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) 03:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:List of transcontinental countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This isn't a suitable title for a category. DexDor (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deleting. I guess the creator of the category has in mind to put Egypt, Russia and Panama in one category, which would however be a meaningless category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move – Note that I did not create the category; Dexterous B moved the corresponding article List of transcontinental countries to the category page, and I moved it back, automatically creating a redirect at the category page. If the category should exist (it could contain many more countries: Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Indonesia, Netherlands, France, etc.), it should be titled Transcontinental countries. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Transcontinental countries. However, we should not include France or other countries with overseas territories that have been incorporated into a European one, only those that straddle a continental boundary. I am dubious about including the Caucasian countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not considering unincorporated dependent territories part of their respective countries would be a reason to not include the UK, though both France and the Netherlands have overseas islands/territories that are actually part of them. There is no difference with the US being transcontinental due to Hawaii and Palmyra, or Indonesia being transcontinental due to Papua and West Papua. There is also no reason to not include Georgia and Azerbaijan since they both cross the conventional border between Europe and Asia. SiBr₄ (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - also could include all countries that had portions in another continent (categories are not temporary, so once they had it in the category they shall ever remain), which would include those mentioned by SiBr4, and the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Roman Empire, the Roman Republic, Byzantine Empire, the Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and numerous small polities (Rhodes, e.g.) with some portion on the Anatolian mainland and some on an island in the Aegean. Not meaningful, ultimately. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the category should necessarily include former(ly) transcontinental countries such as the German and Roman empires. A note could be added to the top of the category page to make clear it only includes currently transcontinental countries, or a subcategory Former transcontinental countries could take care of former states. If former countries are explicitly excluded, I can't think of more than twenty countries that would be included, even if including all borderline cases such as dependent territories and varying definitions of continental borders. SiBr₄ (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, nobody has made clear what the point is of putting Egypt, Panama and Russia in one category. I would consider the characteristic of these countries of bordering a different continent as non-defining. 20:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs)
      • If being transcontinental is meaningless, I wonder why List of transcontinental countries exists at all. (Not intended as a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to keep the category, though per WP:CLN a category complements a list.) SiBr₄ (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are many things that may work as a list (where each entry can be explained and referenced), but aren't a WP:DEFINING characteristic suitable for categorization. DexDor (talk) 22:09, 10 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. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Small and seemingly pointless category that contains two articles: Ecbatana about the archeological site of Ecbatana that is already in Category:Archaeological sites in Iran on the one hand and Hamadan about the nearby modern city on the other hand. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete History of the city is very sketchy, making category population extremely unlikely as it currently stands. SFB 18:37, 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: merge. – Fayenatic London 15:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Roman sites in Iran to Category:Archaeology of Iran and Category:Roman sites in Asia

Nominator's rationale: Small category, currently only 1 article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Part of a large organized tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Important Roman sites are not numerous here and are better collated in the parent. To the contrary of Carlossuarez46, I believe much of the content of the smaller categories at Category:Roman sites in Asia would be better merged to the parent. SFB 18:41, 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. – Fayenatic London 16:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ancient Gaul to Category:Pre-Roman Gaul

Nominator's rationale: Ancient is usually understood as before the Middle Ages, but this particular category has clearly been created for the pre-Roman era (the header says that the next category is Roman Gaul). Rename to avoid confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (and also several articles) to distinguish from Roman Gaul. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 7 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: upmerge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Ancient history of Armenia to Category:Ancient Armenia

Nominator's rationale: Ancient Armenia is a history category in itself, so a childcategory "history of ..." doesn't specify anything further. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support History subcategory does not usefully organise content from the parent. SFB 18:44, 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: upmerge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:2000s by continent into Category:2000s

Nominator's rationale: This category only exists for the Category:2000s decade, with both Category:1990s and Category:2010s having the continents at the beginning of the main decade category, hence this unique category should be upmerged to follow the pattern for all other decades. Hugo999 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upmerge. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 02:36, 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 according to option A. Although there is no consensus here between the options, it is common ground that the category names should match each other, therefore one option or the other should be the outcome, and I believe those advocating option A are correct about precedents here in Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Option A

• Propose renaming Category:Booker Prize to Category:Man Booker Prize
• Propose renaming Category:Booker Prize winners to Category:Man Booker Prize winners
• Propose renaming Category:Man Booker Prize winning works to Category:Man Booker Prize-winning works

Option B

• Propose renaming Category:Man Booker Prize winning works to Category:Booker Prize-winning works

Nominator's rationale: One of the three categories use different name for the award ("Man Booker Prize" instead just "Booker Prize"), however all categories should use the same for consistency. The use of "Man Booker Prize" was discussed in this CFD, but it resulted in no consensus. I have no preference for neither options. Additionally Category:Man Booker Prize winning works should be renamed in both cases per WP:DASH as compound modifier. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What about option C, delete per WP:OC#AWARD ? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion about that. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B I prefer option B, as the prize has not always been called "Man Booker" and the common name is "Booker" -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A -- This is one of the major literary prizes in UK, so that I think it comes withing the exception to the usual "listify and delete" common outcome. The precedent of alumni categories suggests that we should use its current name and that winners of the old Booker should be deemed to have won the current Man Booker, like the alumni of merged or renamed colleges. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Title sponsors should be avoided where possible to ensure we have a solid base for a continuous structure (the "Man" element could go tomorrow for all we know). SFB 23:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B The common name "Booker Prize" is fine. Why not use the lowest common denominator? Keep it simple. We owe no advertising debt to whoever is the sponsor of the moment. Chris the speller ^yack 18:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A. In categories, we almost always use the current name of the award or competition that is used by the relevant WP article, even if the name of it has been different in the past. Since the article is at Man Booker Prize, I think the categories should match. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, per the standard procedure: the main article is at Man Booker Prize, therefore the categories should be as well. If the article should instead be at Booker Prize per WP:COMMONNAME is beyond the scope of CfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 17 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: merge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:History of Iranian Revolution to Category:Iranian Revolution

Nominator's rationale: Iranian Revolution is a historical event in itself, a childcategory "history of ..." doesn't specify anything further. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Unclear how this is a subdivision of the parent. SFB 23:50, 7 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 Category:National Basketball Association Draft to Category:National Basketball Association draft

keep Category:National Basketball Association draft picks

rename Category:College basketball teams in NBA Draft to Category:College basketball teams in the NBA draft.

Although nobody mentioned inserting "the" in the last one, its sub-cats have "in the NBA Draft". (They may now be speedily nominated to lower case "draft".) – Fayenatic London 16:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:National Basketball Association Draft to Category:NBA draft
• Propose renaming Category:National Basketball Association draft picks to Category:NBA draft picks
• Propose renaming Category:College basketball teams in NBA Draft to Category:College basketball teams in NBA draft

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the categories is NBA draft. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment both the root category Category:National Basketball Association and the root article National Basketball Association are spelled out, so I think the category tree should keep it spelled out. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1 & 2; rename 3 - abbreviations should normally be expanded, but for item 3 this would make the name too long. Nevertheless, do we need categories for non-professional youth sport? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are you trying to be cheeky or are you the typical Brit who is clueless that college sports in the US draw more viewers and attendees than professional leagues in many countries? Categories about college basketball are certainly warranted. Rikster2 (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate rename to lower-case "draft" in the first and third ones, but otherwise retain. NBA should be spelled out per the parent category in the first two; in the third, practicality (the length of the name) calls for the abbreviation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 17 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Populated places in Lochalsh to Category:Populated places in Skye and Lochalsh

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. This is a subcategory of Category:Skye and Lochalsh, and Lochalsh is ambiguous. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose And it is still opposed. It would be polite if you would engage on a talk page rather than repeatedly nominating this when it is clearly opposed. Frankly, this is disruptive. Ben MacDui 12:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... and as you so helpfully created Lochalsh as a dab page in order to advance this ludicrous position I now have someone going round 'fixing' the dabs and directing articles, quite erroneously, at Loch Alsh. This is pretty low on my list of priorities to fix at present. Please stick to something you know about. Ben MacDui 12:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This is ultimately the result of amalgamating all the councils in the highlands into a single one. Until 1996 Skye and Lochalsh was a district; I presume that Lochalsh was intended to cover those parts of the district that were not on the Idle of Skye. The question is thus how to we categorise places in the mainland part of the district. By convention, places in UK doe not usually need disambiguators to distinguish them from places anmed after them. The alleged ambiguity is not a real one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Ben, the suggested category should be a container not the main category. It's more convenient to split.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 11 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:NFL Blitz video games. – Fayenatic London 15:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Blitz video games to Category:NFL Blitz

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is NFL Blitz. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support These are not videogames about Blitz (a disambiguation page) or The Blitz, and therefore is the wrong name for a category, as it is highly ambiguous. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate Rename to Category:NFL Blitz video games. All the subategories of Category:National Football League video games end with "video games" (except for Madden NFL which even I've heard of). RevelationDirect (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per RevelationDirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 17 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:Explorers program (NASA) – Fayenatic London 15:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Explorer program to Category:Explorers program

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Explorers program. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative As "Explorer" and "Explorers" are highly ambiguous, and that NASA has many exploration programs, and this is a particular program, it should be Category:Explorers Program (NASA) to inidicate a particular program from NASA -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is one Nasa program involving multiple Explorer missions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Explorers program (NASA) as in my original speedy oppose, this is higly ambiguous (either as-is or in the original proposal) and thus requires disambiguation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Explorers program as main article named. 178.92.144.54 (talk) 11:41, 19 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:Surveyor program (NASA) – Fayenatic London 15:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Surveyor Program to Category:Surveyor program

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Surveyor program. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Bushranger. This is about a specific program, not any old program done by surveyors. Category:Surveyor Program (NASA) would be better, indicating a specific program of NASA, instead of various surveys by NASA. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Category:Explorer program. Either we capitalize all or none. I have no objection to Category:Surveyor program (NASA) as an option. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Surveyor program (NASA) as in my original oppose to the speedy. This is a case where at the time it was "Surveyor Program" but even NASA seems to (mis)use "program" now. Either way the MOS demands we kowtow to the capitalisation police and use lowercase, so a disambiguation must be used as otherwise it's far too ambiguous as 65* points out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Surveyor program as main article named. 178.92.144.54 (talk) 11:37, 19 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Eliot family of America to Category:Eliot family (America)

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Eliot family (America). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the standard disambiguator for articles is "(U.S.)" so the article is misnamed. That a family member won a Nobel Prize, indicates that it continued well into the U.S.A. era and did not die out before 1776, so "U.S." is appropriate. The category and article should be called "Eliot family (U.S.)" so Eliot family (U.S.) and Category:Eliot family (U.S.) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The main article is Eliot family (America). The form matching the current categopry name is a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to blindly match the main article. If the article is renamed, then rename the cat through speedy. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per my original nomination and per RevelationDirect. The issue of what the proper name is a question for the article talk page, and the issue hasn't been taken up there yet. In the meantime, it's OK to simply match the category name to the article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 15 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: upmerge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Mosques in Nishapur to Category:Nishapur and to Category:Mosques in Iran

Nominator's rationale: Small category, only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree the Persian wp has only 4 articles, in any event it's very likely to remain small cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 5 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.