is such an historic centre for all things LGBT I wouldn't object to a category for LGBT people from the San Francisco Bay area, which could also fit under the simpler name, though others might oppose as OC...) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I'm personally leaning towards Category:LGBT culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, mainly because it just looks/sounds right to me. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:31, 1 December 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 and purge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Films set in the Cultural Revolution to Category:Films about the Cultural Revolution

Nominator's rationale: The split here seems to be of no helpful purpose. The category description of the nominated cat makes it clear that this category is also intended as being "about" the Cultural Revolution in some significant way. Also we tend to use "set in" for geographical settings, do we not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Cultural Revolution films? That's the format observed by Category:Films about revolutions.- choster (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I personally think those are all mis-named cats that User:Mike Selinker, me or someone hasn't gotten around to yet, as we do now seem to strongly favour "x about y" as a naming structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the Red Violin, great film, is (partially) set in the Cultural Revolution, but it's not "about" it any more than it's "about" Christianity (some of its drama plays out in a monastery), parenthood (yes, some folks in the film have kids), or painting (I won't spoil the flick by saying how that plays out). It's about a violin. Set in ≠ about. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 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, Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Support merge, excluding films that happen to be set during the Cultural Revolution but are not about the Revolution in any relevant way. I don't see why we need to categorize such films. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment aren't films also divided by historical period? We have films set in NYC which are filmed in Prague which have nothing to do with NYC except that it's set there. We have films set in 19xx which were filmed in 20xx and otherwise don't deal with 19xx specifically... 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:04, 18 November 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. Ruslik_Zero 18:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of geometry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete (or carefully Upmerge, as there are two parents). Seems an arbitrary intersection of the two parent categories, unlikely to have many articles. Even if it did have many articles, it would still be the arbitrary intersection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I don't see anything arbitrary about the intersection— it seems like the history of a field of study would be a highly natural intersection, like Category:History of statistics or Category:History of calculus. The problem I suppose would be that geometry being elemental and the subject of much early work, there might be few discrete articles. We don't have Category:History of arithmetic either.- choster (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Week delete currently it only have two articles Egyptian geometry and History of geometry so not really needed. The former naturally lives in Category:Egyptian mathematics in the history tree and the second should really be in Category:History of mathematics, both probably want to be in Category:Geometry. Now both Category:History of mathematics are rather full Category:Geometry but there are plenty of articles in those cats which deserve to be lower down in in the category tree. WP:SMALLCAT does not really apply as there is potential for growth.--Salix (talk): 09:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is definitely not an arbitrary intersection. We even have an article with that title and there are whole books that are specifically about the history of geometry (see for instance GoogleBooks). This is a perfectly reasonable way of subdividing the history of mathematics category. I have also added a few articles to the category and I'm sure it could be populated further still. Pichpich (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or make the category non-diffusing. The problem with a category on the history of geometry is that almost all of the history of mathematics is concerned in some way with geometry. This includes the history of things that aren't even considered to be geometry nowadays (like arithmetic). I foresee that most of the articles from Category:History of mathematics could eventually be moved into this category, and as a result will be harder to find rather than easier. A certain zealous editor (Brad7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) takes a very hard line on the issue of categorization, and has already been causing problems for our project (see WT:WPM). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it has potential for growth and its useful for helping diffuse Category:geometry and Category:History of mathematics. I cant see any reason for trying to delete this. Brad7777 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. You should have mentioned that you created the category, even if done above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet more category intersection cruft from Brad7777, who has been working overtime making our mathematics categories unusable by hiding all the articles in sub-sub-sub-sub-categories and removing them from the parent categories where people would actually look for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It is quite sufficiently populated to indicate its usefulness. Perhaps it has been populated while this CFD has been in progress. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 26 November 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.