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 (category was empty at the time of close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Electro pop by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one article (which I have PRODed for lack of notability). Unnecessary cat Adabow (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if the article survives, it will not be enough to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 29 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, using hyphens. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:MTF cross-dressers to Category:Male to female cross-dressers
• Propose renaming Category:FTM cross-dressers to Category:Female to male cross-dressers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation which may not be obvious. Note that the category is tagged as subjective. If renamed, I'd also propose that the subjective tag be removed since if we are keeping this, it is by definition not subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what about Category:FTM cross-dressers ? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Shouldn't there be hyphens in the first part?—Category:Male-to-female cross-dressers/Category:Female-to-male cross-dressers. In the first case, the entire phrase "female-to-male" is the adjective that modifies "cross-dressers", not just "female". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is correct, then OK. But I'm not an expert in those aspects of naming. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure use of the hyphens would be right. I would say use the hyphens, but keep a redirect from the non-hyphenated forms. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:26, 4 April 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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Women's issues non-governmental organizations to Category:Women's rights organizations

Nominator's rationale: I can't tell the difference between these two. The vast majority of womens' rights organizations will also be NGOs, and I don't think it's necessary to split these accordingly. Merge up for simplicity. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:48, 26 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. If fish cache is ever created, perhaps the issue could be re-examined. But for now, there's not much we can do with it due to the lack of clarity. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with no main article and probably limited expansion possibilities. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• suggestion: rename to Category:Fish processing facilities or similar, under Category:Fish processing, to also hold Category:Canneries? – Fayenatic London 23:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still trying to figure out what a fish cache is. Do you know that this is a processing facility as opposed to a storage facility? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While this would indeed ordinarly fall under WP:SMALLCAT, the simple fact is that this is something unique in which there is no obvious upmerge target. (Also Fish cache is an article that should probably be written). — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs)
  • If we don't know what it is, it should be deleted! The current situation means that we can not determine anything about the subject that would justify keeping. The article is already in an appropriate category, Category:Agricultural buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 2 April 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: listify. To be on the safe side, I'm going with "listify", but whether that list will survive an AFD is hard to know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lowercase proper names or pseudonyms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Whether someone spells their name in lowercase is not DEFINING of the person themselves, it is really just a stylistic matter of the rendering of their name. Additionally, for at least some of the contents, there is dispute on the "correct" spelling (e.g. E.E. Cummings). I don't think we need this category, it's really a rather trivial thing to categorize a person on. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be a list not a category for several reasons, including as noted by the nom. but the information should be retained, hence, a list. - jc37 18:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, listify and delete. – Fayenatic London 23:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is categorization by something that has no relevance to notability. I do not think there is even a good reason to create a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- This may make a useful administrative (hidden) category, to enable someone to watch out for officious (but inappropriate) capitalisation. Otherwise, I would agree that this is non-defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial. This is not my last name (talk) 19:10, 9 April 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. If there is any problem with use of "critics", it applies equally to the parent Category:Comics critics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Anime and manga writers to Category:Anime and manga critics

Nominator's rationale: It seems most the contents here are critics of anime/manga, or have written compilations. To distinguish from those who create it, I think having critic in the title is a bit more clear. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - I second this notion, the title is too suggestive that these are people who write manga (or anime scripts I guess) rather than those who write on anime or manga --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Do we mean "critic" as a synonym of reviewer. I think in this case there is likely too much confusion about what anyone means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 29 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Critics of H-1B program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Generally, I think of a critic as an academic or writer where a significant portion of their work is directed at critiquing a certain ideology or social issue (or, in the case of the arts, reviewing and critiquing artistic expression). This category however is about people who have been critical of a particular government visa program - not immigration, not immigration reform, but *just* the H-1B visa. Most of the contents are politicians or pundits, the only two that might fit are Programmers Guild and Norman Matloff - the programmers guild however is focused on much broader issues of advocating for the rights of American computer programmers - their opposition to H-1B is but one of their planks. as for Matloff, he's really the only one for whom this could potentially be defining, but I don't think one person is enough for a category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is non-defining of the people involved -- Lou Dobbs, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Tancredo -- for example. A clear instance of someone thinking that categories are a type of tag or keyword, rather than a narrowly applicable set of organizational trees. --Lquilter (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify by mention at H-1B_visa#Criticisms_of_the_program, if cited and not there already; then delete. – Fayenatic London 23:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categorizing politicians for having been critics, even vocal critics, of a specific program is unwise. This is all the more true because some politicians change their position. Categories are not meant to capture every detail mentioned in an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 29 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 using option 2. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming according to one of the following options:

Rationalle: These categories should ll be named consistantly - either all Fooian or all Foo. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Foo school stubs. We should avoid adjectival forms, as they can easily be ambiguous. (such as is a "Norwegian school" a school that teaches Norwegian language or a school in Norway or an ethnic Norwegian school? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Maybe for some of group 2 (as well as Japan, in group 1) - but I doubt tht anyone would think we have stub categories for schools teaching Brazilian, Philippine or Middle Eastern. 77.126.216.69 (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It also applies for schools that use the teaching methods endemic for the nation/region, or cultural immersion. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 i.e. Foo school stubs. The adjectival form might also imply pupils from one country schooled in another. – Fayenatic London 23:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 is more in line with other existing categories. I agree that stub categories by country are inconsistently named in general, but the majority of them are in adjectival form (e.g. Category:Algerian history stubs, Category:Argentine media stubs, Category:Brazilian sport stubs, Category:Chinese people stubs, etc.). These categories should all be renamed to Fooian school stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Option 2. The adjectival form is more logical and easier to follow; the potential ambiguity can be dealt with by having (to use the example postulated) "Schools that teach the Norwegian language" being Category:Schools that teach Norweigan or Category:Norwegian language schools. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 -- With the exception of countries for which there is no satisfactory demonym, the country name is grammatically an adjective, so that the demonym (an adjective) should be used. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 6 April 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 C2C and C2D. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Surnames derived from toponyms to Category:Toponymic surnames

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is a standard linguistic term, 'toponymic surname'; no need in descriptive name for the category. Also uniformity with category:Patronymic surnames & category:Occupational surnames - Altenmann >t 06:38, 26 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; if a user wants to propose a new format for an entire tree, the user needs to do so with a formal nomination. In most cases, it is awkward to make such a proposal through opposing changes that so clearly comply with the speedy rename criteria. In theory, the approach could work in raising the issue to broader awareness, but in practice, it usually just slows down what should be a routine change. It would be much better for the user to announce the proposal via a formal nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest renaming Category:Italian painters of the 21st century to Category:21st-century Italian painters

  Conform to Category:21st-century Italian people by occupation and Category:21st-century painters

• Suggest renaming Category:Italian painters of the 20th century to Category:20th-century Italian painters

  Conform to Category:20th-century Italian people by occupation and Category:20th-century painters

• Suggest renaming Category:Italian painters of the 19th century to Category:19th-century Italian painters

  Conform to Category:19th-century Italian people by occupation and Category:19th-century painters

• Suggest renaming Category:Italian painters of the 17th century to Category:17th-century Italian painters

  Conform to Category:17th-century Italian people by occupation and Category:17th-century painters

• Suggest renaming Category:Italian painters of the 16th century to Category:16th-century Italian painters

  Conform to Category:16th-century Italian people by occupation and Category:16th-century painters

• Suggest renaming Category:Italian painters of the 15th century to Category:15th-century Italian painters

  Conform to Category:15th-century Italian people by occupation and Category:15th-century painters

• Suggest renaming Category:Italian painters of the 14th century to Category:14th-century Italian painters

  Conform to Category:14th-century Italian people by occupation and Category:14th-century painters

• Suggest renaming Category:Italian painters of the 13th century to Category:13th-century Italian painters

  Conform to Category:13th-century Italian people by occupation and Category:13th-century painters

• Suggest renaming Category:Italian painters of the 18th century to Category:18th-century Italian painters

  Conform to Category:18th-century Italian people by occupation and Category:18th-century painters)

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The categories should confirm to the convention of "XXth-century Italian people by occupation" and "XXth-century painters" categories (concrete categories above). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the convention in Category:20th-century people by occupation (or relevant century category). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:59, 26 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.