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:diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws. – Fayenatic London 16:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Propose merging Category:Oral pathology to Category:diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws (added to nomination on 24 May)

Nominator's rationale: This field was split between 3 categories, namely this , category:Oral pathology and category:diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws. I am moving all pages into one category. This leaves this category redundant. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If, for example, Enamel spindles is a dental disorder then you should not have removed the Category:Dental disorders tag from it. Which is the "one category" you refer to in the nomination - Category:Acquired tooth pathology ? You should not have removed (all) the parent categories from Category:Dental disorders. Please explain what you have been doing and why so that we can decide whether the changes you have been making (which are not explained in edit summaries) should be reversed. DexDor ^(talk) 05:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this emptied out of process? Without some idea of what was in the category we can't determine what the appropriate action on this category should be. I suspect it should have been merged into one of the others. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DexDor, Beeswaxcandle. There was no sense in splitting things (on the basis of no logic that I could see) over three categories. It was a big mess, which I am still in process of sorting. All contents has been moved to Category:disorders of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws (or subcategories therein, e.g. acquired tooth pathology). Hope this makes sense. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- as out-of-process. Revert all moved pages and consider re-proposing in the correct way after this CFD closes. tahc ^chat 21:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tahc out of process...? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew Ferguson 57: Question? tahc ^chat 02:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to favor one category, but I also can't evaluate a merge request when I can't see the original structure. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have reinstated this category's parent categories, and put Category:Diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws within it for now, although that may be the wrong way round – it probably formerly held only some of the current contents of that category. This should have been proposed as a merger or a split. – Fayenatic London 08:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic london this is not how things were before, but nvr mind. The main parent category for this topic was disorders of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws, which corresponds to the ICD heading and is the one we should keep imo. Dental disorders was a subcategory of it, as was oral pathology. Pls also note category:mouth disease was also existant but has been deleted. All of these are redundant. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have moved it to be a sub-cat. Please note that a lot of the interwiki links will be lost if this category is just deleted, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7458882. I will move some of those links to category:oral pathology. – Fayenatic London 12:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the remaining interwiki links for "dental disorders" to the new Category:Tooth pathology. That has resolved the interwiki problem. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of what is proposed[edit]

1. Category:Diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws -- make this the main parent category for this topic. This is inline with the overall structure of these medical categories which follow the headings of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10); (see here: ICD-10 Chapter XI: Diseases of the digestive system). I haven't done any delving into the history of all this mess to find out how this situation resulted, however I believe it is due to a lack of insight into this bigger picture and dental writers creating several overlapping categories of similar, if not identical scope.
2. Category:Dental disorders -- to delete since it is redundant. I have already emptied out all the contained pages into the above category (or rather into subcategories of the above category)
3. Category:Oral pathology -- to move all these pages into "Category:Diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws", since it is a redundant category with identical scope. I have already been doing this but will stop until consensus reached since it seems to be creating confusion. I suppose this proposal is then a merge
4. Category:Mouth diseases -- already emptied into subcategories of "Category:Diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws", and then deleted by an admin.

I hope this clarifies the situation. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I see that category:mouth diseases was deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_13#Category:Mouth_diseases, having been emptied out of process. It would have been better to propose a split to the categories to where the former contents have been moved. That would have been traceable, unlike the current record of deleting an empty category.

What I suggest you should have done was to add the new sibling/sub-categories, re-categorise articles into the more specific categories, and then proposed a rename of Category:Dental disorders to Category:Tooth pathology – which you just created in its place.

You have also now suggested a merger of category:Oral pathology. Please tag that page as well, and link it to this discussion. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged oral pathology. Didn't occur to just rename dental disorders since contents were of wider scope than "tooth pathology", and instead duplicated content of parent category diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws (as does cat:Oral pathology). Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer: if the merge is approved, please give attention to the wikidata pages https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8702432 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8380722. – Fayenatic London 09:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the actual merge rather than the process

• Support a merge of all contents in line with Category:Diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws which reflects the current ICD classification. I agree there is no need for a 'mouth disease' (nonspecific as that is), nor the synonymous latinate Oral pathology category and the nonspecific Dental pathology (?teeth ?mouth ?overlap with other specialities?). If it makes Wikidataing and what not easier, the categories could be merged instead of deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• support merge of all contents--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to "'Category:Diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws" I had to pause to figure out what was happening here. ICD has a category called "Diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws", so that makes for a good category based on that precedent. Wikipedia has categories for "Dental disorders", "Oral pathology", and "Mouth diseases". Those terms are ambiguous and should be deprecated. Those three categories could be deleted or merged to the ICD category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2015 (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 to both categories. – Fayenatic London 09:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Email clients that use XUL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There is only one piece of software in this category and I doubt that another will be written any time soon. Connor Behan (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT allows small categories when they are part of a larger structure. This category shouldn't be deleted without an upmerge. DexDor ^(talk) 05:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual Upmerge to both parent categories. Looking at all the loose articles in Category:Email client software for Linux, it doesn't look like this is a universal structure to be maintained. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ancient Christian denominations

Nominator's rationale: Per suggestion at a previous rename proposal, I have dispersed the child categories to their appropriate "by century" parent. This just left 4 stubs, none of which was a denomination so ought not to have been in this category in the first place; I have dispersed them to Category:Heresy in Christianity. There is no need for this category. No other "by century" denomination has a sub-grouping by period. There is no need for this exception. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are (in effect) making the exact same proposal as the CFD that just closed-- and that result of the discussion was to KEEP.

Futhermore you tried remove all the contents of Category:Ancient Christian denominations in a effort to make the it seem empty for this CFD.

Short of a good reason to reconsider, this should be speedly closed. tahc ^chat 22:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Firstly the "Keep" was for the name change. So this proposal does not interfere with that. The name is kept. Secondly, there actually was a consensus (from @Marcocapelle: and others) to disperse and delete. Having dispersed, the category no longer serves a function, hence this proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" = do not rename, no consensus for deletion. The suggestion "I'd say withdraw and after closure come up with a new nomination to delete" on the previous debate makes sense and I don't mind this debate taking place as long as the question is only delete or not. MER-C 03:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim that it was just a name-change but since you proposed a change to a what already exsisted under another name, but it was (for all real purposes) a delete CFD.

What it comes down to is that editors had every chance to agree with the propsal and "merge" into the actual sub-cats of Category:Ancient Christian denominations and only one of these editors (User:Peterkingiron, and it was unclear) seemed to like your idea. tahc ^chat 21:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the variety of viewpoints in the last nomination, I think a consensus with this one is very likely. That being said, I don't share some other editors procedural concerns. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Because the last nomination failed to create consensus around a clear name with clear inclusion criteria, I no longer favor keeping the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per overlap with Category:Christian denominations by century of establishment‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Support withdrawn per discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as this forms part of Category:Ancient Christianity. Perhaps someone could come up with a rename to a better title. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what you mean. Then, in order to avoid overlap, the category structure should become Category:Christian denominations by period‎ of establishment on top, Category:Ancient Christian denominations as a child category and 1st to 5th century as grandchild categories. That would require a new nomination though, namely a rename of Category:Christian denominations by century of establishment‎ to Category:Christian denominations by period‎ of establishment. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Or the "period" category could simply be added as a parent to this and the "century" category. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen tree structures like that before, but actually I think that's just an unnecessary amount of branches. It should be sufficient to have 'by period' on top, split that by the largest possible type of period (ancient, medieval), then split by smaller periods (xth century). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The advantage of the extra layer is staying within the century hierarchy, Category:Christian organizations by century of establishment. – Fayenatic London 08:43, 29 May 2015 (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. MER-C 12:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Washington, D.C. City Council members to Category:Members of the Council of the District of Columbia

Nominator's rationale: The name of the body is Council of the District of Columbia not the Washington, D.C. City Council. Naraht (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Per nom. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename With additional justification here Bangabandhu (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Nice catch! Neutrality^talk 01:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment If this ends in a decision to rename, what needs to happen to change the Wikimedia category at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Washington,_D.C._City_Council_members ?

I think it should also be changed. There's really no explanation for the usage of DC City Council. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2015 (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 per revised nomination, which is to: disestablishments by century and continent, disestablishments by millennium and country, states and territories disestablished by century, and years (by country). Although there has been little participation, I think this is probably due to lack of interest, and therefore there is sufficient consensus to close the discussion, especially as it is part of a longer series of related nominations. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments

• Propose merging Category:53 BC disestablishments to Category:53 BC and Category:1st-century BC disestablishments
• Propose merging Category:75 BC disestablishments to Category:75 BC and Category:1st-century BC disestablishments

• Propose merging Category:27 BC disestablishments in Spain to Category:27 BC in Spain and Category:1st-century BC disestablishments in Europe and Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments in Spain
• Propose merging Category:133 BC disestablishments in Asia to Category:133 BC in Asia and Category:2nd-century BC disestablishments in Asia
• Propose merging Category:146 BC disestablishments in Tunisia to Category:146 BC in Tunisia and Category:2nd-century BC disestablishments in Africa and Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments in Tunisia

• Propose merging Category:27 BC disestablishments in Italy to Category:27 BC in Italy and Category:1st-century BC disestablishments in Europe and Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments in Italy
• Propose merging Category:30 BC disestablishments in Egypt to Category:30 BC in Egypt and Category:1st-century BC disestablishments in Africa and Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments in Egypt

• Propose merging Category:States and territories disestablished in the 220s BC to Category:220s BC and Category:States and territories disestablished in the 3rd century BC
• Propose merging Category:States and territories disestablished in 222 BC to Category:222 BC and Category:States and territories disestablished in the 3rd century BC

• Propose deleting Category:1st-century BC disestablishments in Italy
• Propose deleting Category:1st-century BC disestablishments in Egypt

Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly always only one article per category. After merging year categories to global century categories and country millennium categories, there will be 5-10 articles in most of the global century categories and at least three articles in the each of the country millennium categories (of the 'bigger' countries). So the amount of content of this tree is very modest, while the number of categories in the current set-up is really enormous and largely redundant (the ratio between number of categories and number of articles is about 4:1). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to century in continent categories (Category:1st-century BC disestablishments in Africa, Category:1st-century BC disestablishments in Asia, etc. None of those countries existed at that time and most of those are disestablishments of states and territories so continents are a reasonable structure (at worst, a single article would be in maybe two or three continent articles and not a mess otherwise). No need to delete as there is a use for the structure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This type of upmerge doesn't sound like a really good idea, it would mean distributing some 50 articles among 21 new categories (3 continents x 7 centuries), which can only lead to again many minuscule categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's because we have a vast, vast underpopulation of these categories. WP:SMALLCAT allows for small categories that are part of "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" which does exist. There's barely 50 articles after I've been adding because few of the articles in ancient China/Korea (Template:History_of_China, Template:History_of_Korea) have the proper establishments and disestablishment categories. We don't have a significant history of ancient India, Vietnam, Egypt the Middle East or most of Europe with the proper categories (including the sub-nation states and territories). There's about 40 articles in the pre-1 AD centuries for Category:States and territories by year of disestablishment alone and few of those have establishments/disestablishment categories. I note that you only consider 21 categories (not all new) in 3 continents because you are missing all of North and South America. Unless you believe that nothing existed in the Americas prior to 1 AD, there's a significant amount of articles that aren't included. Articles such as 1st millennium BC show that there is a large broad amount of information that is there but just isn't categorized, which is a different problem. There's no logical reason to delete every category prior to 1 AD rather than to at least allow some level of broad (I'd say century by continent are pretty broad enough to describe the world then) categorization. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, let's give it a try. I've adapted the nomination accordingly and I guess you're already busy populating the categories, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. It's a lot of pretty obscure historical stuff but I think it's better to categorize it now than to not. It's interesting how many happened around the same time at various places worldwide. Maybe we need an RFC to get a consistent millennium/century/decade/year structure for all the establishments/disestablishments/births/deaths/buildings/states categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: "...and Category:Disestablishments in Spain", etc. – should that be Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments in Spain, etc? – Fayenatic London 11:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: I didn't intend so because the entire Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments in Spain, etc, would remain very small for these particular countries, so in the bottom of the list I proposed to delete these as intermediate categories as well. Especially with Tunisia it seems rather obvious to do so, since the next disestablishment after the 146 BC disestablishment is as late as in 1935 AD. However if you feel really bad about deleting these millennium country disestablishment categories, I'm happy to go along with you and will adapt the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Sorry for overlooking this reply until now. I think it would be meaningless to put articles directly into categories such as Category:Disestablishments in Spain without any intermediate sub-cats by time frame. Unless I've forgotten any recent precedents at CfD against millennium-by-country categories for (dis)establishments, I suggest that it would be more coherent to use those (4 of which you have nominated here for deletion). – Fayenatic London 08:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough! I've adapted the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2015 (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 08:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television actors from Guangdong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: All the similar categories like Category:Television actors from Liaoning etc. have been emptied out per similar discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_30#Category:Male_film_actors_from_Shanghai and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_31#Category:Film_actresses_from_Shanghai which established that Chinese actors should not be subcategorized by medium on the province level. Now this user keeps putting this 1 actor in the category to prevent its deletion, I'm not sure to what purpose.Timmyshin (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The previous CFDs established that actors should not be categorized in this way and if (as appears to be the case here) a category that is clearly of that type was accidentally omitted from the previous discussion then it's not unreasonable to empty it without a new CFD. The "1 actor" referred to above is Donnie Yen (I've just removed it from the category). DexDor ^(talk) 05:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how about converting it to a category for actors who have acted in Cantonese? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the 21st-century, Chinese-language films/TV series are in many occasions dubbed, this is particularly true with costume drama series produced in mainland China, but in Hong Kong, Asia Television has also had many series starring mainland or Taiwanese actors who can't speak a word of Cantonese. In other words, some actors speak only Mandarin and some only Cantonese, but in post-processing the show dubbed to both language versions. In many cases you can't figure out whether the original language is supposed to be Mandarin or Cantonese because the dialogues during filming is roughly 1/2 and 1/2. In Taiwan, some of the Hokkien-language dramas also used Hong Kong actors who can't speak a word of Hokkien. In fact, Japanese, Thai and especially Korean actors have appeared in many Chinese-language TV series in recent years "speaking Chinese". You also have to consider that some of the HK series about Chinese history were never shown in HK but only in SE Asia, dubbed in Vietnamese etc., and some of the mainland series about Chinese history were only shown in dubbed languages like Japanese, e.g. Cao Cao (TV series). In short, this category is not very useful.) Timmyshin (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2015 (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. MER-C 12:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946) to Category:Kingdom of Italy

Nominator's rationale: Listing for full discussion now. The main category is Kingdom of Italy and none of the others at Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) have their own categories. The main Kingdom of Italy refers to the state prior to the current modern Italy. In contrast, we can leave the parentheticals for Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) (a state within the HRE) and Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic) (a French client state) since they both refer to minor client states within other larger states. Further, the others are the disambig page seem to be better titled Kingdom of Odoacer (for the 476-493 redirect at the moment), Ostrogothic Kingdom and Kingdom of the Lombards leaving Kingdom of Italy titled for the Kingdom representing all of Italy just prior to the current state. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Categories need more disambiguation, and without disambiguation people might think this referred to earlier Kingdoms of Italy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but create the target as a category redirect). Categories often need a disambiguator where an article does not, to keep articles relating to the other candidates from being added. The classic case is Birmingham, whose categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands, to keep articles on Birmingham, AL out of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's just one more, short, inglorious state. It deserves no special presumption. The disambig page is doing a fine job. That's what it's there for. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per JPL, without the years, it will end up collecting all articles concerning any of the kingdoms named Italy -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2015 (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:8th-century BC Hebrew people. – Fayenatic London 14:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:8th-century BC Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: anachronistic Editor2020, Talk 03:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you provide a bit more explanation here? Are you proposing that they be merged into the millennium category? Is there something special that happened in the 7th century BC that made Jews no longer anachronistic? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it should be reformatted as a group nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator provided response here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Jews as a term is derived from the kingdom of Judah which emerged in 930 BCE according to biblical chronology although there is no consensus on the accuracy of this chronology and also it's not clear if people were actually called "Jews" that early. For the latter reason, it may be a safer bet to rename the category to Category:8th-century people in Judah. Having said that, I don't think this category needs to be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish history does not begin with Judaism itself and there are previous Hebrew individuals that fit the category. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:8th-century people of Israel and Judah, or split into the two kingdoms, or rename to Category:8th-century BC Hebrew people. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something. I wouldn't oppose any of the previously mentioned renames, though I like Category:8th-century BC Hebrew people the best because this format is also usable for more ancient century categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be OK with a Rename to Category:8th-century BC Hebrew people as per Marcocapelle. Editor2020, Talk 01:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It should have been a group nomination per User:Shawn in Montreal, and rename okay to Category:Xth-century BC Hebrew people, per Editor2020. Any rename (or keep) is prefered to a delele for this and all these categories below. tahc ^chat 21:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename in some fashion -- I'm Ok with whichever gains concensus. Cgingold (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why on earth was this CFD not posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history?? I just took care of it, but they should have been notified straight off by the nominator. Cgingold (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cgingold: please subscribe that project, and any others associated with it, to WP:ALERTS. This is an automated means of alerting all projects that have been tagged on the talk pages of nominated categories, etc. I note that WP JH is already tagged in this case. – Fayenatic London 17:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the info re WP:ALERTS, Fayenatic - I wasn't aware of it's existence. Looks like a very useful feature. All the same, it looks to me like those alerts are more of a complement to, rather than a substitute for, actually posting a note on a Project's talk page -- especially when it comes to a major CFD discussion like this one. Best, Cgingold (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator. warshy ^(¥¥) 13:36, 22 May 2015 (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:9th-century BC Hebrew people. – Fayenatic London 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:9th-century BC Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: anachronistic Editor2020, Talk 03:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Jewish history does not begin with Judaism itself and there are previous Hebrew individuals that fit the category.Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match outcome of 8th cnetury item. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match outcome of 8th century item. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. To talk about "Jews" before the 8th century BC is more than anachronistic; it is preposterous. warshy ^(¥¥) 13:38, 22 May 2015 (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:10th-century BC Hebrew people. – Fayenatic London 15:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:10th-century BC Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: anachronistic Editor2020, Talk 03:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• From here on it's different than for the 8th and 9th century, since the Kingdom of Judah didn't exist yet. I'm hesitant about deleting the category still. Renames like Category:10th-century ancestors of the Jewish people or even Category:10th-century Hebrew Bible people may be considered. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish history does not begin with Judaism itself and there are previous Hebrew individuals that fit the category. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match outcome of 8th cnetury item. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:10th-century Hebrew people, other alternatives mentioned for the 8th century aren't applicable for the 10th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be OK with a Rename to Category:10th-century Hebrew people as per Marcocapelle. Editor2020, Talk 01:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. To talk about "Jews" before the 8th century BC is more than anachronistic; it is preposterous. warshy ^(¥¥) 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion shouldn't end in 'no consensus', it should be either rename or delete. I'm not against deleting per se, since people of this category can also be found in Category:Hebrew Bible people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2015 (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:11th-century BC Hebrew people. – Fayenatic London 16:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:11th-century BC Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: anachronistic Editor2020, Talk 03:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is getting into a period where it is disputed as to whether there was a Jewish religion. Additionally, it's being used for articles whose subjects have uncertain birth dates if they are even historical. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish history does not begin with Judaism itself and there are previous Hebrew individuals that fit the category.Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to Category:11th-century BC people of Israel or Category:11th-century BC Hebrew people, accoridng to outcome on 8th century item. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:11th-century Hebrew people, other alternatives mentioned for the 8th century aren't applicable for the 11th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be OK with a Rename to Category:11th-century Hebrew people as per Marcocapelle. Editor2020, Talk 01:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. To talk about "Jews" before the 8th century BC is more than anachronistic; it is preposterous. warshy ^(¥¥) 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion shouldn't end in 'no consensus', it should be either rename or delete. I'm not against deleting per se, since people of this category can also be found in Category:Hebrew Bible people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2015 (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:12th-century BC Hebrew people. – Fayenatic London 16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:12th-century BC Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: anachronistic Editor2020, Talk 03:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is getting into a period where it is disputed as to whether there was a Jewish religion. Additionally, it's being used for articles whose subjects have uncertain birth dates if they are even historical. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish history does not begin with Judaism itself and there are previous Hebrew individuals that fit the category.Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to Category:12th-century BC people of Israel or Category:11th-century BC Hebrew people, accoridng to outcome on 8th century item. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:12th-century Hebrew people, other alternatives mentioned for the 8th century aren't applicable for the 12th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be OK with a Rename to Category:12th-century Hebrew people as per Marcocapelle. Editor2020, Talk 01:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion shouldn't end in 'no consensus', it should be either rename or delete. I'm not against deleting per se, since people of this category can also be found in Category:Hebrew Bible people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2015 (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. MER-C 12:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:13th-century BC Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Anachronistic Editor2020, Talk 03:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a period where it is disputed as to whether there was a Jewish religion. Additionally, it's being used for articles whose subjects have uncertain birth dates if they are even historical. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish history does not begin with Judaism itself and there are previous Hebrew individuals that fit the category.Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- Biblical chronology before the time of the kings is too uncertain to merit assinging people to any one century. The people concerned are appropriately categorised under "Book of Judges". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peterkingiron and in addition there is also Category:Hebrew Bible people in which these articles suit better. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2015 (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. MER-C 12:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:14th-century BC Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Anachronistic Editor2020, Talk 03:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a period where it is disputed as to whether there was a Jewish religion. Additionally, it's being used for articles whose subjects have uncertain birth dates if they are even historical. Adding the category is probably a POV violation. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish history does not begin with Judaism itself and there are previous Hebrew individuals that fit the category.Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- Biblical chronology before the time of the kings is too uncertain to merit assinging people to any one century. The people concerned are appropriately categorised under "Book of Judges". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peterkingiron and in addition there is also Category:Hebrew Bible people in which these articles suit better. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2015 (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. MER-C 12:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:15th-century BC Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Anachronistic Editor2020, Talk 03:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a period where it is disputed as to whether there was a Jewish religion. Additionally, it's being used for articles whose subjects have uncertain birth dates if they are even historical. Adding the category is probably a POV violation. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish history does not begin with Judaism itself and there are previous Hebrew individuals that fit the category.Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Biblical chronology before the time of the kings is too uncertain to merit assinging people to any one century. The people concerned are appropriately categorised under appropriate Bible books. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2015 (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. MER-C 12:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:16th-century BC Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Anachronistic Editor2020, Talk 03:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a period where it is disputed as to whether there was a Jewish religion. Additionally, it's being used for articles whose subjects have uncertain birth dates if they are even historical. Adding the category is probably a POV violation. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish history does not begin with Judaism itself and there are previous Hebrew individuals that fit the category.Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Biblical chronology before the time of the kings is too uncertain to merit assinging people to any one century. The people concerned are appropriately categorised under appropriate Bible books. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2015 (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. MER-C 12:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:17th-century BC Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Anachronistic Editor2020, Talk 03:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a period where it is disputed as to whether there was a Jewish religion. Additionally, it's being used for articles whose subjects have uncertain birth dates if they are even historical. Adding the category is probably a POV violation. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish history does not begin with Judaism itself and there are previous Hebrew individuals that fit the category.Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Biblical chronology before the time of the kings is too uncertain to merit assinging people to any one century. The people concerned are appropriately categorised under appropriate Bible books. The one article relates to the eponymous Judah. I do not know why not the other 12 patriarchs. However Judah himself sits rather bizarrely in a category of a people who called themslves after him. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2015 (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. MER-C 12:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Films about grief (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NON-DEFINING. I've seen most of the films in the category so far, and what is being grouped here, it seems, is any film in which a character loses someone and grieves. We do already have Category:Films about death, which I believe may be sufficient. Grief is such a basic human response to great loss: death or otherwise. I just don't think it's a good basis for an "about" category, though. We do not have "about" film categories for other emotions, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Shawn. These films aren't about grief, but feature elements of grief, so it's not really defining. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The "Tragedy" genre already exists. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it does: in fact, as of now, the Category:Tragedies (dramas)‎ branch is subcategorized under Category:Grief, for better or worse. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - classic not-defining. Neutrality^talk 01:08, 23 May 2015 (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:Nomadic ethnic groups in Modern Europe, without prejudice to further renaming as part of a group nomination. (The link given by Marcocapelle below does currently seem to justify using "ethnic".) – Fayenatic London 17:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:European gypsies to Category:Modern European nomads

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with parent categories; not all nomadic ethnic groups self-identify as "Gypsy". --100.32.136.225 (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not all the members of these ethnic groups are by any stretch of the imagination "Nomadic". In parts of Bulgaria and Romania there are settled groups of Romani who have been in specific areas for centuries. How well "nomadic" describes the Slovak Romani population of Sheffield is also in question. At heart this is an attempt to define as linked by a supposed cultural trait from the past several groups that may not exhibit such in the present. The rename will make things worse than the current schema. We should just end it, and classify people by ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One of the groups in this category is Yenish people. In that article we read "Today 35,000 Yenish live in Switzerland, mostly concentrated around Graubünden. Only about 5,000 of them currently live the traditional traveller lifestyle." I do not see that description fitting with the claimed describer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per John Pack Lambert's resoning. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but possibly rename instead to e.g. Category:Nomads in the modern history of Europe. Rationale: we do not only categorize by current status, we also categorize by history. While currently many people of these ethnicities may not live according to the traditional lifestyle, these ethnicities are still historically known as nomad ethnicities. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Nomadic ethnic groups in Modern Europe. This is an accurate description, but leaves room for the fact that some/many of their members have settled down. Cgingold (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an improvement for sure, as it includes "ethnic" in the name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just double-checked the contents of the category and it seems to contain more than just "ethnic" groups. So perhaps we shouldn't include "ethnic" in the category name after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative rename: Category:Nomadic groups in Modern Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Hmmh... I've just had a look at the contents, and I'm having trouble finding what you're referring to, Marcocapelle. Which of the groups listed is not an ethnic group? Cgingold (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Highland Travellers in Scotland at least, see Scottish_Gypsy_and_Traveller_groups#Non-Romani_groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Something The grouping of ethnic groups that are currently or were recently nomadic seems defining to me. Any of the renames here seem better than the current name. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Nomadic ethnic groups in Europe‎‎ and other located under Category:Nomads parent category.
  • Rename Category:African nomads to Category:Nomadic ethnic groups in Africa
  • Rename Category:American nomads to Category:Nomadic ethnic groups in American
  • Rename Category:Nomadic groups in Eurasia‎ to Category:Nomadic ethnic groups in Eurasia
  • Rename Category:Modern nomads‎ to Category:Itinerant living ethnic groups in Modern history

--Omanyd (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2015 (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 10:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:S Club to Category:S Club 7

Nominator's rationale: To match the main article. Unreal7 (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nominator. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Should the sub-categories also be nominated. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Unreal7 please tag the category page with ((cfr)), otherwise this nomination will be closed as invalid. – Fayenatic London 12:40, 24 May 2015 (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.