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. I have listed the contents in Puppet designer. – Fayenatic London 08:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional puppet designers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one article and one redirect. Basically an empty category JDDJS (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:53, 1 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 23:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:YouTube channels to Category:YouTube users

Nominator's rationale: Channels and users are two different things; this can be seen in the url, which will say either "/user/" or "/channel/". A channel is a group of users united under a common theme. See also Talk:List of the most subscribed users on YouTube#Article title: Channels --> Users. ... discospinster _talk 19:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning oppose The thing is, whatever YouTube's naming convention, YouTube's users are in reality the people who log in and upload the material. These articles aren't about those people: they are about the material itself, which absent YT's naming conventions, I think most people would she as appearing in "channels" as the word is used everywhere else. And if we had an article on something which YouTube calls a "channel", it ought to appear in this category. I think a clarifying hatnote is sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 28 July 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Football people by country to Category:Association football people by country

Nominator's rationale: This category's contents pertain to association football, and not to any of the other variants of football covered by Category:Football people (such as American football, rugby league, etc.). The reason that almost every subcategory uses the "Football people in FOO" format is due to the fact that association football is called simply "football" in most countries. The same pattern can be seen in Category:Association football by country and throughout the 'Association football' category tree, with international categories using "association football" and national categories adhering to the local variant ("association football", "football", or "soccer"). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. If it's "football" it should contain subcategories for gridiron by country, rugby by country, etc. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep_ for a standard of football categories. --Iekrt (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Iekrt: Would you please clarify what you mean? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:42, 2 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 to Category:Software for modeling software. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Software modeling tools to Category:Computer-aided software engineering tools

Nominator's rationale: Frankly the scope of this category was never very clear. It has UML tools in it but also had MATLAB, which I've removed. This category (Category:Software modeling tools) was suggested to me at WikiProject Software when I inquired about a category for reverse-engineering tools (which doesn't exist, by the way). But this broader category seem to be more or less the same as proposed target of the merger Category:Computer-aided software engineering tools. I don't mind creating something more specific like a category for software visualization and/or one for reverse engineering tools, but this one appears confusingly named and there's a better named one that's more or less the same thing. The creator of this "software modelling" category also created Real Time Developer Studio, so I think he clearly intended it for the purpose I'm interpreting it as it's main focus. But the name was clearly unclear enough that others added stuff like MATLAB to it, i.e. software that does modelling of anything out there, which is clearly too broad to be a useful categorization. JMP EAX (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea of this category is to gather all software modeling tools. MATLAB is a software modeling tool so it belongs here. I would rather have the Category:Software modeling tools to be part of the Category:Computer aided software engineering tools. And I believe the reverse engineering tools should also be part of the CASE tools.Manu31415 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Software modeling tools to Category:Modeling software and categorize Category:Computer-aided software engineering tools under it. Rather unfortunate naming. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would not fit. A Modeling software is too generic, it could be a software that helps to design models of any type; like a house, a plane, or an electronic board. Software modeling tools is much more specific, it refers to tools that help to specifically design a model of some software.Manu31415 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I propose renaming this category because Software modeling tools is ambiguous: it may mean either software tools for modeling (this includes "a software that helps to design models of any type; like a house, a plane, or an electronic board") or tools for modeling software (this is more or less equal to Category:Computer-aided software engineering tools). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree there is a confusion between Software modeling and Modeling software. And we are actually talking about Software modeling software here. But isn't Wikipedia supposed to clear this out ?! Another thing is that the CASE tools page contains very different type of tools such as Software Configuration Management tools for example that have not much to do with modeling tools. I am definitely in favor of creating a sub-category for Software modeling tools.Manu31415 (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Software for modelling software" ? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not, if it is clearer than Software modeling software. 80.14.160.235 (talk) 09:42, 18 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming:

• Category:Airport railway stations to Category:Railway stations serving airports

Rationalle: This would make the name more clear, as these aren't stations of airport railways. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, I don't think anyone would expect these to be stations of airport railways, but agree that the proposed name is slightly more accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Although not stated explicitly, the current category name implies stations directly at airports. The proposed rename makes that less clear (many airports are served by one or more stations that are several km away - passengers use bus/taxi to connect). DexDor (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very good point. If a rename is to take place at all, it should become "at airports" rather than "serving airports". But frankly I'm doubting more and more if a rename is a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, the current usage of the category tree is the same as what you're objecting to here - for example, Metro/Airport (VTA) is 5 minutes by bus from San Jose International Airport, connected only by way of a shuttle bus (bus 10); similarly, Airport (MBTA station) is connected to Logan International Airport only by shuttle bus; and Teesside Airport railway station is, according to its article, "a 15-minute walk" from Durham Tees Valley Airport. The best definition for what these categories actually contain would be articles named after being near airports - so the Metro Airport station is in it, but the train station at the other end of the same shuttle, Santa Clara Station (California), isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Teesside Airport railway station article doesn't cover it too well but IIUC the station was left stranded when redevelopment work moved the terminal entrance and made the station useless for air travel. This may be why the name was never changed. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• REanme Category:Railway stations at airports and Purge -- the category should be limited to stations immediately adjoining airports (and defined as such in a headnote). Accordingly, stations where a passenger is likely to need to use a taxi or shuttle bus should be excluded, certainly unless a shuttle bus meets every train. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That can be hard to tell at a distance if the planners and passengers don't agree - Silvertown railway station used to formally serve London City Airport but the short walk through a residential street and the infrequent awkward service put people off - and there's also the pain of larger airports where the station is good for one terminal but not others. Formal designation is the easiest way to go. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - "Airport railway station" (or the variant "airport train station") is an accepted term in the transportation industry. See Frankfurt Airport - Airport railway stations, Dusseldorf Airport - railway station, RailEurope - Frankfurt Airport Train Station, Amtrak - Milwaukee General Mitchell Airport Train Station and Aiport Railway Station, Dhaka for just a few examples of the terminology use. Slambo (Speak) 15:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains requesting other interested editors to join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 15:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - I'm still concerned it may be used for stations that pre-date the existence of airports, or whose origins had nothing to do with aviation history. The existing category has been misused for that, but my concern is that the replacement will make the misuse more likely to occur. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:16, 16 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 per nom. – Fayenatic London 13:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Greater St. Louis, Missouri, metropolitan area geography stubs to Category:St. Louis Area, Missouri geography stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename and rescope. Firstly, the definition of the category name would include parts of Illinois, since St. Louis is on the Missouri/Illinois border. Secondly, a rescope is clled for, because this category was originally created in isolation from a general Category:Missouri geography stubs split; now that such a split has been done (see the map to the right), we should rescope it to fit the rest - which means removing ((StFrancoisCountyMO-geo-stub)) and adding ((CrawfordCountyMO-geo-stub)). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we not rename to Category:Greater St. Louis geography stubs, per the parent category Category:Geography of Greater St. Louis? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would include some of Illinois, and exclude Crawford and Washington counties of MO. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:01, 28 July 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) 02:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: See Hasbara, a term that seems to vague for to be useful for categorisation. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - this term is not much known yet. Qerrek (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no main article and no obvious coherence between the two main articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SMALLCAT. The main article is Public diplomacy (Israel), which I have just added to the category, and provided a "cat main" link using the Hebrew redirect hasbara. (I have no axe to grind here; just adding clarity to the discussion.) The category creator appears to be inexperienced, and to have put only one page into this cat.[1] When I looked, the only contents were MEMRI which is pro-Israel, and Pallywood which is pro-Palestinian and therefore does not belong in this topic anyway (it was added by a different editor). – Fayenatic London 08:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We would appear to have at best two articles. That is not enough for a category under most circumstances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 14 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Association football organizations to Category:Association football organisations

Nominator's rationale: ENGVAR consistancy - in places where the game is called "football", the word is spelled "orginisations". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment or we could just do Category:Soccer organizations, which would make it shorter. (it'd even be shorter than "football") And there'd be no confusion about what soccer is. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Association football organisations for consistency with the second-level parent, Category:Sports organisations. I do not think that the "national ties" component of WP:ENGVAR should be a consideration when discussing general categories such as this one. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:29, 27 July 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 13:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Vale of Rheidol Railway stations to Category:Former Vale of Rheidol Railway stations

Nominator's rationale: Opposed as a speedy renamed (link). The category should either follow the convention of Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by former operator or should be removed from the category. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The railway still exists - although affected by amalgamations, it's a separate entity once again. The ownership of the stations of the Vale of Rheidol Railway falls into five phases: (i) independent Vale of Rheidol Railway (the slate-carrying line); (ii) Cambrian Railways; (iii) Great Western Railway; (iv) British Rail[ways]; (v) independent Vale of Rheidol Railway (the heritage line). This railway is in the unusual situation where the line and stations of the independent heritage railway are substantially the same as those of the original slate line. It's also unusual in that at each change of ownership, the line remained open - the only long-term closure was in wartime. So "Former" is inapplicable to this category. Each former railway that had sufficient passenger stations to justify a category for those stations has that cat as a direct member of Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by former operator. There's also an established tree: if a station was at some point owned by the Great Western Railway, it should be listed either in one of the subcategories of Category:Former Great Western Railway stations, or directly in that category. The stations of the original slate line need to sit in, or under, Category:Former Great Western Railway stations, which implies "stations formerly owned by the GWR"; but as an ongoing concern, they're not "stations formerly owned by the VoRR" - they're stations currently owned by the VoRR. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:46, 27 July 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Colleges in Barrow-in-Furness to Category:Universities and colleges in Barrow-in-Furness

Nominator's rationale: Category should follow the convention in Category:Universities and colleges by city and it's also a subcategory of Category:Universities and colleges in England. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – one is a 6th form college, correctly categorised under Category:Sixth form colleges in Cumbria, and the other is an FE College, in Category:Further education colleges in Cumbria. I don't see any good reason to categorise them together. Oculi (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- The target would imply that these were colleges offering degrees; I do not think they are. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 2 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, which I will implement by upmerging to Category:Education in Aberdeen as this is a valid category for these articles. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Colleges in Aberdeen to Category:Universities and colleges in Aberdeen

Nominator's rationale: The category should follow the convention in Category:Universities and colleges by city and it's also a sub-category of Category:Universities and colleges in Scotland. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – there is no convention to group colleges and universities in the UK by city (see Category:Universities and colleges by country and city or Category:Universities and colleges in Scotland) and the 3 collected here just happen to share the name 'college': one is an FE college, another an HE College, the 3rd a college of religion, each categorised adequately already. (The first 2 are defunct.) Oculi (talk) 17:27, 28 July 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Japanese family law to Category:Family law in Japan

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Family law in Japan. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 2#Category:Fooian law. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:31, 27 July 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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Centenary Square, Birmingham to Category:Centenary Square

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Centenary Square. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Fayenatic. Categories should not be named with ambiguousness so as to collect articles unrelated to the specified topic of the category -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There may well be centenary squares elsewhere. For the same reasons, the Birmingham categories, one of which should be a parent here, are at Birmingham, West Midlands, to prevent them picking up articles on Birmingham AL. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 2 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 13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lunar Society to Category:Lunar Society of Birmingham
• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Lunar Society to Category:Members of the Lunar Society of Birmingham
• Propose renaming Category:Associates of the Lunar Society to Category:Associates of the Lunar Society of Birmingham

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the categories is Lunar Society of Birmingham. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted in the speedy discussion, the categories should be kept and the article should be moved to Lunar Society (currently a redirect). The Lunar society members were not all from Birmingham, and many of its meetings were outside the city. Also, WP:PRIMARY applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to reflect name of the article. The article is currently at Lunar Society of Birmingham and there has been no attempt to move it. If the article is ever renamed, then the categories' names can follow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. There is no listed RM proposal to rename the article, and I would oppose it if it were. If Birmingham is not exactly right, it is close enough, and far more correct than implying global significance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 12 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:River rapids rides (to retain the pluralization). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:River rafting rides to Category:River rapids ride

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is River rapids ride. Not eligible for speedy renaming as the article was only moved recently and without a discussion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the name is ambiguous, a "ride" is not necessarily an amusement park/water park thing, as it could indicate riding an established river rafting route. And those are not all rapids, as rafting through sedate rivers is also done. Suggest any name should include "amusement park ride" in place of "ride" -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Something the proposal is better than the current name (but I remain open to other suggestions). RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- If anything it is the main article that needs to be renamed inot the plural. Perhaps we should have a separate Category:River rafting routes for the real thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 2 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: speedy delete (criterion G4: recreation of a page deleted as a result of a previous discussion). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per the previous decision to delete this category. I don't think much has changed from that discussion to the creation of this category again. Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 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:Differential psychologists and and recategorize under Category:Psychologists by school. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:London School of Differential Psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category relates to the London School of differential psychology, which is just a redirect to the article Differential psychology. In light of the fact that Category:Differential psychology is currently a red link, this category appears premature. At a minimum, the category should be renamed to Category:London School of differential psychology, since the current title misled someone into thinking that it was a university. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: WikiProject Psychology has been notified. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Would renaming this Category:Differential psychologists and placing that under Category:Psychologists by school salvage this biography category? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It makes sense to me, though I lack the subject-matter expertise to be certain. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RevelationDirect's Reanme proposal. "London School" here is a school of thought, not an educational institution. The target is theoretically broader, but I do not think that matters. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 2 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Arab Unification to Category:Pan-Arabism

Nominator's rationale: per Pan-Arabism. Charles Essie (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This category contains things which do not directly relate to Pan-Arabism (e.g. Unification of Saudi Arabia, Fertile Crescent Plan). The current title accommodates these. I do not oppose creation of a Pan-Arabism category. SFB 17:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Those do relate to Pan-Arabism, because they were part of the history of the movement. Charles Essie (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support having given this some more thought I support – local unity on the basis of Arabism logically falls within Pan-Arab concept SFB 12:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Arab unification is synonimous with Pan-Arabism.GreyShark (dibra) 21:07, 5 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.