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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Infrastructure in South Africa. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Physical infrastructure in South Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary level of categorization at this time. If we decide that we need this for all countries then it can be recreated. The subcategories have ample categories to keep them in the correct trees as I see it. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Infrastructure in South Africa. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 19 August 2012 (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} 00:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Physical infrastructure in the Netherlands to Category:Infrastructure in the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to Category:Infrastructure in the Netherlands. This is one of three by country categories at this level and I don't that we need this for only one category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge; clearly not justified at the moment as it has only one sub-cat. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 19 August 2012 (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 using option 2. A weak consensus, but a consensus nontheless with no further comments in over a month. No predjuice against a renomination of the entire tree to "Transport" if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming by one of the following options:

Rationalle: The geographic scope of all these categories is identical, so they should be consistant in their ENGVAR for any given set of words. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If any change happens it should be option 2. However I do wonder about the water category. Personally I would rather see that renamed to Category:Water transportation infrastructure in North America since it should be about the infrastructure for the delivery of water and included under Category:Infrastructure in the name of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I'm rethinking this. The problem is the category name is ambiguous since we transport water for human use and we use water to facilitate the movement of ships. We have some of both, but this category only covers the latter. Not sure how big of a problem this is or the best solution at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment don't you crash into the WP:ENGVAR issues concerning Canadian English and American English? While Canadian English uses "transport" and "transportation" interchangeably, and British English uses "transport" preferentially, doesn't American English use "transportation" preferentially? If WP:COMMONALITY is applied, then since Canadian English uses the two terms interchangeably, then "transportation" should be used (except for "water transportation", which would appear to mean "carrying water" preferentially, so should probably be renamed "nautical transportation" instead? Category:Nautical transportation in North America) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment No reason to create a problem where none exists. Category:Water transport states: "Water transport is the process of moving people, goods, etc. by barge, boat, ship or sailboat over a sea, ocean, lake, canal, river, etc. This category does not include articles on the tranport of water for the purpose of consuming the water.". This is true of its subcategories and matches the articles therein. Category:Water supply covers the shipment of water. Hmains (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per option 2 to clear up any confusion here. Hmains (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Use "transport." There are a few categories where only a few countries use a regional variant, and this is one of them. The U.S. and Mexico make up a lot of North America, but not all of it, and the majority of subcategories use "transport." I don't think population is the only metric we should use for picking the dominant container name; sometimes sheer number of categories should win out. This seems one of those occasions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per option 2. The fact that this is the most common in the US and Mexico and commonly used in Canada basically screams for this form. What other areas of the world use is not material. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename option 2 - Let's be consistent with all of the "Rail transportation in STATENAME" subcategories. There was a similar discussion a couple years ago to rename those with transportation instead of transport too. Slambo (Speak) 15:30, 27 August 2012 (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:IDM musicians. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Intelligent dance music musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: this does not make sense. what makes a musician "intelligent"??? Jawadreventon (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, probably rename? This is a specific genre with its own main article. OTOH there is some controversy about using it as a category. Perhaps a clarifying name is in order? Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Renaming the category "IDM musicians" might be a better route to take. Granted neither would read naturally to anyone unfamiliar with the genre, it at least avoids the ambiguity of the long form, as noted in the nomination. Validusername 「Talk」 19:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:IDM musicians. This case is unusual in that the abbreviation is defining for the genre, as the name "intelligent dance music" is mainly from an email list called the IDM List. – Fayenatic London 06:48, 20 August 2012 (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.
Also note that the category was never tagged for CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:CrossGen Comics images to Category:CrossGen images

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be more in line with other categories in Category:CrossGen comics, such as Category:CrossGen characters and Category:CrossGen titles. The word "comics" is unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the other categories, and the main article, should be moved to CrossGen Comics etc, as the actual name of the company and also as "CrossGen" is potentially ambiguious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Judges of the United States Customs Court. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:United States Customs Court judges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates (Category:Judges of the United States Customs Court) The only five entries have been moved to the correct category and this duplicate category is empty and unneeded. Safiel (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (Category creator) Though both are a few years old, this one is actually the older of the two; it looks like the second one was initially created without knowledge that this one existed, and then articles migrated over to that one. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but notwithstanding the fact that the "judges of..." category is populated and this one is not, I don't know why we should prefer one naming form over the other beyond one being more concise than the other. Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I actually have no preference, per se, between the two styles. However, the "Judges of" style is almost universally used in categorization of the courts of the United States, with very few exceptions. Using the "Judges of" style is consistent with the rest of the categories in United States courts. Safiel (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I agree that because the "Judges of" categorization is already by far the most widely used, consistency militates towards using it in this case. Furthermore, I find that a category name beginning with a description of the office reads more easily, and avoids discrepancies over whether "judges" should be capitalized. bd2412 T 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am fine with merging, as proposed below, also. However, we don't have soft redirects of this sort for the vast majority of judge categories, so I see no special reason to have one in this case. bd2412 T 13:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Rather than outright delete, I suggest merge, which will retain the category under question as a redirect and prevent its inadvertent re-creation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:United States Customs Court judges to Category:Judges of the United States Customs Court. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge leaving category redirect. The target has the better title. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per PKI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2012 (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} 00:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Anniston, Alabama television anchors to Category:People from Anniston, Alabama

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has one entry. ...William 15:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Perhaps Category:American television anchors by city should be renamed Category:American television anchors by media market to avoid confusion (as per Category:American media by market).- choster (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- but I would have expected to have a further upmerge target to reflect the occupational element of the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - no additional target is needed as the single page in this category is also in Category:Birmingham, Alabama television anchors. – Fayenatic London 20:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: procedural close. Category was discussed (and speedy deleted) here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:List of films on Cinemassacre's Monster Madness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OVERCAT, Cinemassacre redirects to The Angry Video Game Nerd, a TV series with limited popularity. The category itself does not contain any list at all. Brandmeister^talk 15:27, 16 August 2012 (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. This category is part of a series of similar categories under Category:Counter-terrorism by country, and I see no valid objection in principle to its existence so long as it is populated. There may of course be general objections to the existence of all the Category:Counter-terrorism by country categories; if, so then all such categories should be nominated together in a group CFD.
Many editors raise a practical concern that this category is being inappropriately populated with articles relating to the current Syrian Civil War, and on that basis a majority of contributors to this discussion recommend deleting the category.
However, allegations of misuse of a category are not of themselves a valid reason for deleting a category. The deletion of this category would be the wrong way to resolve the concerns of those editors, especially since a senior United Nations official has confirmed the existence of terrorism within Syria (point made by Oxycut, confirmed via (China Daily and the UN News Centre). Normal editorial processes should be used to ensure that this category is populated only with the appropriate articles (if there are any), in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If the result of those editorial processes is that the category becomes empty, then it may be tagged with ((db-c1)). If it remains empty for at least 4 days, then it may be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#C1.
It is that there widely diverging perspectives on this topic, and editors should ensure that consensus is developed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Counter-terrorism in Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:NPOV. Article takes every article about the Syrian civil war and adds it as CT, in line with government propaganda about combating terrorism that was debunked by vast majority of reliable sources, including some such as UN etc. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, so far there is no article that fits to the category's title. Brandmeister^talk 15:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None, really? Can you explain why the List of bombings during the Syrian uprising (2011–present) and articles referred to there do not relate to Syrian counterterrorism subject matter and if what you say is the case, why do we already have the well-populated Category:Terrorist incidents in Syria in 2012 and Category:Terrorist incidents in Syria in 2011?Oxycut (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThe "Syrian Civil War" is a counterterrorist campaign which UN representatives (eg. Gregory Star) have been partnered into the dialogue about. Only a minority of articles from Template:Syrian Civil War have been accepted into the categorisation, each being evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The Syrian Civil War article clearly identifies the counterterrorist character of the campaign as a whole, including in its lead. Concern about terrorism has sustained the fighting will of the military which is mastering the field and making a stand for the security of the Syrian Republic and some sense of stability there.Oxycut (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, your primary source is state-party newspaper. Second, it quotes state-run agency SANA. Third it quotes government official, not UN official. Fourth, Starr was not part of anything like you described, but had a meeting with Syrian official (that´s what UN does). Fifth, I have been editing this conflict related articles for nearly a year and there is nowhere anything like that. In main article lead word terrorism is used twice. First time as government claim (ie POV) to what is doing, second time it is in regard of Michel Samaha and his terrorist activity on behalf of Assad regime in Lebanon. That about sums up this whole problem, this is POV category, pushing government propaganda. Nothing less, nothing more. Not one article in it falls into that description, nor was described by RS as such. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you've said is so wrong and contrary to the sources. The United Nations has acknowledged the presence of terrorism in the country. That should be the end of it. In relation to the Syria war as a whole [the UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous has warned of the presence of terrorists inside Syria, and another expert has acknowledge that that is as a result of the conflict where "There was no soil for terrorism in Syria previously" http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2012-05/24/content_15372938.htm]. Appropriately, Syria's response is a counterterrorist one, [with laws of that nature and for that purpose http://www.france24.com/en/20120702-syrias-assad-issues-counter-terror-laws]. It's an example of a counterterrorist operation. The UN knows it, the country itself knows it, the experts know it, now you know it, and it the obligation of this database to reflect it. Attempts to supressing the existence of the category are a fail on that obligation.Oxycut (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the POV pushing continues. Your first source (Xinhua) states nothing like you said. There is nothing like you said in main article lead and so far you managed to provide additional two sources, one quoting Syrian regime propaganda and one Chinese commentary. Up till this point you claim that UN says that this is CT campaign. Yet you provided not single one source to suppor that (presence of terrorists in country does not mean that shelling of your own capital and largest city by artillery, fighter-bombers and MRLS is CT, or even COIN). As for no soil for terrorism, I guess that 2008 Abu Kamal raid didnt target AQ leader in Syria, I guess that Sinjar Records which states that most foreign jihadists in Iraq came from Damascus is not true, I guess that Hamas, which is terorristic organization, did not have its office in Damascus. If you really believe that this is example of CT operation then I have a bridge to sell you. Also point of interest is that you never brought this up to the main article talk page, this proposition would be shot down like a fly. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the China Daily article

Counteraction of the terrorism which has been invited into Syria by the destabilisation starting from the time of the 'Arab Spring' is an acknowledged part of the conflict, hence the appropriateness of the domestic counterterrorism laws which have been promulgated to deal with it and which are a further acknowledgment of it.Oxycut (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Terrorism in Syria has developped into a whole new level with suicide bombings almost everyweek and roadside bombs everyday. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the articles linked to the category are about anti-terrorism. Sopher99 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rationale for believing that 2008 Abu Kamal raid, linked into it, isn't about anti-terrorism?Oxycut (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category in and of itself is biased towards the regime, as pretty much every Syrian civil war article has been added to it. It contains pretty much the same articles as Battles of the Syrian Civil War and Timelines of the Syrian Civil War categories combined. Also, if we were to keep this, in order to be NPOV, we would have to add all the pages to the Mass murder in Syria category, because that is what the other side alleges is going on. Jeancey (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous entries in Category:Counterterrorism by country and there's no argument to suppress them because they're 'biased toward regimes'. It's Syria's government which is making the effort to counteract the terrorism while the 'Free' alternative is doing nothing of the sort except to work against those efforts and in with the terrorist groups. We just identify where counterterrorism is an aspect of a situation or conflict. Whether it's one or all or some of the stakeholders making contribution to that is a matter for each reader to form their own judgment on from the article's explanatory content.Oxycut (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mostly articles in the related categories are about units and agencies, with a few paramilitary operations thrown in. This is, well, a civil war and doesn't fit with the others. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles may be reviewed for the matter of undue bias in their presentation, and that is appropriate on a case by case basis for each. It is never appropriate to suppress the existence of an entire category when it has been accepted per Category:Counter-terrorism by country in the same example of category as for eight other countries. We can cope well with a Counterterrorism in Syria category just as we've coped extremely well with a Counterterrorim in India category which covers ten articles. This category undoubtedly applies to 2008 Abu Kamal raid and the case for its application to articles in the other Syrian terrorism categories is strong and referred to above. It applies to articles which have something to do with the war (see List of bombings article) and those with nothing to do with it (Abu Kamal raid). It is not lacking in being populated either, with 20 entries.Oxycut (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This category is very good, because it group together all recent and current counter-terrorist operations conducted by the Syrian government. With all of this terrorist and mercenary violence in Syria, we really need a category like this. --Sundostund (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your POV is showing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Syrian civil war articles should be group as about a civil war, not about "counter-terrorism".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A category for them already exists. Some members of it cannot be brought within the discussed category, not can some outside it be excluded from it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs)

• Delete as grossly POV. Comparable to putting Category:Despotism in Syria on Bashar al-Assad. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' - in principle, there isn't a problem with this category (as there are some operations that can non-contentiously be described as 'counter-terrorism'), but the way it's being used in practice is not appropriate. Categorising all the 'Syrian civil war' articles as 'counter-terrorism' is not consistent with NPOV. Robofish (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are non-contentious members of the classification. Keep the classification for them. The intersection of the this category with Category:Syrian civil war is not to the extent that most of that are coming within this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.177.10 (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User who made the Category was identified by an administrator as sockpuppet who has history of creating POV categories. Can someone close this? I already made request for RfC but that board seems to be inactive and not really in attention of administrators. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Black Dutch people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Moved this from WP:PROD, where the nominator's rationale was: This is unnecessary and racist compared to categories which already exist, such as Dutch people of Surinamese decent, or Ethnic groups in the Netherlands. A category for Black Dutch people is solely based on the color of the skin, and is not the way we like to view our compatriots. This is not a !vote from me as such, but I will note that the category is very underpopulated and does seem to be out of sync with the other subcats of Category:Dutch people by ethnic or national origin. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 12:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we classify people by ethnicity not race. These people may be ethnically Surinamese, ethnically Congolese or such, but they should not be grouped by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - on the contrary, we do categorise by 'race' where it is significant. (The distinction between 'race' and 'ethnicity' is somewhat vague, anyway.) In this case, we have an article for Afro-Dutch people, suggesting they are a notable group and so this seems a legitimate category; if the title is objectionable, it could be renamed to Category:Afro-Dutch people or Category:Dutch people of African descent. Robofish (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is a clear need on the part of editors to read Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality under the ethnicity and race heading the first sentance is "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not." Thus we do not put people in race based categories, ever, period, end of discussion. We will in some cases categorize people by ethnicity, but not by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have Category:Black British people, because Black British is an established ethnic (not racial) group, and is used in the UK census.
  However, I can see no evidence that "Black Dutch" is used in the same way for the Netherlands, so this category is a racial one.
  In any case, the term Black-Dutch has a wholly different meaning, having been used for a variety of purposes in the United States. Black Dutch also points to Afro-Dutch, whose only in-line ref is to a bare URL which is a dead link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 14 September 2012 (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} 20:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Religion templates to Category:Religion and belief templates

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No inclusion criteria are specified for Category:Religion templates. In the absence of such criteria, I believe the contents of Category:Religion templates should be upmerged into the parent category. DH85868993 (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I couldn't find any indication of the distinction between the two categories. In the absence of any obvious distinction, I think the two categories should be merged. DH85868993 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; I can't argue with that, unless we do a reverse merge as most of Category:Religion doesn't bother with "and belief". I think it comes down to whether we accommodate Template:Atheism sidebar and Template:Skeptic organizations within "Religion". – Fayenatic London 21:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge religion is a broad enough term to cover all the relevant topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator to Category:Religion and belief templates. "Religion" is not always regarded as a broad enough term to include atheism, so using "Religion and belief" will ensure that relevant templates are not excluded.
  (See for example the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, which refers to religion or belief). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. The parent category is Category:Religion. Changing the name here to account for atheism is like changing Category:Color to Category:Color and lack of same.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Then rename the parent to the more inclusive form. There's no point in categorising atheism separately, and there is a very good case for saying that atheism does not belong in a religion category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd rather not. Atheism is defined by its comparability to theism; it's as much a part of religion as theism is.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. The distinction between religion and other beliefs is surprisingly difficult to define. Also, if we were to keep, there are a number of subcategories of Category:Religion and belief templates that should arguably move down. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Business law. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mercantile law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category with only one member, seemingly no different from its parent category. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 11:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for deletion: Category having only one member or having one article in category is not valid reason. I have many times added many articles in the above category but some deletes the articles from category. The contents article can be challenged but if you really interested to delete or merge then kindly read the difference between Mercantile Law and Business Law. There is great difference between two terms. Vineet Gupta, Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh [India] 15:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineetgupta22 (talk • contribs)

• I direct you to WP:SMALLCAT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Business law. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 20 August 2012 (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 (C2C). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Non-indigenous fish species in Ukraine to Category:Freshwater fish of Ukraine Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: per the convention at Category:Introduced freshwater fish by country. Also, non-indigenous is the same as introduced, which is the term commonly used. If renamed the marine species will have to be removed from the category. While some marine fish species may have been introduced into Ukraine they should not be seen as solely introduced into Ukraine alone. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I presume you mean "to Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Ukraine"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Bushranger. "introduced" is an important element of the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops. Yes I do. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, thought so but I figured I'd ask rather than assume (since we know what assuming causes!). I believe this can be C2C'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 19 August 2012 (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 all to a) Category:Former Olympic sports (which at editorial discretion may be split between summer and Winter Olympics); b) the appropriate "Foo sport competitions" sub-categories of Category:Sports competitions by sport.
This cannot be done by the bots, so I will list it at WP:CFDWM#Multiple_merge_targets and invite interested editors to implement the decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American football at the Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I don't quite understand the instructions for bundling nominations, but I'm also nominating the following for deletion:

• Category:Angling at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Australian football at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Ballooning at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Boules at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Bowling at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Budo at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Cannon shooting at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Cycle polo at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Fire fighting at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Gaelic football at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Gliding at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Glima at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Hurling at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Kaatsen at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Kite flying at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Korfball at the Summer Olympics
• Category:La canne at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Life saving at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Longue paume at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Motor racing at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Motorcycle racing at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Pesapallo at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Pigeon racing at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Roque at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Savate at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Water skiing at the Summer Olympics
• Category:Bandy at the Winter Olympics
• Category:Ice stock sport at the Winter Olympics
• Category:Sled dog racing at the Winter Olympics
• Category:Skijoring at the Winter Olympics
• Category:Speed skiing at the Winter Olympics
• Category:Winter pentathlon at the Winter Olympics

All these categories are almost empty with no potential for growth, since most of these sports were only played once and will never be played again. There's no need for each of these pages to have a category to itself, when they could easily be grouped together in Category:Olympic demonstration sports, Category:Former Olympic sports and the as-yet non-existent Category:Unofficial Olympic sports. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, cannon shooting. I've notified WP:OLY for more input. Lugnuts (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The categories give a false impression that the sports are still Olympic. Brandmeister^talk 15:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all into the former sports category. Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge into the demonstration or unofficial sports categories as appropriate (some of the categories are empty and can thus be deleted). In most cases the present category is the only Olympic categorization of these articles. Mangoe (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge As per Mangoe. Felipe Menegaz 15:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to all parents, not just the Olympics one. Each member article should also go up into the relevant sport's Competitions category, e.g. Category:Australian rules football competitions. I also suggest that Category:Former Olympic sports should be split between Category:Former Summer Olympic sports and Category:Former Winter Olympic sports; this would save upmerging individually to e.g. Category:Summer Olympic events. If this is approved, drop me a line as I'd be willing to implement this. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Query Doesn't the exemption to WP:SMALLCAT apply here though? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into the suggested targets, or possibly something like Category:Occasional Olympic sports. Some demonstation sports have subsequently gained a regular place in the games and should not be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2012 (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.