< February 22	February 24 >

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete. Renaming may be best considered separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I was going to have it re-named in order to reflect their new name (MOM Brands), but I think there are too few articles here to deserve a category, ViperSnake151 Talk 23:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My usual threshold for applying WP:SMALLCAT is 5 articles, and this category already has 4 articles. It seems to me quite probable that more of MOM Brands's extensive list of products will turn out to be notable, so I reckon that this has a reasonable prospect of expansion. Neutral on renaming; the proposed new category does match the head article, but the abbreviation will be obscure to many readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per BHG's analysis. No opninion on rename; not sure I agree with rename of article. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:29, 27 February 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 and rename to Category:Magazines on astrology. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of an established scheme. This is a natural subcategory of Category:Magazines by interest and if we delete it then we need a new home for The Mountain Astrologer within the Category:Magazines subtree. We can't use Category:Magazines itself since it's a container category and there's no reasonable merge target in Category:Magazines by interest. Pichpich (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname to Category:Magazines on astrology. I expect there are enough to make a category, though I have not looked. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That proposed rename would be at odds with the rest of Category:Magazines by interest. Pichpich (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of it though, and it's a more logical phrasing I think, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Magazines about astrology - "X of Y" format for this tree would help in many ways (are Category:Theater magazines magazines about theater or theaters? X of Y allows for grammatically-correct dabbing) and the change has to start somewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 27 February 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: Upmerge to Category:Fountains in the United States. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. List of fountains in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area notes that KC has more fountains than any other city in the world except Rome; unlike Category:Fountains in Rome, however, the KC category remains empty after 5 years except for the list and the Missouri category empty except for the KC subcat. Category:Fountains in the United States is not subdivided by city, or for the most part by state.- choster (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge -- I cannot believe there are enough notable fountains for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge both to Category:Fountains in the United States. There are not yet enough articles to require by-state sub-cats, let alone by-city. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Both Open to recreating after the articles exist to populate these. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:22, 27 February 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: Spedy renam C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Conventions to Category:Conventions (meetings)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Convention is ambiguous and this category should be a disambiguation category. The relevant article is at Convention (meeting). I recently cleaned some stuff out of the category that belonged in Category:Treaties, so confusion has actually occurred. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename highly ambiguous. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity. Pichpich (talk) 18:23, 24 February 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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Media by interest to Category:Media by topic

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Can't see any distinction between these two. Tim! (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There is a stack of sub-cats that also need investigating. Don't ya just luv the way that WP develops so organically.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I lost a CfD on this very point back in ~~2008~~ 2009, and post it here, for background. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons discussed at the previous CfD, in 2009, where the distinction is made clear. The closing admin in 2009 noted that there might scope for a rename proposal of the "by interest" categories to something else a bit more clear. I agree that should be done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as well, having made the same mistake in 2009. I now see that there really is a vital distinction between media about a topic (sailing) and by interest (women's, youth-oriented) which can encompass a wide range of topics. Some clean up may be necessary and yes I'm also open to a renaming proposal, 2+years later. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Media by interest - Way, way, way, waaaaay too broad. These companies making these products are in business to have their product "consumed", and to make money (and not necessarily in that order). So (depending on their business plan/model) they are going to want to have as broad appeal as possible within their topic or niche. And besides that, while most of us might suppose that a publication which may cover a certain topic may be of interest to those who may be interested in that topic, that may not necessarily be true, and worse, we just committed WP:OR : ) - This whole tree should be burnt to the ground. - jc37 18:36, 26 February 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 (And this one probably shouldn't be a cat redirect due to ambiguity.) - jc37 01:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Diocesans to Category:Alumni of Diocesan College, Cape Town

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify the purpose of the category, remove ambiguity, and conform to the "alumni of Foo" convention of Category:Alumni by secondary school in South Africa. Diocesan is a common word relating a "diocese", and there are "Diocesan Schools" and "Diocesan Colleges" all over the world. Even if a reader or editor is familiar with the "Old Fooian" format, the current title tells them nothing about which "diocesan school" or "diocesan college" this category relates to. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom do not redirect as it is overly ambiguous. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - this is the most ambiguous of all the Old Fooians that I've seen over the past couple of weeks. There are six Diocesan schools in NZ alone. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. There is no way to know what this category is about without context, and especially what country it refers to.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - clear, unambigious, jargon-free terminolgy = Like - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to cure ambiguity, clarity, and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no strong reason to move to the American "alumni" form when at present these South African categories consistently use the "Old Fooian" form. The present name of the category is the common collective name for former pupils of the school. As no evidence has been offered to show that "Old Diocesan" is used in any other meaning, I do not see any real ambiguity issue. The task of the category is merely to categorize, and so long as the name is not critical the present one is the most suitable. Moonraker (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really saying that readers and editors have a snowball-in-hell's chance of knowing which of the many Diocesan Schools and Diocesan Colleges uses the "Old Diocesan" label? Seriously?

The alumni format is already in use for Category:Alumni of Graeme College, and I have followed that format, because it is the only non-Fooian category in Category:Alumni by secondary school in South Africa. If you prefer another format, feel free to propose a change which should be applied consistently. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 29 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 12#Category:Ingredients by country. Upmerge subcats to the cuisine category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and all the similar categories below. Tim! (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alan, please can you group these nominations? There is no point in having umpteen different discussions on exactly the same issue of ingredients-by-country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Yeah. Good idea. Looks like someone has now done it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural note I've completed the merge of the discussions. Complaints about this should be directed at me and not the nominator. Pichpich (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah thanks for that. Twinkle does not do multiple CfD's and in retrospect I should have done it manually. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: It goes without saying that if any of the cats have subcats they can be upmerged to the related cuisine category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and upmerge subcats to Category:Chinese cuisine. Steamed rice is an example displaying category clutter caused by WP:OC. Ditto for all the similar ones below. Oculi (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are two big problems. The first is the criteria for inclusion. When is an ingredient Chinese? Is rice a Chinese ingredient? Salt? It's not clear where one should draw the line. The second problem is that these categories will lead to massive category clutter since some ingredients (rice and salt for example) will end up in dozens of national subcategories. Note that some of these categories could be listified. Pichpich (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent (as listed by the nominator) and per Pichpich's well-reasoned rationale. (Also, congrats to Pichpich for merging these nominations). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or merge all to the cuisine categories. Jeremy Hopkins (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? That is a real half baked idea and a recipe for disaster. If the ingredients are mixed in with the cuisine categories it would be all mashed up and look like a dogs breakfast. If that is done I can only say bon appétit!!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may be some exceptions in here that are defining and specific, for instance, List of Indian spices may be the basis for a viable category. But, with Potato listed under Category:Indian ingredients, this current usage of this category tree is problematic. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a great fan of categories but we don't need a Category:Indian spices. The List of Indian spices does a much better job that a category ever could. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:18, 28 February 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: Speedy rename C2D. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Electric grid interconnections to Category:Wide area synchronous grids

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category includes mainly grids which correspond to the definition given in the Wide area synchronous grid article, which will be the main article of this category. The current name means the same in North America; however, outside of this region it may cause misinterpretations. Therefore I propose to rename this category, but leave its subcategory:Electric grid interconnections in North America‎ with its current name to take account the regional terminology. This idea was originally proposed by the user:J JMesserly and I think the time is ready to implement it. Beagel (talk) 19:51, 23 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Typically, like producer categories in Category:Albums by producer, albums by record label categories aren't created unless/until there is an article on the label. There is no article for Four Leaf Clover Records. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:38, 23 February 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/upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is only one national police agency in Ecuador, so this seems a redundant category Green Giant (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be upmerged to Category:National law enforcement agencies so that the article is not taken out of that category tree. It is already present in Category:Law enforcement agencies of Ecuador. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea how these are supposed to be categorized; I just copied hierarchies of similar categories for law enforcement in the region. If this is deleted, it should be upmerged as suggested or the article is lost to that subcategory. Int21h (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- REdundant to "law enforcement agencies of Ecuador", which itslef is hardly needed as a category, sicne there appears only to be one agency. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 24 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is only one national police force so this category is misnamed but there seems little point keeping this and Category:Law enforcement agencies of Bolivia Green Giant (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DElete as redundant to Category:Law enforcement agencies of Bolivia. However there seem to be several things that might be categorised there, when they each have their own article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:59, 24 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Gibraltar is not a nation and it has no lower tier police forces to distinguish from Green Giant (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- identical to Category:Law enforcement agencies of Gibraltar, where the question does not arise of whether Gibraltar, an internally self-governing colony of UK, does or does not constitute a "nation". Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 24 February 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: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Election commissions to Category:Election management bodies

Nominator's rationale: The main article discussing these bodies seems to have been election management body for a while, so it makes sense to have a similar name for the main category. Green Giant (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A lot of them are called "Commission" - perhpas the article needs to be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm with Peterkingiron, seems to be case where the maina article is clearly misnamed after looking at the articles in the cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron. "Commission" is a commonly-used term, and it's shorter than the alternatives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 28 February 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. With no cat redirect, due to ambiguity. - jc37 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Royalists to Category:Alumni of the Royal College, Colombo

Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate confusion with the term royalist, a generic term for people who support a particular monarch as head of state for a particular kingdom, or of a particular dynastic claim, and with many other Royal Schools, Royal Grammar Schools and Royal High Schools with which this may be confused by those who understand the "Old Fooian" terminology used by some schools for their alumni. The format for the new category name follows the convention of Category:Alumni by school in Sri Lanka.
(Note: a similar discussion of this category in 2009 closed as "no consensus". Since then, consensus appears to shifted towards less acceptance of ambiguous "old fooian" categories). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS If renamed, please do not recreate Category:Old Royalists as a redirect. The primary meaning of the term clearly relates to the generic concept of a royalist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom do not redirect highly ambiguous. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Wow, that would not have been my 100th incorrect guess as to what country these "Old Royalists" were in.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to take the guesswork out of category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this is as bad as it gets in terms of misleading category names. Pichpich (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename could have multiple meanings. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to cure ambiguity, clarity, and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 28 February 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: withdrawn by nominator, through comment in the discussion below. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Federal law enforcement agencies to Category:Law enforcement agencies by country

Nominator's rationale: It makes no sense to separate these subcategories from ones that are "by country" or "national" Green Giant (talk) 09:34, 23 February 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: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:National law enforcement agencies to Category:Law enforcement agencies by country

Nominator's rationale: It makes no sense to separate these subcategories from ones that are "by country" or "federal" Green Giant (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This category distinguishes national law enforcement agencies from the local ones, for the countries which have such a split. The only problem with it was that it was a sub-cat of Category:Law enforcement agencies, when it should be a subcat of Category:Law enforcement agencies by country. I have just fixed that.
The proposed merger would mess up Category:Law enforcement agencies by country, which would then contain two sub-categories each for many countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think thats what confused me. I'd like to withdraw this and the above nomination. Green Giant (talk) 12:53, 23 February 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:Forestry agencies; revisit if necessary. This seems to cover all the issues raised. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Forest services (national) to Category:National forest services

Nominator's rationale: No need for brackets Green Giant (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The rename initially appears straightforward, but it is is ambiguous because it can be read as "services responsible for National Forests". That is a different kettle of fish to a "forest service with national scope", because National Forest has a specilaist meaning, and we also have Category:National forests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your reasoning makes sense, so instead I propose renaming it to Category:Forest agencies or something similar. Green Giant (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we use the adjective "forestry", there is less risk of the confusion I mentioned above. Possibilities include Category:Forestry agencies, Category:National forestry services, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 23 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:HVDC back-to-back stations to Category:Converter stations

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Both categories are meant to consist of articles about the same objects (stations converting HVAC electrical power into HVDC and vice versa allowing power connections between different electrical power systems). It may be discussed what is the best name for this category (maybe category:Electrical power converter stations?), but by my understanding they should be merged. Beagel (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Energy has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 23 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per ~~WP:SMALLCAT~~ WP:OVERCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (category creator). I'm not sure that WP:SMALLCAT applies: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members..." (eg, The Beatles' wives, Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor). AAPR is a continuing organization which will presumably in the future have new leaders who become notable. I don't understand why "by definintion" this category is limited in size. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure if it could be said to be "overcategorization" for someone like Bill Novelli. It's pretty right on point vis-a-vis his notability. It's certainly more helpful than one of his other categories, which is Category:American businesspeople. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AARP is a fairly powerful organization and its top people are certainly notable in part due to their position. The example of Bill Novelli is particularly striking in that respect. Pichpich (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- However, I would be happier if the category had a headnote explaining what AARP is (since it is not now an abbreviation that can be expanded) and the article contianed a list of officers, etc, from which we can be sure that these are notables in relation to AARP. It claims to have 40M members, but we should not be categorising people merely on account of their membership. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to AARP. No objection to later recreation when the AARP cat becomes larger. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:44, 27 February 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 without prejudice to recreation if sufficient articles exist in future. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per ~~WP:SMALLCAT~~ WP:OVERCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Americans Elect is a political organization which is becoming a political party in many states in the US. They've a complicated nomination process coming up. We have container categories for most if not all political parties in the US (see Category:Party for Socialism and Liberation for example). Also, you should not cite WP:JUSTAPOLICY in a deletion discussion.--TM 12:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as premature. The existence of categories is not based on the importance of the topic, but whether its existence is a help or hindrance to navigation: as it contains only the main article and a people subcat, this is clearly a superfluous category. It can always be re-created once the topic merits a half-dozen articles. Also note Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.- choster (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per choster and per WP:SMALLCAT as premature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; agree that this one is not needed right now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is redundant to Category:Americans Elect people. It is unlikely to be populated further than at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather than deletign this empty-ish cat, I think it should be populated by deletign the sub-cat because this would better group both the org and people articles for navigation. I seem to be looking at this one upside down from some other editors but I stand by that. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:42, 27 February 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. Rename later if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per ~~WP:SMALLCAT~~ WP:OVERCAT. . -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that WP:SMALLCAT applies: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members..." (eg, The Beatles' wives, Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor). This org. is a continuing organization which will presumably in the future have new leaders who be notable. I don't understand why "by definintion" this category is currently limited in size. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator). As Good Olfactory noted, the deletion rationale does not fit. It is widely accepted that we group biographies of politically involved people together, e.g. Category:Socialist Party USA politicians. I see no reason to treat Americans Elect differently.--TM 14:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Good Ol'factory and Namiba|TM. With 6 articles, this category exceeds my minimum threshold for passing WP:SMALLCAT, and per GO'f it seems likely to grow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- However the category needs to be better defined (in a headnote), so that it should contain officers of the organisation (and such like), but not ordinary members. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No conceptual objection to this cat but it is not that big at 6 articles (escapes smallcat for me at 5) but it effectively empties the parent category which does not strike me as a legitimate container category. No objection to recreating when more non-bio articles are in parent cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:40, 27 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per ~~WP:SMALLCAT~~ WP:OVERCAT and uncertainty as to what a Royal National Lifeboat Institution person is. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that WP:SMALLCAT applies: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members..." (eg, The Beatles' wives, Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor). This org. is a continuing organization which will presumably in the future have new leaders who be notable. I don't understand why "by definintion" this category is currently limited in size. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and populate. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution RNLI is a hugely important organisation on the coasts the UK and Ireland, where it is the only provider of lifeboats. It already has 7 members, which is more than enough to satisfy WP:SMALLCAT, and there are plenty of people who have become notable through their role in the RNLI. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems as valid as other members of Category:People by organization. Tim! (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep seems to be part of an editors crusade against certain categories. I see like other nominations made at the same time that WP:SMALLCAT has been dismissed by the proposer, while a simple read of the article would clarify what the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is, and hence the category contains both direct employees and volunteers who have existing articles created for them, mostly volunteer captains. As Tim! has identified, I created the category along the lines of every other Category:People by organization. The problem before hand was what to categorise these articles as/where to sit them? Creating the category removed the need for insertion of multiple common categories, and hopping around to find articles realted to the organisation whic were not directly linked in the article itself. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable from categorization perspective and definitely enough articles to escape from being a small cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:37, 27 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per ~~WP:SMALLCAT~~ WP:OVERCAT based on the parent topic at International Young Democrat Union. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that WP:SMALLCAT applies: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members..." (eg, The Beatles' wives, Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor). This org. is a continuing organization which will presumably in the future have new leaders who be notable. I don't understand why "by definintion" this category is currently limited in size. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this overcategorization? Grouping notable figures of a notable political organization is fairly routine. Pichpich (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Populate -- There are a couple of dozen articles in Category:International Young Democrat Union. I cannot believe that there are no notable people in any of these. Indeed it may be that some of the national organisations have categories that ought to be subcategories of this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Upmerge As Pichpich points out, this is a routine category format but I'm not sure the parent cat is large enough to be unwieldy or the people cat to be large enough that this isn't overcategorization. If the cat does fill up with more biography articles, then no objection to recreating. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:35, 27 February 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 & rename to Category:Dilys Breese medallists. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Reconsider in 2055 if we are still around! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the relevant guideline is WP:AWARD, not WP:SMALLCAT (this seems to be an annual national award, started in 2009, and, given this, has annual potential for growth: see Dilys Breese Medal). If kept, it should be Category:Dilys Breese medallists, not Medallists. I would lean towards keeping ... ceremonies at the House of Lords suggest this is a big deal in the ornithological world (of which I know very little). Oculi (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename per Oculi). I am familiar with UK ornithology matters, and this is, as suggested, a highly notable award, each recipient of which will be notable for their work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Occuli. This seems to be a big deal in UK ornithology, so it meets WP:OC#AWARD, and with 5 entries it already meets my threshold for WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 23 February 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 & rename to Category:Bernard Tucker medallists. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete sort of WP:SMALLCATish and the list will suffice. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – again, the relevant guideline is WP:AWARD. With 17 members this is hardly small. Another annual national award; we usually keep these. But rename to use 'medallists'. Oculi (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename per Oculi). As above, this is a highly prestigious award, each recipient of which will be notable for their work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 23 February 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: Split Category:Opera films to Category:Films about opera and Category:Films based on operas. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Films about opera to Category:Opera films

Nominator's rationale: There's no real need for two categories. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both : The theme of films about opera is opera itself - like the movie A Night at the Opera (film) (a musical comedy film), films about opera do not necessarily belong to Category:Opera films which is a category dealing with films in the opera-format. Stefanomione (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't an "Opera film" a film based on an opera, or an opera that was filmed? But a film about opera need not have any of that, especially a history documentary on composers of operas. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep both~~ per Stefanomione. Two different concepts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the Mike Selinker solution, below, but re-create Category:Opera films as a disambiguation category using ((category ambiguous)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Opera has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Mike Selinker Solution ~~Keep both~~ because they are two separate concepts. However, the contents of those categories need fixing, e.g Charlie Chan at the Opera, The Great Caruso and several others are mis-categorized as Category:Opera films. Note also the subcat Category:Films based on operas. Possibly merge that one with Category:Opera films. There's a pretty fuzzy line between the two. For example, some filmed operas are basically "as sung in the opera house" with real opera singers also playing the roles, but filmed on location (La Traviata (1983 film)), some use a combination of dubbed actors and real opera singers (Aida (1953 film)) but are quite faithful to the score, and others are adapted in various ways, although they usually contain the music and arias from the opera. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split Category:Opera films to Category:Films about opera and Category:Films based on operas. Those two concepts cover everything we would need to categorize about opera-oriented films. I've tagged Category:Opera films to alert people to that category's discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That solution is fine by me and would solve a lot of problems. Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Mike Selinker Solution - jc37 18:38, 26 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this category, I think. I don't know what "small" is usually defined to be, but this seems like bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. It's perfectly well-defined and a useful niche category for those interested in branching out from the main article. NW (Talk) 13:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small is defined in the guideline as a "few" whatever that means. The main article itself should be able to provide enough links to the articles in the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This category contains 5 substantive articles with clearly belong there (United States Academic Decathlon, Daniel Berdichevsky, DemiDec, United States Academic Decathlon National Championship, United States Academic Decathlon topics), so it just meets my minimum size of 5 articles. Not sure whether Cheaters (film) really belongs in the category, and not sure whether there is any real prospect of expansion, hence the weakness of my keep !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheaters (film) should not really be in the category. That is a bit of a judgement call. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The entire movie is about a story that has a famous history in Academic Decathlon history; it is even remarked given a paragraph or two in the main article. NW (Talk) 04:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My personal definiation of a Smallcat is 5, and this makes the grade. (I think the Cheaters movie is fine as a cultaral representation of the topic.) Unfortunately WP:SMALLCAT doesn't do the basic courtesy of defining what is a small cat so other editors may have different article counts in mind. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:33, 27 February 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Orthodox political parties to Category:Eastern Orthodox political parties

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is for Christian political parties within the Eastern Orthodox tradition—it is not about parties that are somehow politically orthodox. The parent category is Category:Eastern Orthodoxy, so I suggest just adding the word "Eastern" to clarify. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, highly confusing. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and actual cat usage. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:30, 27 February 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 & redirect. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: - Delete as duplicate of Category:Villages in Rewari district. --Sitush (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as redundant, redirect to actual cat if possible.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:16, 24 February 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.

February 23

Category:Malt-O-Meal Company brands

Category:Astrology magazines

Missouri fountains

Category:Conventions

Category:Media by interest

Category:Old Diocesans

Ingredients categories

Category:Electric grid interconnections

Category:Four Leaf Clover Records albums

Category:National law enforcement agencies of Ecuador

Category:National law enforcement agencies of Bolivia

Category:National law enforcement agencies of Gibraltar

Category:Election commissions

Category:Old Royalists

Category:Federal law enforcement agencies

Category:National law enforcement agencies

Category:Forest services (national)

Category:HVDC back-to-back stations

Category:AARP people

Category:Americans Elect

Category:Americans Elect people

Category:Royal National Lifeboat Institution people

Category:International Young Democrat Union people

Category:Dilys Breese Medallists

Category:Bernard Tucker Medallists

Category:Films about opera

Category:United States Academic Decathlon

Category:Orthodox political parties

Category:Villages of Rewari