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. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Youth model governments to Category:Youth model government

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current title suggests a list of youth simulations of governments, whereas without the "s" the category becomes less narrow, better encompassing general articles such as Model United Nations. Cjeongbis (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Content covers the general topic, not just instances of models. SFB 20:31, 8 September 2014 (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:Restorationism (Christianity). Consensus was for a rename. The selected name appears to address the only objection in the discussion which was raised before this suggested target. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Christian primitivism to Category:Restorationism

Nominator's rationale: The article is called Restorationism JFH (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In 2011 the current category naming has been initiated due a reverse CfD as to the current CfD. In 2012 the current naming has been confirmed, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_17#Category:Christian_primitivism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment, leaning towards an oppose, the article Restorationism provides several very different definitions of Restoratisiosm, while it gives only one definition of Primitivism. So the latter term seems to be less ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Restorationsm (Christianity) to make it more clear what this is referring to but also align with the article. The article makes it clear that Restorationism and Christian Primativism are the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Insects described by Moses Harris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Breaking out species by the researcher who officially described them is unwieldy. It also seems to me to be unnatural overcategorization. As far as I know, this is the only such category on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 06:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the nom is quite right. Being first described by Harris is not a defining characteristic of an insect. Oculi (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining for the bug involved, surely. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify this is not defining to the insect -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no objection to listifying, but I suspect some biologists will have very long lists. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I, too, have no objection to listifying. This kind of category would be an unnatural and unwieldy one for Wikipedia, though I don't think it's "not a defining characteristic". A species is a hypothesis, not some ideal that exists without acknowledgement or description. Re-evaluation of data allows species to be split or lumped and opinions differ. Thus, when we talk about species or any other taxon, we're talking about the widely-accepted notion of what a species is, the name it's been given, and its delimitation. A species (and our articles about them) is as much about the "bug involved" and its name, descriptor, and taxonomic history. So yes, who described the species is quite defining. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:15, 26 August 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 18:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Template:SanFranciscoCountyCA-geo-stub to Template:SanFrancisco-geo-stub

Nominator's rationale: The city is synomimous with the county and better known, so the name should match the other stub tags for the city. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• support makes sense, as with the name for the category for the stubs (mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also CfD East Ukraine Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Western Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the content largely overlaps with Category:Historical regions in Ukraine. Besides a (random?) selection of a few cities and settlements in Lviv oblast have been added that are in the respective Lviv oblast categories already. In this category Western Ukraine there's only one article about Western Ukraine as a whole, apart from the lead article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Western Ukraine differs from the east as being formerly Polish (and hence Catholic), the East being largely Orthodox, but the appropriate split is a county-level one by oblast (or other unit). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – for the same reasons I mention at the Category:East Ukraine discussion. Existing categories by oblast are much more useful than this category. "Eastern/southern/western/central" are not real division of Ukraine, just theoretical ones use for statistical purposes. RGloucester — ☎ 01:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. NickSt (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 18:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting renaming Category:San Francisco County, California geography stubs to Category:San Francisco, California geography stubs

Nominator's rationale: Probable upmerge, otherwise rename. The category currently only has 40 stubs, with no ore than 4 plausable additions; if kept, it should be renamed to Category:San Francisco, California geography stubs, since the city is synomimous with the county and better known - as well as the fact that the permcat is called Category:Geography of San Francisco, California. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• support makes sense to me, we dont need consistency in using "county" in this case, no one calls it SF county.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2014 (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.