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:Radio programmes based on Middle-earth. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Middle-earth radio adaptations to Category:Radio programmes based on Middle-earth or Category:Middle-earth radio programmes

Nominator's rationale: Moving toward a "based on" format as per other nominations on this page. The second option more closely matches the other contents of the parent category, though.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "based on" phrasing to match other categories from the works of Tolkien.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 4 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 adjusted nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hornblower adaptations to Category:Works based on the Hornblower series

Propose renaming Category:Hornblower television adaptation to Category:Television programmes based on the Hornblower series Category:Hornblower (TV series)

Nominator's rationale: Suggesting a format that could work for Hornblower adaptations.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming Category:Hornblower adaptations to Category:Works based on the Hornblower series, but oppose renaming Category:Hornblower television adaptation to Category:Television programmes based on the Hornblower series as this relates to a single television series, not different series. A more suitable rename would be Category:Hornblower (TV series) in line with the main article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Let's do that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:11, 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States legal cases redirects to Category:Category:United States case law redirects

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the corresponding parent and sister categories. Savidan 20:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Film adaptations of Ancient Greek drama to Category:Films based on Ancient Greek plays

Nominator's rationale: Attempting to move this toward the "Works based on" format as per other such nominations. "Drama" is a singular noun here, where "plays" seems more appropriate for this category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Are you distinguishing filmed versions of the plays from updated versions? "Based on" seems broad enough that I could imagine retaining a subcategory for films that are more "filmed versions" than adaptations. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need two categories to distinguish those from each other.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:40, 25 October 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Film adaptations of Les Misérables to Category:Films based on Les Misérables

Nominator's rationale: Attempting to move this toward the "Works based on" format as per other such nominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:20, 20 October 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. I'll note that inspired is very subjective and as such problematic in a category name. Having said that I have no objection to an immediate renomination to rename the first one back if anyone thinks there is really a consensus to keep it there. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works inspired by people to Category:Works based on real people

Propose renaming Category:Plays based on actual people to Category:Plays based on real people

Nominator's rationale: We don't use "actual people" in category names. As below, "inspired by" is fuzzy; I'd rather go with the "works based on" format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as to first change. "Inspired by" is intended to be broader than "based on". Based on would be used for retellings or dramatizations of the person's story, whereas "inspired by" could be inspired by the person's philosophy or famous sayings, etc., or by other aspects of their life without being a version of the person's biography. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all nom makes logical senseCurb Chain (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - current name is ambiguous. If someone has an idea and persuades me to act on it, they've "inspired" me.--Northernhenge (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose first change per Ssilvers. These are not the same thing. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:55, 11 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: keep, see discussion below on Category:Works based on other authors which is to be merged into this one. – Fayenatic (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adaptations of works by author (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The two articles in here should be placed in by-author categories, rather than placed in this category which is redundant to Category:Works based on other authors (nominated below).-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to one of the two "articles" (actually categories) under this heading, namely Category:Films based on the works of Robert E. Howard, I was, as the creator of that category, invited to participate in the discussion. It was proposed to rename it Category:Films based on works by Robert E. Howard. I have no objection to the renaming proposal. Actually, I think the proposed new name sounds better than the present one. BPK (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd switch this around - Category:Works based on other authors is rather a clunky name and that category should be merged into Category:Adaptations of works by author and the categories within it renamed accordingly (see the discussion below for more on that). (Emperor (talk) 15:53, 30 October 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 Category:Works based on other authors to Category:Adaptations of works by author. Keep all "Category:Adaptations of works by X". Rename all "Category:Works inspired by X" (and the one each "based on" and "derived from") to "Category:Adaptations of works by X". Even though the top category is Category:Works based on works, multiple editors consider that this form of words becomes clumsy when extended, and "Adaptations" is a clearly-understood shorthand. Both forms are used in article names: "adaptation" in film adaptation, theatrical adaptation, literary adaptation, and "based on works" in the names of lists. Trim the "inspired by" categories and remove articles about works based on the authors themselves; as suggested below, these could be categorised in new Category:Films about authors/Category:Films about composers etc. within Category:Works about media people. – Fayenatic (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Works based on other authors to Category:Works based on works by other authors

Nominator's rationale: The "by other authors" categories are all over the map. The phrasing "inspired by" is quite fuzzy. I'd rather see us adopt the "based on works by" structure.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Works based on works by? That does not read well at all. Also, "Inspired by" is broader that "based on works by". Items in at least some of these categories are works that were inspired by the person's life or things associated with that person, rather than based on their works themselves. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Works based on works by" does read so poorly that I wonder if we shouldn't make an exception in these cases and go with "Adaptations of works by," just to avoid the repetition. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't have the same scanning problem with "Works based on works by". Sometimes categories just need to repeat words.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - WP:OC#MISC states that no category should be an "other" category. My question when seeing these is always "other than who?" And the answer to this question is not there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Works based on works by author"?--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I at one point tried to make all these categories related to "works by X" and was told that some of the entries in the category were not in fact based on works but were based on the authors themselves (I think Gilbert & Sullivan was the example used--you may have to check the history logs for the G&S entry to find that discussion). I thought the "inspired by" was flexible enough to include both works based on texts and works based on authors. If you can think of a better way to work with those two different types of entries, please do! Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gilbert & Sullivan category is a mess. It includes works whose entire connection to G&S is that they are named after lines from the plays, works where characters like G&S, and so on. Is it really necessary to have a structure that includes such trivialities? As for the ones which are based on the life of an author, I think we might get by with a category like Category:Films about authors, similar to Category:Films about actors.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do definitely want to get away from "inspired by" categories as they can have the whiff off original research about them and it might be bbetter to include historical figures as fictional characters in another category (perhaps simply a category for the person in question until enough of them warrant a category of their own). (Emperor (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• Oppose and propse another solution: I was just looking at Category:Works based on other authors and thinking there needs to renaming but I'd suggest the opposite to the proposal, "works based on works" is painful and I'd suggest changing them all to "Adaptations of works by X" and moving them all into Category:Adaptations of works by author (basically a merge of the first category into the second and a renaming). I don't see any reason to try and hammer this square peg through the round hole of the various "works" categories when there is a much simpler wording that can be used for this. So that would be my counter-proposal. So that is my prefered solution and I would strongly oppose the more convoluted formulation. (Emperor (talk) 16:02, 30 October 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Hamlet on screen to Category:Films based on Hamlet

Propose renaming Category:Macbeth on screen to Category:Films based on Macbeth

Propose renaming Category:Romeo and Juliet films to Category:Films based on Romeo and Juliet

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing to the format of the rest of Category:Shakespeare on film (nominated below for renaming). Television programs can be moved into their own categories as needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree with the desire to standardize, but "Hamlet on screen" and "Films based on Hamlet" are already distinct categories, the latter being non-faithful adaptations such as The Lion King and Ros and Guil are Dead. Can you suggest another way of titling these categories? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about The Lion King (I must have missed the part where Simba's mom slept with Scar), but Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead definitely belongs in a category called Category:Films based on Hamlet. Faithfulness seems irrelevant here; the question is whether the source material is the Shakespeare play, and it is in these cases.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm pondering the proposal, but in the meantime, Roscelese brings up a good point: Do we conflate faithful adaptions with casual, parodies, or tangential derivations? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly we do with casual adaptations and parodies in all cases except the ones in this nomination. Under Category:Films based on Alice in Wonderland, there is a porn film, a drag film, and a Muppet film, none of which are intended to be faithful adaptations. The "tangential" question is a judgement call. If it's not really about something, it shouldn't be in a category about it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My only concern was the fact that TV is onscreen also but then I saw that Mike has taken that into account by splitting them into their own category.MarnetteD | Talk 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all. For consistency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 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: keep Category:Adaptations of works by William Shakespeare, Category:Modern adaptations of works by William Shakespeare.

Upmerge Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by play to Category:Adaptations of works by William Shakespeare.
Rename Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by medium to Category:Adaptations of works by William Shakespeare by medium;
Category:Ballets based on Shakespeare's works to Category:Ballets based on works by William Shakespeare;
Category:Operas based on Shakespeare to Category:Operas based on works by William Shakespeare;
Category:Shakespeare on film to Category:Films based on works by William Shakespeare;
Category:Shakespearean teen films to Category:Teen films based on works by William Shakespeare.
The last four follow the the "Foos based on works by Bar" form that was already agreed in section #Formats based on works by author Category:Films based on works by William Shakespeare. "Adaptations" is preferred to long category names starting with "Works based on works". – Fayenatic (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of works by William Shakespeare to Category:Works based on plays by William Shakespeare (or Category:Works based on works by William Shakespeare)

Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by medium to Category:Works based on plays by William Shakespeare (or Category:Works based on works by William Shakespeare or, if necessary, Category:Works based on plays by William Shakespeare by medium)

Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by play to Category:Works based on plays by William Shakespeare(or Category:Works based on works by William Shakespeare or, if necessary, Category:Works based on plays by William Shakespeare by play)

Propose renaming Category:Ballets based on Shakespeare's works to Category:Ballets based on plays by William Shakespeare (or Category:Ballets based on works by William Shakespeare)

Propose renaming Category:Operas based on Shakespeare to Category:Operas based on plays by William Shakespeare (or Category:Operas based on works by William Shakespeare)

Propose renaming Category:Shakespeare on film to Category:Films based on plays by William Shakespeare (or Category:Films based on works by William Shakespeare)

Propose renaming Category:Shakespearean teen films to Category:Teen films based on plays by William Shakespeare (or Category:Teen films based on works by William Shakespeare)

Propose renaming Category:Modern adaptations of works by William Shakespeare to Category:Modern works based on works by William Shakespeare

Nominator's rationale: These Shakespeare categories should give the full name of the author. I don't think it's necessary to retain "by medium" and "by play" in those categories, as the medium category has only a few subcategories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with one caveat. I like the full name aspect but I don't think that we should limit these by using the term "on plays". There are works in most of these categories that are based on his sonnets or poems - The Portrait of Mr. W. H. is one that springs to mind. Maybe "based on writings of" or some such. Since there aren't going to be a huge number of these I don't think that they should have a separate category so if they can be folded into this nomination then I would give full support. MarnetteD | Talk 15:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also down with "based on works by William Shakespeare".--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. First, "x based on plays by Shakespeare" omits works based on his sonnets, poems, etc. Second, "Works based on works by" reads terribly. Third and most important, while I do not work with the Shakespeare project, I can see from the cat names above that they have thought about these categories and named them as is for a reason. I can see that the first two changes above would make a mess of a carefully considered category tree structure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't have the same problem with "Works based on works by". It reads fine to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The advantage of keeping a two-pronged structure--"by play" and "by medium"--is that it recognizes that some folks are more interested in the source and others more in the adaptation media. While you might be doing a paper on adaptations of Othello, I might be doing one on Shakespeare in Opera, and would find the "by medium" category more useful. I hope that helps explain the double categorization. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I get it. I'm just not sure the utility is as great as you think it is.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but by double categorizing it, you can also include it under "Operas based on Shakespeare" which goes under "Operas based on plays" -- and use only one category on the article page to sort it into two categories in the "Works based on" tree. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. Based on the discussion below, I've added the "based on works by William Shakespeare" options which that close favors.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:39, 8 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 to the "Foos based on works by Bar" form. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Matching these to some others in Category:Films based on works by author according to the rapidly expanding "Works based on" format and the format of authors' works categories like Category:Works by Mikhail Bulgakov. I changed the Astrid Lindgren one to "books" since we don't seem to have "stories" categories. I also changed "series" to "programs" in the case of Burroughs, per all other such categories. I will nominate the Shakespeare categories separately.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renaming: Makes sense to me. MsBatfish (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support consistent renaming - I can spot a few inconsistencies from the nominator here. Everything should be the same - i.e. "Films based on works by xxx xxx". i.e. not novels or books, or "the works of..." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I could also get behind that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with using "novels" or "books", is that it could be based on a short story or a play, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I just matched what was in the initial categories, but I like standardizing them to "works". I've provided the option in the proposals above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with proviso that works by authors like Jane Austen who used British (Australian etc) English use "programmes" not "programs" which is an established principle in tv cats. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with Johnbods proviso Per WP:ENGVAR we have to allow for various spellings. I have seen more than one firestorm set off over this and if we don't allow for it the edit warring will certainly resume. MarnetteD | Talk 15:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to that change. I've adjusted the Austen and Dumas (right?) TV categories..--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dumas could go either way, but AJ Cronin is a Brit too - I think all but unknown in the US. I'll change him too if that's ok. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing. Makes me think that at some point, we should change all the TV categories to "shows" so this doesn't have to happen. A discussion for a later day, perhaps.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as revised. Pegship (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Magners League squad navbox templates to Category:Celtic League squad navbox templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Magners sponsorship contract ended with the 2010–11 season, and the main article has since been moved to Celtic League (rugby union). Proposed rename will match the category for the league itself at Category:Celtic League and its subcat of Category:Celtic League teams. Dale Arnett (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename The sponsors will always be changing so a static name would be best. --Bob247 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: administrative close: apparently all of the articles were deleted, and the category was deleted by a different admin as empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional DotA Players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All these pages are currently at AFD and it looks like none of them will survive. Ridernyc (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – pending the outcome of the afds. If all the articles at afd are deleted, the category will be empty and can be deleted speedily after 4 days without cfd, and if any survive the category will be valid. Occuli (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Ridernyc. Virtually all of the articles are fairing very poorly at AFD so far. There's really only one that could possibly turn out to be a "no consensus" at best, and that one person doesn't really needs his own category... Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Pantograph to Category:Pantographs (rail)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no general category for pantographs yet, so I suggest converting this from a category for British pantographs into the starter category for pantographs. The proposed name matches Pantograph (rail). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename as main articleCurb Chain (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: self-close as merge per agreement of category's sole editor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Christian monasteries in Portugal by name to Category:Christian monasteries in Portugal

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This seems to be a strange category and I'm not clear on what its purpose could be. I suggest simply upmerging it to its parent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge It seems like a misguided cat where the creator wanted to categorize the entries alphabetically? Well, cats already do that.Curb Chain (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The category creator posted the following on my talk page [1]: "I think we can get this out of the way immediately Good Olfactory. Since I was the one who created the category, and having seen (the light) on categorization structure, please fold the content. I will not disspute it." So I think we can just go ahead and merge as proposed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sicilian people to Category:People from Sicily

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't think we need a separate category for people from Sicily to house Sicilian people from the era where "Sicilian" could be considered to be its own nationality, which is what the nominated category purports to be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:High school football media to Category:Works about high school football in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Suggest we rename as all of these are Category:Creative works, to match parent Category:High school football in the United States. As for the other parent, Category:American football media, some of the contents are "media" and not works about, so should not be renamed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 20 October 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.