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) 00:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Philippines building and structure stubs to Category:Philippine building and structure stubs

Nominator's rationale: All other countries use the adjictive form of the country name for these categories (e.g. Category:Burmese building and structure stubs, not Category:Burma building and structure stubs). In the case of buildings and structures, the correct adjictive is "Philippine", per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 25#Filipino to Philippine. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per precedence.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:03, 22 March 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. Even if defunct, the categories that apply to it should be named correctly if they are going to still exist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Abuse response to Category:Wikipedia abuse response
• Propose renaming Category:Abuse response - Archived to Category:Wikipedia abuse response – Archived
• Propose renaming Category:Abuse response - Closed to Category:Wikipedia abuse response – Closed
• Propose renaming Category:Abuse response documentation to Category:Wikipedia abuse response documentation
• Propose renaming Category:Abuse response - Rejected to Category:Wikipedia abuse response – Rejected
• Propose renaming Category:Abuse reports to Category:Wikipedia abuse reports
  • Propose renaming Category:Abuse reports cases to Category:Wikipedia abuse reports cases
  • Propose renaming Category:Long-term abuse to Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse
    • Propose renaming Category:Long-term abuse - Active to Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Active
    • Propose renaming Category:Long-term abuse - Archived to Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Archived
    • Propose renaming Category:Long-term abuse - Pending approval to Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval
  • Propose renaming Category:Abuse reports to Category:Wikipedia abuse reports
  • Propose renaming Category:Abuse reports templates to Category:Wikipedia abuse reports templates
• Propose renaming Category:Abuse response templates to Category:Wikipedia abuse response templates
• Propose renaming Category:Abuse response - Volunteers to Category:Wikipedia abuse response volunteers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are Wikipedia admin categories, and those mostly start with the word "Wikipedia". I'm not sure whether this project is still active. – Fayenatic London 18:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer: Note that some need changes to templates, and the nomination includes minor changes to punctuation (dashes) etc. – Fayenatic London 18:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Abuse response was a program where volunteer editors would write to ISPs about IPs who were abusive and try to find remedies. In Fall 2013, I left a message on the Talk Pages of all volunteers who were listed and they are not around any more. I brought it up at AN, trying to revive the project, and instead, they took it off the main Noticeboard list (at the top of every noticeboard page) but left Long-term abuse because it was useful for historic reasons, in case a long-term abuser reappeared. But I don't think that abuse response has been active since 2010 or 2012. As the Wikipedia:Abuse response page says, "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." I'm not sure if it really matters what the categories of a defunct project are titled. Besides LTA, every other page should be archived soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 20 March 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; merge contents to Category:Fiction by topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is so general and its contents so varied (from Category:Fictional portrayals of God to Category:Media portrayal of STDs) to be useless. It could, theoretically, contain tens of thousands of articles of characters as well as artistic treatments (video games, novels, films, etc.). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• upmerge to Category:Fiction by topic - all fiction portrays something. The contents should be upmerged and then grouped accordingly - for example the Jesus and God ones could be put into a religion topic category if it exists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:34, 19 March 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: administrative close: already renamed. The discussion was not focused on deletion/retention of Category:Women Egyptologists, but if a user wants to nominate it, they can do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for Category:Women egyptologists to be deleted; the proper capitalization is Category:Women Egyptologists. Please forgive me if I should have posted this request elsewhere or used a different template. KConWiki (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KConWiki, I think it would better if you suggested this editing change at Speedy rename. Look at instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion#Speedy renaming and merging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's empty now, I tagged it for deletion. The new target has already been created and populated. KConWiki, please don't do this next time - the proper procedure is to leave the category as is and nominate it for a speedy rename, not gut the category, remove the parents, create a new one, and move the articles over yourself.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both with Category:Egyptologists. In my experience, archaeology is and lang has been an integrated profession, where gender is irrelevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC

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.