< January 30	February 1 >

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

The result of the discussion was: merge all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Tampa Bay Rowdies (AISA) players to Category:Tampa Bay Rowdies (1975–1993) players
• Propose merging Category:Tampa Bay Rowdies (ASL/APSL) players to Category:Tampa Bay Rowdies (1975–1993) players
• Propose merging Category:FC Tampa Bay players to Category:Tampa Bay Rowdies players

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERCAT. The Tampa Bay team that played in the AISA and ASL/APSL were all from the same franchise from 1975–1993 and the current Tampa Bay Rowdies team that plays in the new NASL began as FC Tampa Bay before being renamed to Tampa Bay Rowdies in 2012. – Michael (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- It is presumably all one team. We treat alumni of merged universities and colleges as alumni of the successor, despite the anacrhonism involved. I do not see why the same principle should not apply to sporting teams. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge these are two different teams, not 4.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 2 February 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Works by Peter Carey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one sub-cat Category:Books by Peter Carey‎ which is adequately categorised without this. – Fayenatic London 22:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reason to have a container cat that has only one subcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 2 February 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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Pittsburgh Riverhounds (USL Pro Soccer League) players to Category:Pittsburgh Riverhounds players
• Propose merging Category:Pittsburgh Riverhounds (USL Second Division) players to Category:Pittsburgh Riverhounds players

Nominator's rationale: Another clear cut example of WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for reasons as Tampa (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - it's the same team, no need for a category for every league played in! GiantSnowman 10:59, 5 February 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Works by Ovid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Ovid and Category:Classical Latin literature. Only contains 1 sub-cat Category:Poetry by Ovid which is in Poetry by writer; there is no need for this otherwise empty level in "Works by writer". – Fayenatic London 22:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though for the sake of encyclopedic pedantry I feel compelled to point out one thing. All of Ovid's extant work is in the form of poems. However, he did write one play, Medea, which is lost but which has generated enough commentary (regarding the ancient testimonia, scholarly conjecture about his treatment based on what he says about Medea elsewhere, what his sources would've been, whether Seneca drew on it, what the circumstances of its performance would've been in Augustan Rome) to support a little article. I offer this only as a possible reason (excruciating correctness) for why such a category would've been created in the first place. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reason to have this parent when all it has is one subcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 4 February 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Charleston Battery (USL A-League) players to Category:Charleston Battery players

Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge subcategorizing soccer teams by every league they have been in will just create a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - it's the same team, no need for a category for every league played in! GiantSnowman 10:59, 5 February 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 to Category:Mongol Empire Muslims. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Mongol Muslims to Category:Mongolian Muslims

Nominator's rationale: Mongol people are a large group bound together by speaking Mongolic languages, whereas this category is about citizens of the contemporary republic of Mongolia, irrespective of ancestry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—People with Down syndrome are still referred to as Mongols in parts of the English-speaking world (even though this is usually considered offensive in many circles), so there is potential for confusion in the current name. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Muslim Mongols. The nom has not checked the contents of the category. Mongolians refers to a modern state, but the people whom I checked belonged to the medieval period, when the Mongol Empire (not Mongolian Empire) stretched much of the breadth of Asia. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Mongol Empire Muslims, to match its parent Category:Mongol Empire people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per JPL. This is the more appropriate name for the category contents. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 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 to Category:Mongol Empire Christians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Mongol Christians to Category:Mongolian Christians

Nominator's rationale: Mongol people are a large group bound together by speaking Mongolic languages, whereas this category is about citizens of the contemporary republic of Mongolia, irrespective of ancestry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Apart from the Latter Day Saints subcategory, the category seems to have articles about people from the 13th-century—and the category definition suggests it was intended for Mongol Empire Christians. Either way, we do need a Category:Mongolian Christians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—People with Down syndrome are still referred to as Mongols in parts of the English-speaking world (even though this is usually considered offensive in many circles), so there is potential for confusion in the current name. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to Category:Christian Mongols. As with the item above this is enitely about 13th century people of the Mongol Empire. The LDS subcat needs to be removed and placed in a category for modern Mongolia, where it presumably belongs. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Mongol Empire Christians to match its appropriate parent Category:Mongol Empire people. Category:Mongols is a general holding category that is above Category:Mongol peoples and largely has articles on tribes and other groups of people. They are not currently formulated to hold biographical articles in their structure. Category:Mongol Empire people is the natural parent to this category where we group together biographical articles of those who lived in the Mongol Empire. Mongol alone is problematic because many of these people are ethnically Turks or ethnically unclear and not clearly ethnically Mongols. I created Category:Mongolian Christians to serve as a holding category for Category:Mongolian Latter Day Saints, since that category relates to people in the modern nation of Mongolia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 2 February 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:J-pop songs. If there's something that doesn't belong there, it can be removed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs by Japanese idols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Trivial association —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The association is hardly trivial. It's quite specific. If you have a problem with the category title, try being a little more specific about your concern. And if you're concerned there aren't enough categories within the category, that's a completely different concern. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Songs by Japanese idol stars in order to be more clear on the title. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename—While I think it unlikely that the various temple statues in Japan have written songs, this is what the current title says to me. I suggest Category:Songs by Japanese Idol winners. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think something like Category:Songs by Japanese idol stars or Category:Songs by Japanese idol singers might be better as these aren't winners of a contest necessarily, and those that are won various different contests to make their debut. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Japanese idols are a specific group of singers in Japan, it is not a Japanese equivalent of American idol, so there are not winners. So this is equivalanet to Category:Songs by American jazz singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we have an article Japanese idol which explains what is going on here. It is an accepted term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:J-pop songs. I suppose it would be more equivalent if there were categories such as Category:Songs by teen idols or Category:Songs by boy bands since there are articles on those topics as well. I'm not sure we want to go that route. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:J-pop songs. That seems like a clear category. Since we are dividing these songs by singer anyway, it seems we do not need an overly fragmented way of organizaing the singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem being that not all music by Japanese Idols would be considered J-pop. For those unfamiliar with Japanese idol stars, this may seem odd, but they can sing in many different genres, so merging it to Category:J-pop songs would be simply incorrect. The category as it stands is a perfectly good subcategory of Category:Japanese idols (which is why it is named the way it is), so renaming it to be more specific (Category:Songs by Japanese idol stars) is the best option here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the present, every single song or artist with songs in this category is described as J-pop. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be the case right now, but that isn't the case in general. It's better to have the categories not have to be constantly changed once that is no longer the case than to move them all right now only to remove them again in the future once someone gets around to adding songs or artists with songs which are not J-pop. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • For example, most of the songs released by Baby Metal would hardly be classified as J-pop since they are mostly heavy metal (or other metal). However, they are idol stars, too, so that would be one example. Currently, no one has create articles for any of their songs, but they are still fairly new. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:09, 16 February 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Delta Upsilon UWO alumni to Category:University of Western Ontario alumni

Nominator's rationale: Merge. It was years ago now that we deleted all the categories that categorized people by university or college fraternity/sorority. This is another one that has popped up since. It can simply be merged with the appropriate alumni category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. We categorize people by the nstituion they were educated at, not by belong to a specific club there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 2 February 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: reverse merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dutch Governors of Mauritius to Category:Opperhoofds of Mauritius
• Propose merging Category:French Governors of Mauritius to Category:Governors of Isle de France

Nominator's rationale: I recently create two articles Opperhoofd of Mauritius and Governor of Isle de France and also create a category for each of them, later i found that these categories already existed on the same topic but with different name. I think we should rather keep the new one to match the article name.Kingroyos (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge both. The parent category is Category:Governors of Mauritius and consistency of naming in a category tree is important. I know that there are exceptions to this, but I can't see them for these two categories. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Governors of Mauritius there have not been enough to warrant having multiple categories according to who the colonial power of the day was. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge both per Beeswaxcandle, for consistency with other similar categories. I don't support Peterkingiron's proposal to merge them all to Category:Governors of Mauritius, because in each case a dual upmerge would be needed. (For example, Category:Dutch Governors of Mauritius→Category:Governors of Mauritius+Category:Dutch colonial governors and administrators). That increases categ clutter on the articles and impedes maintenance ... and it seems to me that having been the governor of a colony of one nation (rather than a colony of another nation) is a defining characteristic which makes a valid intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge both It makes sense to subdivide colonial governors by the nation they were appointed by, but we should use consistent names for the place involved and the office they held to make it easy to navigate between them. This is the English wikipedia, so in general we should use English titles. For example we have category Category:Kings of France, even though king is not the French term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Governors of Dutch Mauritius and Category:Governors of French Mauritius. It is Maurius and not the governors who are Dutch and French, in that it is a Dutch or French possesion, while the governors appointed may or may not actually be Dutch or French. They might all be of the respective nationality, but what we are categorizing by is the nation governing the territory, not the nation the governors were from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per BHG or merge to Category:Governors of Dutch Mauritius and Category:Governors of French Mauritius per JPL. Either way works. The nominator's proposal are WP:JARGONous and ambiguous, since it's not about Isle de France in France. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• For the French one, it should rather be Category:French Governors of Mauritius or Category:Governors of Isle de France and not Category:Governors of French Mauritius because Mauritius is commonly and officially called Isle de France and Île-de-France during French period 'French Mauritius' is very unfamiliar.Kingroyos (talk) 05:12, 9 February 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 1, and merge 2 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Works by filmmakers to Category:Works by filmmaker
• Propose merging Category:Screenplays by actors to Category:Screenplays by writer
• Propose merging Category:Screenplays by directors to Category:Screenplays by writer

Nominator's rationale: Rename. We use the singular for the "by" parameter. As for the sub-cats for screenplays, the person was working in the capacity of a writer rather than actor/director when writing the screenplay, so it is not appropriate to separate out these categories. It might be interesting to listify one as "Screenplays by writers better known as actors" or "...also known as actors", but crossovers between acting, writing & directing are not unusual and I am not sure how valuable such a list would be. – Fayenatic London 09:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming to Category:Works by filmmaker per naming conventions. For the other two, I have to agree that the fact that a particular film's screenwriter happens to also have been an actor or a director does not constitute a defining characteristic of the film. Listification maybe (though I'd suggest that even that would be excessively trivial), but unequivocally WP:OCAT by non-defining characteristic as a category. Delete both of those. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There are enough films with a lead actor who was als writer and director (God's Army and Life is Beautiful come to mind and I am sure there are others), that the two screenplays by categories do not work. As it is I can see no way to avoid putting Life is Beautiful in both categories, except that maybe it makes no sense to put a film in a screenplay category when the screenplay was written by the person who directed the film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I came across the CfD quite by accident, and I agree on all three points. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I created the first category, only to realize a few days later that I made a typo mistake. Regarding the other categories, I also agreed that they are not useful. Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 05:15, 4 February 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 to Category:Tubing (material). Everyone wants some change, though there is disagreement on which is best. So I picked one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tubing to Category:Tubing (fluid conveyance)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is Tube (fluid conveyance), but "Tubing" is a better category name than "Tubes". However, Tubing is ambiguous; most notably, there is Tubing (recreation). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Tubes The term "tubing" is inherently ambiguous, and while "tubing" may well be a better category name than "tubes", I would have to say that Category:Tubes is significantly better than Category:Tubing (fluid conveyance) both in terms of the fluidity of the name (pun intended) and the ability to correctly select the category name when editing the articles or searching for related material. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Category:Tubes since tube is completely ambiguous! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also oppose Category:Tubes as probably too ambiguous. Maybe Category:Tubes (material) would be OK, but if we're going to use that disambiguator, why not Category:Tubing (material) since "tubing" seems to be a better base category name than "tubes". (At least to me—you might want to categorize something in "tubing" that is not categorizable as a "tube". Like a tubing clamp, hypothetically.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not ready to support the nom since I'm not convinced that Category:Tubing (fluid conveyance) is the correct option. The introduction has a see also for hose (tubing) and includes Category:Hoses and claims tubing (material) as the main article. Then if you look at the contents, Tube (fluid conveyance) is shown as the main article. However, I wonder how this overlaps with piping and by extension Category:Piping. The parent categories don't provide any guidance for me. This all leave me wondering if a merge to multiple other categories may be the best choice. Tube bending, one of the articles, applies to electrical conduits which is not categorized anywhere. Maybe some cleanup on the articles? Note that I do not consider production tubing to be tubing in the sense that may be intended here. Aren't those pipes? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it seems there is some categorization by shared name going on, rather than categorization by actual function. I considered Category:Tubing (material), but Tubing (material) just redirects to Tube (fluid conveyance), so .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we can ignore the article name in this case and once we decide on a name here, rename the article. Given that, Category:Tubing (material) would seem the best solution mentioned so far with the article moved to Tubing (material). There is at least one comment on the talk page questioning the title and definition since it did not cover electrical conduits which are illustrated in the image on the article. I cleaned up the lead on the article a bit. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even if the target is not ideal, it is better than the current ambiguous name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 2 February 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Spike TV network shows to Category:Spike (TV channel) shows

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article and category Spike (TV channel). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:45, 31 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: Speedy close. I am closing both of these discussions together, because the same issues apply to both. In each case, an existing category was emptied out of process by the editor who made these nominations to delete the pre-existing categories. Whatever any editors views on the merits or demerits of a category name, a renaming should take place only if a consensus has been established at CFD ... but these two nominations simply seek the rubber-stamping of a renaming which has already been implemented.
I will revert the edits by which the two nominated categories were emptied, to restore the status quo ante. If the nominator (or any other editor) wants to pursue this renaming, it should be done in the normal way: by making a proposal at CFD to rename the existing category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch Governors of Mauritius[edit]

• Propose deleting Category:Dutch Governors of Mauritius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Same category exist Category:Opperhoofds of Mauritius‎ Kingroyos (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment you created the destination category today [1] so this is an out of process emptying of a category. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you also created the "main" article today -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WP:JARGON -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French Governors of Mauritius[edit]

• Propose deleting Category:French Governors of Mauritius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Same category already exist Category:Governors of Isle de France Kingroyos (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You created the destination category today [2], so the contents were moved out of process. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you also created the "main" article today -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is overly ambiguous. Île-de-France has an alternate spelling of "Isle de France" in English, and a former French spelling of "Isle de France".
  • Comment the destination category "Governors of Isle de France" should be deleted as highly ambiguous. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:26, 31 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.