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.
Nominator's rationale: I'd like to understand the Wikipedia category system but there is this part of it which confuses me and i havn't found an explanation. There is the category tree "<Topic> by *Time*" and "*Time* by <Topic>", yet for me they are all the same! The two given cats are just examples, you can compare several others: Category:Years in science is a subcat of BOTH Category:Categories by year as well as Category:Years by topic. It makes no difference if i say "At that TIME, on that TOPIC, we have this content" or "On that TOPIC, at that TIME, we have this content". As i see things, one of these category trees is too much and could be deleted, as these two have the same function. 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support These categories are serving the same purpose. That's not the case for the rest of the structure as I can see different purposes are being served (although on the surface it's a subtle difference). Comparing Category:Years in sport and Category:Sports by year makes it quite obvious. SFB 18:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: something's not right here. Category:Years in music is a subcategory of Category:Centuries in music, while Category:Music by decade and several century-level categories are subcategories of Category:Years in music. Are there others scratching their heads about this arrangement, or is it just me? - Eureka Lott 01:44, 18 June 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.
Category:Monasteries of canonesses regular
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Usage in the main article Canonesses Regular, which is a redirect target, is both words are capitalized. Not doing as a speedy since I don't know which is correct. Also if renamed, some articles probably need to be removed since it is not clear that they really fall into this grouping. Then there is a question from some articles about how defining this is, so deletion is potentially on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me that would be the correct format.Daniel the Monk (talk) 03:39, 12 June 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.
Colorado Territory
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.
Nominator's rationale: Categories should be historically accurate, and Colorado Territory existed from 1861-(August) 1876. Some of the 1876/1870s members should be split manually. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, these might need to be renamed Category:1861 establishments in the Colorado Territory, etc. Kennethaw88 • talk 18:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I created a bunch of these for Washington Territory. You'll also need to create the parent, event by year and years in terrority and populate that joy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but to in the as proper English. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Use of a "the" is not necessary when referring to U.S. territories. You'll find them referred to both with and without the the" in running text in sources. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There is no reason to use "the", it is pretensious sounding and not common practice in English. Use of "the" before any place name is becoming less common. Historically "the" plus "place name" plus "territory" was not a reference to the formal government territories we are invoking here, but to much fuzzier areas that Anglo-American settlers were moving to in their western migration. In fact, I would argue that "the Colorado Territory" sounds like an invocation of the common speech of those rushing to the gold mines in 1870. Common name does not mean we use the wording preferred by the speakers in a place at a given time, it means we use the wording most often used in reliable sources published on the subject today. Those will generally not use the before Colorado Territory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 2 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.
Category:Toxic metal poisoning
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:Toxic effects of metals. Bluerasberry, I acknowledge that there is a backlog and that you have acted in good faith, but please do not prejudge CfD discussions by emptying categories before closure; this is considered "out of process", and makes it harder for editors or closers to assess the proposals and arguments. – FayenaticLondon 21:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Toxic metal" is not a real term. If metal poisons, then it is toxic, so just saying "metal poisoning" is enough and to add "toxic" to that is redundant. I searched PubMed and it seems that "toxic metal poisoning" is not something described in literature. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename unless we're willing to have "non-toxic metal poisoning". Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match metal poisoning. Kennethaw88 • talk 16:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Just realized that page was just created and moved to metal poisoning. Kennethaw88 • talk 16:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the alternative Category:Metal toxicity is acceptable to me. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commentmetal poisoning does not seem to cover light metals like calcium, but which are metals. "metal poisoning" gives 129k ghits while "heavy metal poisoning" gives 494k ghits so the "topic article" does not seem to actually cover the scope of the nominal topic, as beryllium, etc are not covered in it. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment We actually have two candidate main articles, the second being metal toxicity. Probably they ought to be merged. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom or to Category:Metal toxicity, which is probably better (really I'd want both at Toxicity of metals, but one battle at a time). I agree metal poisoning and Metal toxicity should be merged, given both are currently short. If they were longer a separation would be justifiable. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a reasonable proposal to merge "metal toxicity" and "metal poisoning", as they are similar. It is also reasonable to keep them apart, because the field of expertise studying toxicity is likely to be chemistry and for poisoning it is likely to be medicine, and there is not so much professional overlap. If there is a merge, I would propose that it be to "metal poisoning" because there is already a family of "metal poisoning" articles using that name and because there are standardized medical identification codes for various types of poisonings, and probably no such standardized coding for toxicity. I do not have any strong opinion about the outcome for this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. If there is interest in merging the articles, is there also interest in merging the sibling category Category:Dietary mineral toxicity (which contains both poisonings and toxicities)? Kennethaw88 • talk 14:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal Merge all of these concepts to Category:Toxic effects of metals. That term is used in the international classification system described at T56 in ICD-10 Chapter XIX: Injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes. I merged the article Metal poisoning to metal toxicity per Johnbod's suggestion above, and merged all the metal poisoning and toxicity categories to this established category which was not raised in previous discussion. I think this settles everything and synchronizes it with an existing term. I move to close this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:22, 8 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.
Category:University of Puerto Rico system
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.
Nominator's rationale: I see that this was once speedied and opposed for some reason, so I'm taking it here. There is no need for the word "system." Main article University of Puerto Rico says it's a "system" in the lead, just as University of California does. Again, I really do think it's a C2D, but I can't see what the opposition at CFDS was for. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 11 June 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.
Category:Matsu Takako albums
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUR, names of all Japanese people born after 1885 should follow the FirstName SecondName format. Matsu is the artist's second name and Takako her first, so the category should be Takako Matsu albums. Ryoga (talk) 12:47, 11 June 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.
Category:Caraş-Severin County geography stubs
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.
Propose deletingCategory:Caraş-Severin County geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete. All articles moved to the correctly named category. There is no reason to keep this soft-redirect stub category. The template will direct articles to the proper category. Dawynn (talk) 12:18, 11 June 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.
Category:Tunceli Province geography stubs
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.
Propose deletingCategory:Tunceli Province geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete. See Dersim Province#History. As of March of this year, the Turkish government renamed this province. All articles have been moved to Category:Dersim Province geography stubs, and there is no reason to keep a stub category under the historic name. Dawynn (talk) 12:16, 11 June 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.
Category:Aghlabid emirs
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.
Nominator's rationale: The "Aghlabid emirs" were emirs of/in Ifriqiya as successors to the caliph-appointed governors, not emirs "of the Aghlabids". Constantine ✍ 08:38, 11 June 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.
Category:Sikh Gems
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.
Nominator's rationale: Being a "Gem" is not a defining characteristics of the people listed in this cat. It is not some kind of official award or recognition by some authority. Most of the source are those which mirror wikipedia content. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is to be a category, the designation "Sikh Gem" would need to be proven to exist, which it has not been. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wow, this has been around since 2008. CFD denizens, you're slacking! Completely unsourced, I have no idea what a Sikh gem is or how someone becomes one. Unless some significant sourcing can be provided and a head article conceivably written, delete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be a very subjective collection of who edited which Wikipedia bio and added this category. Surprised it stayed on here for so long, and the inconsistency shows. —SpacemanSpiff 17:58, 16 June 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.
Category:Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria politicians
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. – FayenaticLondon 21:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm fixing a broken nomination originally placed at redirects for discussion. I have no opinion personally. Original rationale: "Also this should be removed, article was moved to Category:GERB politicians". I don't know who nominated as it was not signed. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the move discussion at the article is successful and the article becomes GERB, then I have no problem in supporting the category rename. Perhaps this proposal should be closed for the time being and we should follow whatever the result is in that discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Since the article about the party has been moved to GERB, I now support the proposal per my comments above. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:01, 20 June 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.