< March 20 March 22 >

March 21

Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in New Zealand

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one article in it is of relevance and it is already suitable categorised. While there may be articles that could potentially be written the could populate this category, it should be deleted for the time being. See also the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand#St_John_of_God_Halswell. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a category that has previously had more pages in it and based on media reports could easily have more again. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know of a church that was removed from it (hmm, was it me?). There certainly is a need for a Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in New Zealand article and the only relevant article in the category, namely Sexual abuse scandal at Marylands School, Christchurch, could even be merged into such an article. Either way, under WP:SMALLCAT it could be deleted except that it happens to be part of a series. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:17, 22 March 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.

Category:Converts to Atheism from Eastern Orthodoxy

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, and a ((trout)) for the user who emptied it out of process. The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Converts to Atheism from Eastern Orthodoxy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is surely an inappropriate category. Atheism is not a religion in the sense that Eastern orthodoxy is. There is no formal means for "converting" to atheism, and it has no prescribed set of beliefs and practice. This category, which implies that atheism is itself a religion, has no place in an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category was created earlier today, and several articles were moved to it from Category:Former Eastern Orthodox Christians. Since the former category was more appropriate, I reverted the moves. RolandR (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to do that (though I don't advise it), you may as well just leave the category empty and wait for it to be deleted as an empty category 4 days later. Otherwise someone here is going to show up with a big fat fish and give you a smack. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 22 March 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.

Stars by spectral type

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 F-type stars. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Version A[edit]
Version B[edit]
Discussion (Stars by spectral type)[edit]
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.

TCNJ football categories

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. The current name is a neologism, and the TCNJ name fits the pattern of the category more than the spelled-out version,--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:33, 7 April 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.

Category:Subgiant stars

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) 12:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Subgiant stars to Category:Subgiants
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Subgiant (Article moved in 2006.) and every non-stub category uses the "FOO-type subgiants" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:46, 21 March 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.

Gas giants

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) 12:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gas giant planets to Category:Gas giants
Propose renaming Category:Gas giant planets in the habitable zone to Category:Gas giants in the habitable zone
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the categories is Gas giant. (Article wasn't moved in the last year.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually before looking the discussion, my first reaction was that it may be about the giant gas fields. I don't think that I am so extraordinary person to be the only one to be confused. Support creating Category:Giant planets with subcategories per 70.24.248.7. Oppose renaming per potential confusion. Beagel (talk) 18:12, 22 March 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.

Kepler (spacecraft)

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 Category:Kepler mission to Category:Kepler (spacecraft) & Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler space program to Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by Kepler (spacecraft). Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kepler mission to Category:Kepler (spacecraft) or Category:Kepler Mission
Propose renaming Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler space program to Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler (spacecraft) or Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler Mission
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the categories is Kepler (spacecraft) (Article wasn't moved in the last year.), but the program in which this spacecraft is used is called Kepler Mission. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:32, 21 March 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.

Category:Bright giant stars

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) 12:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bright giant stars to Category:Bright giants
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Bright giant (article never moved) and every subcategories of it use the "FOO-type bright giants" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:14, 21 March 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.

Category:Hypergiant stars

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) 12:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hypergiant stars to Category:Hypergiants
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Hypergiant. (Article never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:09, 21 March 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.

Category:Common envelope binaries

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:Common envelope binary stars. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Common envelope binaries to Category:Contact binaries Category:Common envelopes
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Contact binary Common envelope. (Article never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:06, 21 March 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.

Category:Semiregular variables

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) 12:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Semiregular variables to Category:Semiregular variable stars
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Semiregular variable star. (Article was never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:04, 21 March 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.

Astronomy images

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 on proposed rename. It appears that there would be a consensus to rename the other sub-categories of Category:Astronomy images to the "Images of Foo" format, but since they have not been tagged that woukd require a separate nomination. Editors should feel free to start that discussion immediately, if they wish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Images of moons to Category:Moon images
Propose renaming Category:Images of nebulae to Category:Nebula images
Nominator's rationale: Every sister category in Category:Astronomy images (except "Astronomy featured pictures‎") use the "FOO images format". Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tagged these but if there is any support for this from anyone else I will go and do that. Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 22 March 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.

Category:Plerions

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:Pulsar wind nebulae.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Plerions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#SMALL. I would say triple upmerge, but the sole article is already in these categories. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either populate or delete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:18, 21 March 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.

Category:Accretion-powered pulsars

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. The ones in the category are X-ray pulsars. It is not clear whether SWIFT J1756.9-2508 is, and if it is not, then the subcategory Category:Accreting millisecond pulsars should be removed from this category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Accretion-powered pulsars to Category:X-ray pulsars
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is X-ray pulsar. (Article never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:16, 21 March 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.

Category:Luminous blue variable stars

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: withdraw nomination. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 22:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Luminous blue variable stars to Category:Luminous blue variables
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Luminous blue variable. (Article was never moved) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and the article should probably be renamed to Luminous blue variable star, as "luminous blue variable" refer to variable stars and not some other type of variables. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:17, 21 March 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.

Category:Gamma Cassiopeiae variables

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) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gamma Cassiopeiae variables to Category:Shell stars
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Shell star. (Article never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:18, 21 March 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.

Category:Rye Country Day School alumni

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, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rye Country Day School alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I believe only Edward Albee and Barbara Bush have a verifiable association with RCDS. The rest or either unverified, uncited, or have simply had RCDS inserted into their articles. Two items are hardly a reason to created a category, Wlmg (talk) 19:48, 21 March 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.

Category:Cataclysmic variables

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) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cataclysmic variables to Category:Cataclysmic variable stars
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Cataclysmic variable star. (Article never moved.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:19, 21 March 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.

Category:DQ Herculis variables

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 as nominated. While "Polars" has uncertainty, "Intermediate polars" does not.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename - but would Category:Intermediate polar stars or Category:Intermediate polar binary stars work? "Intermedate polar" sounds just a little ambiguous. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:18, 22 March 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.

Category:AM Canum Venaticorum variables

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; revisit if main article is moved. I note no RM has been initiated. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:AM Canum Venaticorum variables to Category:AM CVn stars
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is AM CVn star. (Article was moved in 2008) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:43, 21 March 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.

Category:Symbiotic variables

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) 12:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Symbiotic variables to Category:Symbiotic novae
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Symbiotic nova. (Main article was moved in 2008). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:20, 21 March 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.

Category:Luminous Red Novae

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) 12:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Luminous Red Novae to Category:Luminous red novae
Nominator's rationale: Correct the capitalisation of the category after Luminous red nova. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:20, 21 March 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.

Category:Songs remixed by R. Kelly

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs remixed by R. Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_2#Category:Songs_remixed_by_Justice —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 21 March 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.

Category:1889 establishments in the United States

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. expanded rationale to follow --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant discussion at→ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 5#Category:1537 establishments by country
The problem with that is that it sets an ambiguous precedent. You start refining Category:1979 establishments in the United States, creating Category:Companies established in the United States in 1979 and Category:Organizations established in the United States in 1979. This establishes the new hierarchy which anyone will now feel free to populate, and the next thing you'll be seeing Category:Companies established in Portugal in 1895 emptying out the one article that was existing in Category:1895 establishments in Portugal. __meco (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The point being made is that at some point a serious look at splitting is needed. No one is saying that categories can not be larger then 200 entries. Having gone through a large number of building categories, and making mistakes along the way, I learned that a fixed guideline is not going to work. Due to the distribution of articles, you may have ample material for 10 or 20 subcategories for 1995. However if you take that back to, say 1586, you may wind up with none or one. The question is how do you know when to stop? We run into this all of the time with any series categories. In well populated trees you have thousands of articles to look at to find material for subcategories. So population can affect how this works. With large trees, the creation of subcategories can be hit or miss across centuries. You could have 10 articles for a subcategory in one year and none in the next. Also we need to remember the impact of decisions on populating of sub categories. If I start at 1901 moving up in years splitting out establishments into states, and someone starts at 2000 moving to lower years splitting out by establishment type, what happens when we meet? They are not going to want to look in 50 catteries to populate by type trees and it is not likely that I'm going to want to look into 10 or 20 categories to add these to the by state categories. So this is not a simple issue. Also what is the purpose of subcategories? Is it to organize material by topic or to make it easier for navigation or something else? In this example, which is better, by state or by type or is this an unanswerable question? Not saying I have answers, but clearly there are questions. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't decipher your post very well, I'm afraid. That said, I've been pondering strategies for developing and maintaining these chronological hierarchies for a long time. A couple of suggestions might be the following:
  1. Fortify WikiProject Years as the central forum venue for these problems and challenges.
  2. Develop "break-off limit" (a better name may be suggested) as an instrumental and actionable entity when it comes to making rules for when to create breakout categories, and what to name these.
  1. Populate all years from 1800 forward,
  2. Before 1800 populate decades,
  3. If the 1790s category gets to 100 articles, categories for 1791 through 1799 can be created,
  4. The same thing can be done to the 1780s category only after the 1790s category has been disseminated, and so on for earlier decades (i.e. even if there happens to be 150 articles in the 1730s category, it cannot be subdivided before all decades higher have been,
  5. Use the same principle to establish a subdivision delimeter for centuries, i.e. categorize by centuries only until 100 articles exist.
  6. And millennia
  1. Establish a consensus for how the backbone of these hierarchies shall be structured uniformly across the entire category hierarchy. This should dictate that by years, by decades, by centuries and by millennia should always be in place.
  1. Develop templates that can enforce the break-off limits, so that an error or warning message appears if someone appears to violate the creation rules. These templates could possibly also transclude given parameters that were given in a set format on a default sub-page of either the template or the top parent of that particular hierarchy scheme.
These are some thought, perhaps not perfectly explained. __meco (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like your guideliness and wish they were enforcable. I actually think that Wikipedia's vague, it depends, look at the individual situation, and we'll all have a consensus-building group hug nonsense with category size is counter-productive. Not having concrete numbers for what articles are too small or what ones are large enough that splitting is warranted is misguided. Such vagueness leads to good faith category clutter that takes far more time to clean up than it takes to create.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to implement a system which prevents categories like Category:544 BC establishments in Tajikistan from being created. How many articles is likely to go into that one? __meco (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably only the one, but this avoids category clutter at the article page. Otherwise you need a category "BC establishments in Tajikistan", and one for "6th century BC creations in Asia", and one for "544 BC", and so on. Otherwise there is no logical way to get from the category:544 BC to this specific one. I'm currently creating and populating the establishment and disestablishment categories (the latter being nearly non-existent, but the logical extension of the former), so they will form a logical full set with at the outsides some near-empty groups and in the centre (i.e. recent years, English speaking countries,...) more densely inhabited cats. This creates IMO less problems than artificial rules of which centuries get year cats, which get decade cats and which get century cats. (oh, and keep the US cat under discussion as is, please). Fram (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to categories like the 1790s since they generally don't aid navigation and when you get to the century categories, these tend to not be easily classified correctly into a century. Also categories like the 1700s are inherently ambiguous. I see no reason to group years in categories smaller then a century! Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this CfD gets closed and a proper RfC opened, since this is a much more general discussion, with ideas for splitting categories, grouping others together, abandoning the decade level, and so on. This needs wider input and a better format to get this thing structured and useful. Fram (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And today Tim! (talk · contribs) even created the breakout hierarchy Category:Establishments in London by year and began moving articles into it. This is moving ahead in a very disorderly fashion. __meco (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, discussing all of this here has limited benefit due to the accidental location of this discussion. We should establish an appropriate dedicated forum for these discussions. I suggest it should be under he auspices of WikiProject Years or WikiProject Categories, or ideally both. I.e. we could establish a cross-WikiProject work-group between those two to coordinate these sorts of deliberations. __meco (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See a similar nomination by same nominator at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 5#Category:1537 establishments by country. __meco (talk) 17:32, 5 April 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.

Category:Long Island highways

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) 12:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Long Island highways to Category:Roads on Long Island
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with the parent category, Category:Roads in New York, and per Wikipedia:Category names#Manufactured objects (substituting "on" for "in" since the landform in question is an island). – TMF 15:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support purely on a consistency basis. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 17:17, 21 March 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.

Category:United States free speech case law

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:United States Free Speech Clause case law. Also taking into account the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_20#US_Xth_Amendment_case_law for this closure. - jc37 01:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States free speech case law to Category:United States First Amendment free speech case law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name change is necessary to make clear that this category includes cases interpreting and applying the clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and not just any case that deals with something that some Wikipedian has determined to involve the freedom of speech in the abstract sense. It currently contains only those cases. This is an exception to the general rule that such categories should be titled "X Clause case law" because there is some ambiguity about whether the speech and press clauses are separate. And because the phrase "Free Speech Clause" is not used as commonly as others such as the "Double Jeopardy Clause." While the Supreme Court has never really given effect to the Press Clause as independent (i.e. given special speech rights to the press that do not apply to everyone), this preserves the ability of the category to include press clause cases (should any exist). Savidan 14:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now support RevelationDirect's alternate name of "Free Speech Clause case law." Savidan 18:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Alternate Rename Since I'm advocating naming a category after a non-existant article that I think should exist (a dangerous proposition to be sure), I can hardly claim the category name needs to follow the naming convention of the missing article. I'm fine with Category:United States Free Speech Clause case law (Same as your suggestiong with punctuation changes.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:10, 22 March 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.

Category:Student rights case law

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) 12:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Student rights case law to Category:United States cases involving students
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These cases do not involve rights that apply only to students, or that students receive because of their status as students. Rather, these are just cases that involve students as parties, and there is no necessary commonality between the sources of law involved. Savidan 14:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree regarding Tinker but this category is not limited to the First Amendment. Savidan 01:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 11 articles in the cat, 1 is about searching for drugs, 1 about equal protection for LGBT students and 9 10 are free speech issues surrounding Tinker. [The LGBT case was framed under the Tinker standard.]RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 22 March 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.

Category:United States computer case law

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) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States computer case law to Category:United States cases involving computers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no "computer law" anymore than there is a Law of the Horse. It may be useful to organize cases that involve computers, but this category wrongly implies that the substantive law was "computer law." Savidan 13:48, 21 March 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.

Category:United States Internet case law

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) 12:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Internet case law to Category:United States cases involving the Internet
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no "Internet law" anymore than there is a Law of the Horse. It may be useful to organize cases that involve the Internet, but this category wrongly implies that the substantive law was "Internet law." Savidan 13:46, 21 March 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.

Category:Polars

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per revised nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Polars to Category:Polars (cataclysmic variable) Category:Polars (cataclysmic variable stars)
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Polar (cataclysmic variable) Polar (cataclysmic variable star). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC) (Corrected after main article was moved. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
copy of speedy rename discussion
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.

Category:Canadian female triathletes

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:Canadian triathletes and Category:Female triathletes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian female triathletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Currently the only subcategory of Category:Female triathletes. There is no need to subdivide this category by nationality, which would be overcategorization and create unnecessary maintenance work. NSH001 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 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.

Category:United Arab Emirati people

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:Emirati people. The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United Arab Emirati people to Category:Emirati people
Nominator's rationale: This issue was also raised at an earlier CfD and also per the latest discussion here, the correct (and official) denonym for a person from the United Arab Emirates is "Emirati", not "United Arab Emirati". See the infobox on the United Arab Emirates article which lists the denonym "Emirati" and also the Emirati people article itself, as well as "List of Emiratis". All mainstream sources (eg. newspapers) refer to a native of the UAE (or anything related to the country in general) as "Emirati" while I can find no usage of the term "United Arab Emirati" anywhere apart from Wikipedia categories. It seems to have been invented. I'm going to start by proposing a rename of the parent category first. If that goes ahead, then other categories would follow suit later. Mar4d (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the discussion here is about the use of the word "Emirati" as a denonym. The term "Emirati" is generally used for anything associated with the United Arab Emirates. Could you provide some clarification on how would you relate this term to other emirates? Mar4d (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have never seen the term "Emirati" used to describe someone from an emirate that was not one of the United Arab Emirates. It's kind of used in the way "American" is used—yes, it could technically refer to people from a broader place (American=from any part of North/South America / Emirati=people from any emirate), but in practice it always has a more restrictive meaning (American=people from the USA / Emirati=people from the UAE). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 27 March 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.

Albums by certification

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. Nobody seems to want to close this, so I'll do so. Several comments have a desire to do something else with this information--not to delete it, but not to leave it as is. So I propose some people go off into a corner somewhere and formulate a proposal that people can weigh in on.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums by certification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. While an album could well be defined by reaching gold or platinum status, no album is defined by it being certified platinum in Japan, double platinum in the United Kingdom, and triple platinum in Canada, and it certainly does not need to be categorized in every country in which it has received some sort of certification. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for some albums to be categorized in a dozen or more of these categories (with a possibility of as many as 30), such as Gold: Greatest Hits (ABBA album), Believe (Cher album), and 21 (Adele album) (to name just a few), which to me is a case of category clutter and WP:Overcategorization:
  1. Not every verifiable fact in an article requires an associated category
  2. They make it more difficult to find any other particular category, even more so with the length of the names and the number of these categories
  3. Having each of these characteristics mentioned in the lead portion of the article would not be appropriate, although general statements like "top selling" or "record breaking" may be.
  4. This may also fall under overcategorization per WP:OC#AWARD just because of the number of albums in the number of countries that certifications can be received, just like trying to categorize an actor or author or artist for every award s/he may have received.
Not to mention that criteria can change over time, meaning what's gold in 1970 could be different to what qualifies for gold certification in 2000. I have no issue with looking at an article for an album and seeing its sourced list of individual certifications. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certified album categories in this nomination
Discussion (Albums by certification)[edit]
I've created a list of albums certified by the Argentine Chamber of Phonograms and Videograms Producers. Since the list isn't that large and the main article is a stub, I've put it all in the one article for this case. Note that it only includes albums that have been categorized under these certifications, and it doesn't include artist's names or dates of certification yet as a WP:WORKINPROGRESS. As time allows, I can move forward on putting together the other certifying agencies' lists. The hidden category, Category:Certification Table Entry usages for Argentina, will place album articles into it that use the ((Certification Table Entry)) template. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:23, 26 March 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.

Category:Latin grammarians

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:Grammarians of Latin. The Bushranger One ping only 05:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Latin grammarians to Category:Grammarians of Latin
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The two categories duplicate each other. I would rather merge to "Grammarians of Latin" rather than "Latin grammarians" for two reasons: 1) most similar categories use the format "grammarians of x", and 2) there is a chance that "Latin grammarians" could be taken to mean grammarians who have a Latin-American background, not grammarians of the Latin language. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the nom please! There are two identical categories. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 24 March 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.

More Numerals Categories

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 articles to Category:Numerals, and delete category from redirects.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Eastern Arabic numerals to Category:Numerals
Merge Category:Arabic numerals to Category:Numerals
Merge Category:Indian numerals to Category:Numerals
Nominator's rationale: This discussion resulted in the deletion of several categories that consisted solely of redirects to numerals. These categories are related. Category:Eastern Arabic numerals contains a main page, in addition to 10 redirects. Category:Arabic numerals contains 2 pages and the subcat Category:Eastern Arabic numerals. Finally Category:Indian numerals contains only a main page. It doesn't seem like there will ever be enough articles to justify this sort of categorization (WP:SMALLCAT). The main articles should be upmerged and the redirects removed from the categories. LeSnail (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am proposing to upmerge all of them. The redirects, however, should be removed from the categories so that the only articles moved are the main pages. I have clarified the nomination now. LeSnail (talk) 17:22, 25 March 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.

Category:Great Basin landforms

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) 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Great Basin landforms to Category:Landforms of the Great Basin
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The new name will conform with other similar categories. See this prefix search. –droll [chat] 02:33, 21 March 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.

Category:Hyades cluster

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) 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hyades cluster to Category:Hyades (star cluster)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy nomination. The article is at Hyades (star cluster), so I suggest renaming the category to match based on the applicable naming convention: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article.". The grounds for opposition—that the proposal to match the category name to the article name "seems trivial and inelegant"—is subjective, I think. I could just as easily argue that maintaining a difference between the article name and the category name in this case is trivial and inelegant. There is no way to prove which of these two views is "correct", so it seems natural to default to the naming convention guidelines. The guidelines are there precisely to avoid such battles of subjective preference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
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.
More