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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Places associated with The Beatles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Places associated with John Lennon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Places associated with George Harrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Associated with is totally subjective as inclusion criteria. The top level category might be kept and renamed to be for lists which would show why the association was significant. If this nomination gain traction, there are other like purposed categories that will need nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Per nom--virtually random association of places all across the world. Abbey Road Studios? Shea Stadium? Parts of India they visited? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Notability is not inherited, category style. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dammit, and creating this cat was my one unique connection with John Lennon....Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Don't worry, you're still only six degrees away from Kevin Bacon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete even if the affiliation of a place with a famous person or group were notable for the place; this is a bad precedent. Think of how many notables we have a few tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands among our several million articles; each with a category. And into how many shall London and New York City be placed? Cat clutter beyond words.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- This is far too vague to be of value and will clutter up the category section of articles. This falls into a similar class to Performance by performer and award categories, though of course it is neither. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 both and upmerge into the respective personal categories. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Places associated with James Joyce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Places associated with Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Associated with is totally subjective as inclusion criteria. The top level category might be kept and renamed to be for lists which would show why the association was significant. If this nomination gain traction, there are other like purposed categories that will need nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Upmerge, at least for James Joyce and Malcolm X. Or better yet, consider them apart from The Beatles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, I split those last 2 out. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Malcolm X. The Malcolm X category has three articles unquestionably associated with him: the places he was born and died, and his mosque. When new articles are written about other places associated with Malcolm X, they may be appropriate for the category. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But are these defining? Categories are a navigation aid. What you are describing is likely already in the main article which makes that case that nothing is gained by having a category. If additional navigation is needed, a template would be much better in a case like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Is the association with Malcolm X a defining characteristic of each article in the category? Absolutely. However, as you mention, the articles are all linked to from Malcolm X. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Upmerge James Joyce. The James Joyce category is less clear. It includes the tower in which he lived (for a week), which has been turned into a museum, and the James Joyce Centre in Dublin, with which Joyce himself was not associated as far as I can tell. I think it should be upmerged. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete even if the affiliation of a place with a famous person or group were notable for the place; this is a bad precedent. Think of how many notables we have a few tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands among our several million articles; each with a category. And into how many shall London and New York City be placed? Cat clutter beyond words.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Listify no clear inclusion standards, or why it would be defining. A lot of places advertise that "X slept here" so, lists with inclusion standards explicitly stated would be better. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- too vague, and non-defining. The result can be achieved by including the people in a list of "people from" in the relevant articles. This has simialr problems to award categories and performance by performer categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. I don't see a need to categorize a place by the person because the person was born there or died there, for instance. Other things can just be kept in the categories that are named after the article about the person. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 rename (C2C). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-profit organizations based in New York, New York to Category:Non-profit organizations based in New York City

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To standardize NYC categorization tree. See for example the Category:Organizations based in New York City, or the subcat names in the Category:New York City. Dэя-Бøяg 21:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy rename Per main article/category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 18:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Witnesses of the Iraq Inquiry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Generally speaking, I don't believe that having been a witness in a particular public inquiry is defining for a person. Looking at the articles in this category, it's not defining for those who testified at the Iraq Inquiry. It should be mentioned in their bio article and they are already listed at List of witnesses of the Iraq Inquiry, but we don't need a category for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Witnesses by case is basically performer by performance and consistent with good sense and mucho precedents, should be deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- It is in the nature of a performance by performer category. If kept, to should be renamed "witnesses to ...". It is (or should be about those who testified, not those who watched it from the gallery! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_19#Category:Punjabi_folk. Ruslik_Zero 10:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Punjabi folk to Category:Punjabi culture

Nominator's rationale: Merge or rename?. I'm not quite sure what to do with this category. It is defined as including "article about any folk thing/cultural activity of Punjab region like, folk dances, folk music, folk instruments, folk songs, folk singers, festivals related to Punjab region or any tradition or cultural activity etc." I'm not sure that "folk" is commonly used as a broad noun in this sense, except maybe to refer to "folk music". But this includes dances and festivals as well. Is it so broad that it just needs to be upmerged? Or is there a way we could rename this? (Note that folk is about the word meaning "people".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - "Culture" seems appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename but purge and repurpose to Category:Punjabi folk music and dance, which would make an appropriate category. We already have Category:Punjabi culture, of which this should be a subcategory. The target is a redlink due to a spelling mistake. The present definition is too woolly at the edges, and it will thus need to be purged, with purged items going into the "culture" category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. Why not Category:Punjabi folk culture? <shrug> -- œ^™ 09:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[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: do not delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This is too vague a label and is (therefore) being placed everywhere there was or might have been, an instance of "looting." This is best placed on individual bios who were prosecuted for looting (theft). Vague categories with poor definition of scope should have no place in an encyclopedia. Great for tabloids! Student7 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep that a few articles may be miscategorized is not a reason for deletion. Looting is apparently sufficient to support an article Looting, and several articles related specifically to that topic, which seem best categorized under that term. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Carlossuarez46. Articles like Archaeological looting in Iraq, Looted art, Art theft and looting during World War II and Looting of the Eastern Mausoleum self-evidently have a sound home in this cat. By all means feel free to remove any articles inappropriately included in the cat, but the mere fact that a category contains miscategorised articles is never a valid reason to delete it. (If it was then we could delete about 50% of our categories!)--Mais oui! (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians who like Halo to Category:Wikipedians interested in Halo (series)

Nominator's rationale: Merge The point is to foster collaboration between Halo aficionados so the two categories have the same intended scope. Pichpich (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: Did not know that category existed. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:17 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merge per nom, or delete. Liking Halo is not something worth categorizing for purposes of collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with Top3violations Userbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Recently created. This category serves no useful purpose for collaboration and "What links here" would work just as well in any case. Pichpich (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per extensive precedent. VegaDark (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Shortcuts that are English words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can't think of any reason for this category to exist, and a request for explanation on the category's talk page received no response. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Can't see the point. These English words are often relevant but they're sometimes complete accidents of acronyms, e.g. WP:ACE, WP:ACRE, WP:ADD, WP:AID, WP:AM and so on. Pichpich (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable intersection, and mislabled category (should be "Wikipedia shortcuts...") to boot. -The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete How could this be useful? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Ever since I stumbled upon this curious category a couple years ago it's become somewhat of a pet project of mine to collate these as I come across them. Please don't tell me all those edits and time I spent categorizing these was a complete waste. I agree that it's not the most useful category, but it exists, and has existed for some time, and it's not hurting anything. And it's interesting. So let's not delete a harmless category just for the sake of having something to delete. Please? ps. I replied at the category talk page. -- œ^™ 18:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. It's a bit of harmless fun. I created it eons ago as a testament to the way Wikipedia sometimes devolves into acronym soup. It is linked from Wikipedia:Shortcut and Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia (among a few other places) to help newbies recognize that sometimes we use acronyms that look like English words but aren't actually intended to be understood that way. It's not the most helpful category in the world, but I don't see how it is harmful either. Just let it be. Dragons flight (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  PS. I also find it a little odd that I was notified of this deletion discussion only 6 days after it was posted... Dragons flight (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I believe it's because the nominator did it manually, instead of using Twinkle which automatically notifies the creator. -- œ^™ 08:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I believe I followed all instructions on this page. The instructions here for nominating a category for discussion did not direct me either to use Twinkle nor to notify the category's creator. I do not use Twinkle because I have no interest in it and the only time I hear about it is in discussions about ways it doesn't seem to work very well. I did not notify the creator because I think if you care about a page, you should watch it. (If you don't mind that the category you created could look like this in perpetuity, I don't know why you should mind if it's deleted altogether.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Of course I care, and have always had the page on my watchlist, and had I been online at the time that would of been reverted instantly. (PS. nothing wrong with doing it manually; of course you're not obligated to use Twinkle, but it is a common courtesy to notify a category's creator if you intend to have their creation deleted. Oh, and although the creator of the category may have abandoned it, I certainly have not, and it is being maintained and looked after, so I hope that's taken into consideration when the final decision is made.) -- œ^™ 11:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I would expect that anyone who cared about the category, whether or not that includes the category's creator, to have it on his watchlist, and to be thus notified that I was proposing the category's deletion. If you think I should have had to leave additional notification for the creator, or for someone who had left a single Talk page comment 2 years ago but hadn't acknowledged my own query in the 19 days since I'd left it or left any other indication he had taken over any responsibility for the category (would Twinkle have made that assumption?), then you can propose changing the CFD instructions to encourage or require such, but I have no apology for not doing so. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There are such things as wikibreaks that people go on ya know. And I have no intention of changing any instructions nor did I ever expect you to apologize, just wanted to remind you of something else that people often do, and that's to have common courtesy. -- œ^™ 15:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Okay, I believe you, you watch the page obsessively except when you happened to not be watching it during the three weeks that led me to believe nobody gave a crap about it. Let the record show: I am firmly convinced of User:OlEnglish's strong interest in this category, for whatever relevance that may have. I think we've also established beyond all doubt that notification of CFDs is a courtesy that is commonly extended and which I did not feel the need to extend, for whatever relevance that may have. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Good. Glad I could get through to you. -- œ^™ 09:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I wasn't online during the two day period during which it was vandalized. Given my current low level of activity, I'm not sure I would have noticed even if I was. I've been involved with a huge number of pages over the last eight years, many of which I don't watch and of those I do watch I rarely check every edit. Notifications to page creators aren't required, but it is generally considered courteous to do so. My bigger concern is that this deletion discussion was already six days old before anyone mentioned that this category has prominent links from Wikipedia:Shortcut and a widely used welcome message. Perhaps those uses are of low utility, but if people are asking "how is this useful?", then at least someone ought to explain how it is actually used. Shrug. Dragons flight (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, that might have been good information for someone to point out when I asked on the category's Talk page for anyone to give me any explanation of how the category is or could be useful. I have no objection to this discussion being relisted, if there's a concern that it might have gone differently if that information had been provided earlier. Personally, though, I think the purpose served by linking the category from those two pages could also be met simply by listing a few examples of this type of shortcut. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete; if kept, restrict it to shortcuts which are intentionally English words (such as WP:BEAR, WP:CIVIL) and rename to a name which reflects that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By "intentionally" do you mean excluding the 'accidents of acronyms' as mentioned by Pichpich above? I can go through the category and remove all of those if that's what people want, but I don't think it really matters that it's an acronym, it's still an English word. I'm also okay with renaming it to whatever's suitable. I just really don't want to have all the time I spent expanding this category be for naught. -- œ^™ 11:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Perhaps the category could be converted to a list that could be kept on User:OlEnglish's userspace. I can't bring myself to support keeping a category that appears to have no value simply because someone (for some reason) enjoyed putting their time into it, but it seems to me a userspace list would preserve the work just as well for anyone who did find this interesting. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - as Theoldsparkle suggests above, this would be fine as a list kept in userspace, but categories should be useful, and this category is of absolutely no use whatsoever. Robofish (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 British Isles category; merge all UK category contents into Category:Ships of the line of the Royal Navy, but leave that as a subcategory of UK category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ships of the line of the United Kingdom to Category:Ships of the line of the Royal Navy

Propose merging Category:Ships of the line of the British Isles to Category:Ships of the line of the Royal Navy

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Am I missing something here? Are there any ships of the line of the British Isles or of the United Kingdom which were not part of the Royal Navy? I really don't think so and I therefore don't see the need for three separate categories. I suppose it could be argued that Royal Navy doesn't specify the country, but since it's the title of our article and so well-known as the title of the British navy I don't think that's really an issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Oppose the UK cat - These are part of a very well established categorisation scheme. Naval ships are classified "By Country" > "By Navy", with the navy's category being a subcat of the country's category - see for instance Category:Battleships of the United States Navy as a subcat of Category:Battleships of the United States, Category:Frigates of the Soviet Navy a subcat of Category:Frigates of the Soviet Union, and Category:Auxiliary ships of the Royal Australian Navy as a subcat of Category:Auxiliary ships of Australia, just to pick three of literally over a hundred examples. However, the British Isles category is unnecessary; delete British Isles cat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, I can see that, but I can't see the point of it. We do things for a reason, not because "that's the way it's always done". What's the point of putting all British ships of the line in two separate categories just for the sake of it? We don't do this in other categorisation schemes. In fact, we usually make strenuous efforts to avoid it. All British ships of the line were also ships of the line of the Royal Navy, so there's abolsutely no need for two separate categories. If you must have one category for country and one for navy, why not make Category:Ships of the line of the Royal Navy a subcat of Category:Ships of the line of the United Kingdom with the latter only containing that subcat and no other entries instead of having two fully developed categories containing exactly the same entries? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That's a good question - because that is how all the other "country > navy" sets are done. I've put the lime in the coconut RN cat in the UK cat (actually, it was all along, but I've piped it to appear at the top). My guess is that the duplication is an artifact of the "Good" old days, but this should probably be brought to the attention of WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS for discussion - I don't have time to tag them now, breakfast calls. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Merger to RN -- The Royal Navy is the Navy of the UK. Ships of the Line are something that only navies have. The navies of commonwealth countries incorporate the National name so that there is no room for confusion. Delete the British Isles category should not exist, becasue it ought to be a parent covering ships of the Irish Navy and Royal Navy, which would be an unnecessary level of categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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; contents upmerged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Snooker leagues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are simply not enough articles for this category. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 13:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: This can safely upmerge to Category:Snooker organisations and Category:Cue sports leagues temporarily, but it is only unpopulated because no one's gotten around to writing the articles yet. There are certainly enough notable (i.e. national-level) snooker leagues in and outside the Commonwealth to well-populate the category. Not sure I see much logic in deleting the category only to put it back later, but it's not a big deal either way. At any rate, I just wanted to clarify that this is not like some Category:Goose-juggling leagues that couldn't actually be populated. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Upmerge for now. But what about Category:Goosing leagues? ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete The only professional league is Premier League Snooker; there are plenty of amateur leagues, but there clearly is no real interest in covering amateur snooker on the snooker project as yet. We don't even cover international amateur titles such as the IBSF (yeah I know it should be covered but the snooker project doesn't have many participants and there is a backlog of stuff to do for the pro game, so that is where effort is normally expended). Unless someone comes along with an active interest in developing amateur coverage, then it isn't going to be utilised. For now leagues should be covered in Category:Snooker competitions rather than 'organisations', since organisations here denote governing bodies such as the WPBSA, IBSF etc, which incidentally could set up a league. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kingdoms of the extreme south to Category:Kingdoms of the extreme south of ancient India Category:Southern kingdoms of ancient India

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The "extreme south" of what? And when? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to Category:Southern kingdoms in ancient Bharat‎ to match Category:North western kingdoms in ancient Bharat‎ and Category:Northern kingdoms in ancient Bharat‎. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bharat is ambiguous as a place name, so those categories are not ideally named either. In context, "Bharat" in those categories probably just means "India". Therefore, "Ancient India" is probably best because it is clear and matches Category:Ancient India. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Ancient India" is fine with me then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If there's consensus here then afterwards I will nominate the Bharat categories. I do like the suggestion to change it to "southern kingdoms ...", though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong rename extremely ambiguous. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support revised nom to Category:Southern kingdoms of ancient India. This has a clear purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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) 05:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It was suggested here that these categories be nominated for renaming. These proposed renames have some advantages and some disadvantages, but I believe the benefits of renaming outweigh the costs of doing so.

Disadvantages:

• The main drawback of this rename is that most of the specific articles that are "main articles" for these categories are named in the format of "United States Ambassador to COUNTRY", as with United States Ambassador to Iceland.

Advantages:

1. The main article is Ambassadors of the United States and the main category is Category:Ambassadors of the United States. These renames would establish the same "Ambassadors of the United States ..." format for all of these.
2. With the exception of the nominated categories, all of the by-country subcategories of Category:Ambassadors universally use the "Ambassadors of COUNTRY1 to COUNTRY2" format. Renaming these categories would solidify a universal standard, which is very helpful when adding categories such as these to articles because it removes the necessity of remembering or guessing what format is used for a particular set of ambassadors category. In other words, there's not really any good reason for the U.S. ones to be different than those for all other countries.
3. Other U.S. categories for ambassadors already use this format when the precise word used is not "ambassador", as with Category:Permanent Representatives of the United States to the United Nations and Category:Permanent Delegates of the United States to UNESCO.
4. This name format would also remove the use of "United States" as an adjective, which we generally avoid in category names in favor of "American".
   

— Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename as proposed imo, falling in line with the standard "Ambassadors of COUNTRY1 to COUNTRY2" format is already a sufficiently good reason to rename. Pichpich (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Fine with me. I don't see a big advantage either way but its fine with me. I assume well run a bot or something to make the changes? --Kumioko (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes—if it goes forward, a bot can make all the changes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose on the basis of WP:commonname. "United States ambassador to ..." is more commonly used than "ambassador of the United States to ...". Cjc13 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - the nom makes a convincing argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Standard format is better. mgeo talk 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. All the articles in Category:Lists of United States ambassadors use the "United States ambassador to ..." format. Hence, as the nominator himself points out, the renames would go against the policy of matching category name to article name. Cjc13 (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But which is more compliant, matching the article name or matching the rest of the tree? And if the articles themselves need to be renamed... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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:Boating magazines; no merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Boat magazines to Category:Sailing magazines

Nominator's rationale: Near complete overlap between these categories. Not 100% sure which one should be merged with which, but I don't believe there should be two - There can be only one. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename Category:Boat magazines to Category:Boating magazines. Don't merge since sailing is, I believe, a subset of boating. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That makes sense, I reckon. Should sailing be a subcat of boating then here? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Logically, yes. However this may be one of those cases when you make an exception. I'd like to give the experts a chance to chime in. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 amended nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sailing ship elements to Category:Sailing ship and sailboat componentsCategory:Sailing ship components

Propose renaming Category:Sailboat anatomy to Category:Sailboat components

Nominator's rationale: More logical names (following Category:Aircraft components) that are also more inclusive and descriptive. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. You keep coming up with these. Why not just rename both to Category:Sailing ship components? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Because then people might well look at it, go "oh, sailing ships, that's old stuff". However having the first category as just "Sailing ship comonents", with "Sailboat components" as a subcat, would work I guess - changing to that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well, we have a situation where sail is in multiple lower level categories, but not in the top one where you would expect to find it. Is this a result of too many categories in this area? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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: split for now as nominated. A rename for either or both could be considered in the future. This will be placed at WP:CFDWM for processing.

Propose splitting Category:International Sailing Federation Members

to Category:Members of the International Sailing Federation

and Category:Classes of the International Sailing Federation

Nominator's rationale: At the moment there is a mish-mash of content in this category, including both boating clubs that are affiliated with the ISF, and ship types that define classes of the ISF - which having classed as "members" is very confusing. Proposing this split to make things more logical. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I created this category my plan was simply to have all the ISAF members grouped in hindsight your suggestion follows the structure of the two templates I created which appear on International Sailing Federation which is what I am more interested in maintaining. I have no concerns with you implementing your suggestion but at present very few ISAF member nations have pages although I plan to slowly address this.

Template:International Sailing Federation Template:International Sailing Federation Classes

Maybe the naming protocol for the groups could follow what the templates should have been named.

to International Sailing Federation Member National Authorities

and International Sailing Federation Classes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yachty4000 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by User Yachty4000 / 21st Nov 2011

• That could work (I'm not sure if "X of Y" or "Y X" is the preferred naming style here, tho). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• A split is definitely in order. I thought of doing this a few months ago but either forgot or more likely found some cop out ("I'll leave it to someone from WikiProject Sailing" or something along those lines). Pichpich (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 renamed (C2C). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parks and public spaces in Montreal to Category:Parks in Montreal

Nominator's rationale: I think that this category should be renamed to Parks in Montreal for consistency with other Canadian cities. (Category:Parks by city in Canada)

-- MTLskyline (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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.