< January 9	January 11 >

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:Electronic funds transfer. delldot ∇. 18:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:On-line payment to Category:E-commerce payment systems

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is E-commerce payment system and it is a subcategory of both Category:E-commerce and Category:Payment systems. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Online payment is a lot of things. Category:Electronic funds transfer sounds more suitable. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Electronic funds transfer. Electronic funds transfer (EFT) is the industry name for online payments. --Marco (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Marcus and Marco, to match Electronic funds transfer. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2013 (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 repopulate. delldot ∇. 21:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Surname disambiguation pages
• Category:Given name disambiguation pages
• Nominating to delete both recently-created categories. Disambiguation pages are not anthroponymy list articles; anthroponymy list articles are not disambiguation pages. The existing categories Category:Surnames and Category:Given names suffice; if separate categories are needed for lists, they should be lists, not disambiguation pages. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Home backup#Background reading for some of the history and previous discussion on the differences between name-holder lists and disambiguation pages, and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Categorization of Dab pages for the likely impetus for these categories' recent creation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. --Marco (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The "likely impetus" page shows four people indirectly in favor of having these cats, vs. one opposer (this CfD's nominator), and lists a similar example explicitly deemed to be OK by two people. To clarify, the problem at hand is the dab pages which include both names and other dab entries. While splitting such pages into a dab proper and a name page is, of course, always the best solution, volunteers for this task are not always available. The cats covered in this CfD are an ideal interim solution for the mixed dabs (and are not meant to open the floodgates for frivolously putting dab pages into any and all categories).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 10, 2013; 21:23 (UTC)

  The likely impetus shows no such thing. What you call the problem at hand is not a problem at all, but the current consensus of how to handle name lists within disambiguation pages; splitting it not necessary, and neither are the categories, since the current arrangement is not an "interim" solution. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I would recommend that you reconsider your use of the term "consensus" as applied to a situation where the only !vote in its support is yours.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2013; 18:16 (UTC)

  I'm using WP:CONSENSUS's use, where the current consensus is the current consensus until a new consensus is formed. The !votes here will determine a new consensus for the cats; they will have no effect on the current consensus for how name-holder lists on disambiguation pages are handled (the current consensus I referred to). So I'll invite you to reconsider your use of the term instead, if it doesn't jibe with WP's. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for clarifying what you mean, although I'm not seeing anything here or on the other page that affects the way name-holder lists on disambiguation pages are handled; merely discussions regarding handling of categories under certain circumstances. If you are trying to confuse everyone (by quoting consensus on an unrelated matter), it's working :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2013; 19:38 (UTC)

  First I said: "the current consensus of how to handle name lists within disambiguation pages". Then I said: "the current consensus for how name-holder lists on disambiguation pages are handled". If you're confused, it's because you're not reading what I'm writing, but instead what you expect. I do not hold the opinions you believe I hold. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate JHunterJ and his ally have purposely depopulated these categories because they want the Category:Surnames and Category:Given names to be populated from use of the ((disambiguation)). Dab pages are not for providing substantive information, but to help people find what they are looking for. Using substantive categories on disambiguation pages is wrong for a number of reasons: dab pages cannot have references and hence no reliable sources could support any categories. It also gives the false impression that an article on the surname actually exists, as opposed to having it in the dab category - like we have Category:Place name disambiguation pages and other disambiguation categories populated through the ((disambiguation)) template. Let's not mix up the two and repopulate the categories that were depopulated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You purposely populated your new categories from ((disambiguation)). It is not "JHunterJ and his ally", it's "existing consensus". I do not believe your straw man of a user who got the false impression exists in reality. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate the putting of disambiguation pages into the surname category is just plain wrong. We should not do this. The pages tend to not have any substantive things to say, and they tend to include things that do not relate to the surnames at all. We need these disambiguation categories, and we should not be putting the disambiguation identifiers directly into surname categories. The way things are being done right now merges together unlike things and needs to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why do you want to keep and repopulate categories that put disambiguation pages into the surnames and given names category? You appear to misunderstand what these categories do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate disambiguation pages are not articles on given names or surnames. If they were to serve both functions, they would become set-indices, and thus would not be populated by ((hndis)) or other such disambiguation templates -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why do you want to keep and repopulate categories for disambiguation pages serve both functions? You appear to misunderstand what these categories do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  These categories organize disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages should not populate categories for organizing articles on the name. Since they are disambiguation pages, they would have no content about the name, otherwise they'd be articles instead of disambiguation pages. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. But per the background reading, disambiguation pages can include lists of given-name holders or surname holders. Anthroponymy list articles can also consist of solely a list of name-holders, with no content about the name, even though they're articles. Both of those types of pages are currently accurately categorized with Category:Surnames or Category:Given names. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If kept and repopulated, these categories should be renamed. I agree with several of the comments above: surname-holder lists and given-name lists are not lists of ambiguous things, but lists of partial title matches, and closer to set indexes. Unfortunately, they appear not to have read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Home backup#Background reading, the background that led to the current compromise. If kept, the category titles should be corrected; as per the keep votes, there are no surname disambiguation pages, only surname-holder lists hanging out on other disambiguation pages. Something like Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists and Category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I could agree the renames floated by JHunterJ. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, they look a helpful way forward. PamD 14:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there could conceivably be a dab page which could be called a "Surname disambiguation page": if it had entries such as Xyz (Irish surname) and Xyz (Turkish surname)", where two or more distinct surnames with different etymologies etc but same spelling (homographs?) each had an article. On the other hand, how would any "list of holders of the surname" within those articles be populated, if name-holders of other or uncertain nationalities were found? On further thought, a merged article on Xyz (surname) would probably be the solution, with etymologies etc as appropriate. PamD 14:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I find it hard to see what valuable content would go into a given name dab category. We do not allow all categorisation by surname. The normal course of action is to have a list article on the surname (or the name - also including geographic uses). These should be categorised in Category:surnames. I therefore see no purpose in a separate dab category for surnames. Alternative spellings and related names can easily be dealt with by a link at the end of the list article. If Xyz is both an Irish and a Turkish surname, I would suggest that splitting the list article inot two would be a hindrance to navigation, not an advantage. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• so all disambiguation pages should be pulled from all the surname and given name categories? The geographic uses may have nothing to do with the athroponymic uses. And finally, who will be doing all the work of splitting every dab page with anyone's surname or given name into article(s), one for each language? Lots of work for someone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep No kidding, what is it with people today, the cold must be getting to their heads. If it aint broke, don't fix it!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree: it didn't need fixing when these categories were recently created, no kidding. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and re-populate As per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As per what above? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Jewish scientists and Category:Orthodox Jews. delldot ∇. 18:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Orthodox Jewish scientists to Category:Jewish scientists and Category:Orthodox Jews
• Nominator's rationale We allow Category:Jewish scientists because to be Jewish is an ethnicity. However to be an Orthodox Jew is clearly a religious decision, and so this creates being both a scientist and an Orthodox Jew as a triavial overlap of two unrelated characteristics, so we should not categorize by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Marco (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The existence of a parent article / organization of Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists demonstrates that this a real world categorization method. The category covers individuals such as Fred Rosner, Gerald Schroeder and Rabbi Moshe David Tendler, all of whom (as well as the other members of this category) who have researched, written and spoken publicly about various means to synthesize the worldviews of Orthodox Judaism with a world that is 5,773 years old and the scientific mainstream view that the world has existed for many billions of years. Conflicts in the field include views on creation / Big Bang, evolution, abortion, defining death in Jewish law and many other such issues that are the continuing subjects addressed by Orthodox Jewish scientists. This Google News Archive search on "Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists" brings up several dozen sources that show the defining connection between the faith and science of these individuals, not a "trivail [sic] overlap". If there are some entries here that are at issue, the questions should be raised at the article / talk page for that scientist, without affecting the category as a whole. Alansohn (talk)
• Delete both - there is no such thing as Jewish science; the nominal religion (or ethnicity, if you must) of a scientist is not relevant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only one category under discussion here, so how can the result be "Delete Both"? Within Category:Scientists by ethnicity there is Category:American scientists by ethnic or national origin, which includes Category:African-American scientists, Category:American scientists of Ukrainian descent and Category:Native American scientists, despite the fact that there is no African-American science or Ukrainian science or Native American science. The parent also includes Category:Frisian scientists‎, Category:Oriya scientists‎ and Category:Tamil scientists, again despite the absence of any Frisian, Oriya or Tamil science. There's also Category:LGBT scientists‎, Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists‎ and Category:Women scientists, again despite a lack of any evidence that sex or sexual preference and science are linked. These categories exist because these individuals are identified by their being a scientist AND by their race, ethnicity, sex or sexual preference. The absence of so-called "Jewish science" is just a specious canard, all the more shameless because it comes from an admin with hundreds of thousands of edits. The relevant editing guideline WP:OC#EGRS states that such categories "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." Given the existence of the article for (and existence of the organization) the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, among other reliable and verifiable sources about Orthodox Jewish scientists, it is clear that this is a real-world categorization scheme, and the subject matter of integrating Jewish law and science practiced by these individuals demonstrates that these are not just Orthodox Jews who happen to be scientists, but individuals whose work demonstrates a synthesis between their religion and science. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I do not think we have Category:Catholic Scientists or Category:Anglican Scientists, because denomination is hardly relevant to being a Scientist. Professional associations are generally notable, but membership of one is not usually somethign that we categorise. "Jewish" is ethnic, but "orthodox" is denominational. CAtegorising a Jewish scientist as such puts him in a sibling category to Tamil Scientists and American Scientists, but this category with the additional intersection of being Orthodox appears to be open to members of Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. That is taking things too far. Carlossuarez46 always votes to delete ethnic categories; he seems to believe that the whole world is a melting pot; and it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguing that other things don't exist is a vote unsupported by policy. This isn't Category:Members of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. The existence of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists demonstrates that there is a parent article (and organization) of people who define themselves based on the intersection of their religious denomination and their profession. There is no Association of Catholic Scientists or Association of Anglican Scientists, but if there were I'd be more than happy to support corresponding categories. We categorize by defining characteristics and this is one. Let's let the sources and facts speak for themselves. Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as per nomination. Mayumashu (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Create Category:Members of Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists as a sub-category of Category:Jewish scientists because: (1) the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists does exist as a long-time WP:N organization and (2) such people have chosen to self-identify as being both Jewish and being scientists have joined it, and then (3) place whoever belongs in that category into that category. Otherwise, WP cannot and should not judge the "religiosity" or lack thereof of anyone. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or implement IZAK's suggestion. Ankh.Morpork 15:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. While being a member of the association may seem like a good alternative, is that a defining characteristic for these people? I suspect not. I have no opinion on the delete option at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 18:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:African-American female musicians to Category:African-American musicians
• Nominator's rationale We do not even have Category:American female musicians. There has never been a decision to divide musicians in general by gender. We would keep the sub-categories of this category like Category:African-American female singers, but I see no justification for having this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Marco (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both African-Americans and non-African Americans can perform the same sort of music and if you heard a piano rendition of Beethoven's Fifth on the radio, you couldn't tell the race of the pianist. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 18:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Shakespeare authorship evidence
• Nominator's rationale The contents of this category are not really evidence of anything. One is a portrait, which hardly proves anything and has no obvious link to Shakesspeare. The other is the article on his sonnets. It reamins unclear why his sonnetts are here and not his plays, but the whole thing is just odd. This is not a standard way to categorize things at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- the contnet does not belong in Category:Shakespeare authorship question, which might have bene a merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Marco (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's confusingly named and impossible to rationally maintain. The creator intends it to link together articles about items that have been used as evidence in Shakespeare authorship debates (by which the creator does not mean mainstream arguments about whether Shakespeare wrote this or that play or poem, but the fringe theory that there was a secret hidden author who left coded messages about his true identity hidden all over the place, including in portraits and poems). The problem is that every play and poem is potentially "evidence" in this sense, as are works by other writers, and even portraits of other people. The potential to mix this up with maintream attribution debates confuses the matter further. Paul B (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We can't say in WP's voice that the contents are evidence for any fringe theory, and besides, as JPL and PB point out, it would essentially duplicate "Works by William Shakespeare." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:30, 17 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 18:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Mogilev State A.Kuleshov University alumni to Category:Mogilev State A. Kuleshov University alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name fails to follow standard English punctuation, and is different than that on the university's website. Khazar2 (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Marco (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:African-American female Crunk&B musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American Crunk&B musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American female Crunk&B musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: violates WP:NOR "Crunk&b isn't really a real music genre. Secret ^account 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If the rational is correct the other Crunk&b musicians categories should be deleted as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge it and Category:American female Crunk&B musicians to Category:American Crunk&B musicians. these are all very small categoiries and do not need to be split by gender or skin color. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • African-American is a designation of ethnicity, not skin color.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Marco (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, well argued. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding the two categories mentioned by Peter and John to this nomination, same reasoning, was editing from class and saw that particular category added in my watchlist, didn't know two more existed. Delete all Secret ^account 02:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the entire tree being deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 18:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Christians by occupation to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This came up in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 9#Category:Christian ministers as a possible merge target. The problem, for starters, is that (as was commented on the other page) there's probably no occupation besides serial killer that someone couldn't justify including here. It needs a name which more accurately expresses the stated inclusion criterion. Per the other discussion I would tend to have two categories, one for lay ministers and another for clergy, but there are some subcats (e.g. Category:Composers of Christian music‎ which don't fit neatly into either. Mangoe (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the cat should and does only include occupations where Christianity may or always has "significant bearing" on the person's occupation (see WP:OC#EGRS). There is no need to further specify the category name, and there are many other categories like this in Category:People by religion and occupation. The idea to use a category name including "minister" would be more confusing as most people equate "minister" with "clergy." --JFHutson (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A short look at the category makes it clear that in general the categories included are logical overlaps of religion and occupation. If some are not, that should be delat with be getting rid of the categories, not by renaming the parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There is nothing wrong with the present name. I voted "keep for now" on the other CFD, becasue merging it will resolve nothing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not broke. Don't fix. --Marco (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all these religion categories are broken, big time. How does a Christian do anything differently than a non-Christian in secular jobs? Do they do science differently? dentist differently? And of course, many nominal Christians or self-labeled Christians are not Christians in the eyes of other objective observers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at the category contents before making your comment? Where are the secular occupation categories within this category? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—Until such time as the parents and children categories are sorted out this category needs to stay, otherwise the children will be orphaned. When and if that is done, then by all means come back and look at this category again. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are plenty of occupations for which one's faith is a crucial part. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 18:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:History of free and open-source software to Category:History of free and open source software

Nominator's rationale: to match the parent article and associated topics. "open source" is a compound word that isn't hyphenated in most sources even when used as an adjective. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. No hyphen. --Marco (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 18:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Images of Ricky Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Completely unnecessary container category —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No reason to have a category that only has one subcategory and no direct contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Marco (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2013 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Privatization in New Zealand to Category:Privitisation in New Zealand Category:Privatisation in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Word is usually spelled with an "s" in NZ English. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Shouldn't the target name be "Privatisation in New Zealand" (i.e. 5th letter 'a' instead of 'i')? DH85868993 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it should be. My typo. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. NZ use the "s" not the "zed". --Marco (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename—I've never seen it spelt with a z in any documentation here in NZ. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename— Hugo999 (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2013 (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.