Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 22

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) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Navy patrol craft sweepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The sole member of this category is a PCS-1376 class minesweeper and categorized in Category:PCS-1376 class minesweepers. The PCS-1376 class is the only United States Navy ship class to ever have been called "patrol craft sweeper", so there is no need for this more generic "type" category. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I presume there is no room for expansion. Accordingly the one member should be categorised both as a patrol boat (as now) and also as a minesweeper - a sort of upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The ship class category, Category:PCS-1376 class minesweepers, is already catgorized in Category:United States Navy minesweepers Category:Minesweepers of the United States and Category:United States Navy patrol boats Category:Patrol vessels of the United States, so the article itself doesn't really need to be re-categorized. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2009 (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. NW (Talk) 15:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of California, Berkeley alumni to Category:University of California, Berkeley, alumni

Nominator's rationale: Berkeley is a parenthetical that should be "closed" with a comma before proceeding. LarRan (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all other categories in Category:University of California alumni. I'd wp:snow this one. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent, all of the categories in the category mentioned by Debresser should be renamed. LarRan (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Berkeley is not a parenthetical, it is part of the name. Maybe we should change it to University of California at Berkeley, but the comma sets Berkeley aside from University of California, it is to distinguish it from University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, San Diego and so on. You do not put a comma after the school name.Johnpacklambert (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...unless the expression continues. As in "He was born in Portland, Oregon, in the late 1950s". You cannot dismiss that with "you do not put a comma after a state name". It's not as simple as that. It depends on what comes afterwards. Without the closing comma, this sentence/expression falls into the following two clauses: "He was born in Portland" and "Oregon in the late 1950s", both of which (in this case) acceptable, but with another meaning than what was intended. In most cases, the second clause becomes more awkward. LarRan (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep to match title of parent article. No comma is needed here. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category name matches the parent category also with the comma. The first comma marks the start of the qualification Berkeley, and the second marks the end. It's an analogy with using parentheses. The category could have been named Category:University of California (Berkeley) alumni, in which case it would be more obvious. To me it's obvious it's needed here too. Without the comma it's two clauses: "University of California", and "Berkeley alumni". LarRan (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Again, "Berkeley" is neither a parenthetical nor a qualification; it is an intrinsic part of the name, and the presence of the comma is simply the institution's orthographic convention. It is hardly any more confusing than University of Washington North Sound or University of Missouri–Kansas City. This is the case with the entire UC system; no one refers to any particular campus solely as "University of California," not even the flagship campus, and not because they would be confused with one another, but simply because that name is applied exclusively to the entire system.- choster 23:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a qualification, how could it be otherwise? And that doesn't neccessarily mean that it's mutually exclusive with "Berkeley" as an intrinsic part of the name. If the name stands alone, the qualification implicitly ends when the name/expression ends, but if not, the qualification should be ended before continuing. However, considering that I'm outvoted, I propose an alternative: how about "Category:Alumni of University of California, Berkeley"? LarRan (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A qualification is a restriction in meaning or application. But "Berkeley" does not modify "University of California." The subject is neither a type nor an example of a University of California. It is not provided to clarify "which" University of California. The University of California is a completely different concept from the University of California, Berkeley. The presence of the comma does not change that any more than it does the meaning of Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway.- choster 01:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per choster's explanations. Grammatically, I think choster is correct here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:05, 29 October 2009 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional United States Republicans to Category:Fictional Republicans (United States)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as I said in the nomination below this one. Debresser (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2009 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional United States Democrats to Category:Fictional Democrats (United States)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Category:Democrats (United States) (which is what nominator meant). Debresser (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2009 (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 all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 19:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fooian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Foo

Category:American Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from the United States

Category:Armenian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Armenia

Category:Australian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Australia

Category:Austrian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Austria

Category:Azerbaijani Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Azerbaijan

Category:Bahraini Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Bahrain

Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Category:British Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from the United Kingdom

Category:Byzantine Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from the Byzantine Empire

Category:Canadian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Canada

Category:Croatian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Croatia

Category:Egyptian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Egypt

Category:Estonian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Estonia

Category:Filipino Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from the Philippines

Category:Finnish Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Finland

Category:French Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from France

Category:German Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Germany

Category:Hungarian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Hungary

Category:Irish Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Ireland

Category:Israeli Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Israel

Category:Italian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Italy

Category:Japanese Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Japan

Category:Lebanese Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Lebanon

Category:Mexican Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Mexico

Category:Moldovan Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Moldova

Category:Montenegrin Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Montenegro

Category:Palestinian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Palestine

Category:Swedish Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Sweden

Category:Swiss Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Switzerland

Category:Syrian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Syria

Category:Turkish Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Turkey

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the sister cats within Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by nationality renamed due to consensus at this October 5 CfD. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In principle Support, but we must be sure not to rush in where fools fear to tread. Certain articles on Orthodox Churches of the Levant region have for a long time been tagged for attention by an expert (which they certainly need). Can we be sure that the change is not implying something unintended. Serbian, Greek, and Russian Orthodox are separate denominations. The Syrian case may be more difficult due to confusion with Syriac, which refers to denominations that worship in that language. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom and per previous consensus. It is clear that these are "nationality" categories, not "denominational" or "autocephalic", or whatever the correct term is. That tree is Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by jurisdiction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all and please read my essay on the subect at Wikipedia:Clergy by nationality. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:41, 23 October 2009 (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. NW (Talk) 15:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artery Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This page is of a non-notable organization with no Wikipedia.--Krazycev 13 ^{other crap} 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• this category is for artists currently under management by The Artery Foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofthechi (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which does not make it defining for the artists. Also we don't tend to split categories by currency of the members. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non defining and not notable. Resolute 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, which I hate to say, but this category does not seem to be justified. I convinced myself of that by making a link to The Artery Foundation and finding there is no wikipedia article on it. Whther the Foundation is notable, I don't know, but it appears no one has felt the need to create an actual article on it, until they do having categories related to it makes little sense.Johnpacklambert (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there was an Artery Foundation article, which was deleted as spam, part of an energetic spamming campaign documented in the COI/N archives here. The campaign seems to be continuing. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2009 (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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lady Byng winners to Category:Lady Byng Memorial Trophy winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Trying to clean up inconsistent formatting of the NHL trophy categories. The Lady Byng category omits the word trophy, while many omit the word "memorial". Propose renaming the following to match the name of the parent articles:

• Category:Lady Byng winners to Category:Lady Byng Memorial Trophy winners
• Category:Bill Masterton Trophy winners to Category:Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy winners
• Category:Hart Trophy winners to Category:Hart Memorial Trophy winners
• Category:Norris Trophy winners to Category:James Norris Memorial Trophy winners

Resolute 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support More appropriate names. Matches articles. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding 'Trophy' to the Lady Byng. Oppose additions to the other trophies. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you oppose using the proper title in the category structure? Resolute 18:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support it's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renames to match title of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match articles. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2009 (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. Though it does seem that some good discussions regarding this have occurred below. I would suggest that the Chicago WikiProject look around at the WikiProject categories' structure for other WikiProjects to see if it's possible to bring their categorisation scheme in line with others (for ease of navigation, if nothing else.) Otherwise, there's a decent possibility that we'll be seeing this back at CfD in a month or so. - jc37 10:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Chicago content categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This already exists as Category:Category-Class Chicago articles, which is on the talk pages, where it belongs. This category is both redundant and categorizes the wrong namespace. NE2 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although most categories are created to categorize articles, this one is for the purpose of categorizing categories unlike the Category mentioned above that is for articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - As the text within the cmbox says, the subcategories and pages assigned to this category are for encyclopedic pages and other subcategories that contain encyclopedic pages. Category:Category-Class Chicago articles contains all categories - portal, project, user, template, help, files, categories, and encyclopedic. This category is a subset of Category:Category-Class Chicago articles and does not duplicate its members or the function. The intent is to populate this category with nothing but articles and subcategories that readers and editors of encyclopedic pages can use to quickly find encyclopedic (i.e., content) categories that are appropriate for their article - something that seems to be missing at this time (please see finding Chicago Project content categories. By using this category it sets up the potential to further categories Chicago Project content categories into subsets based on topic. That would help readers/editors even more. Please note that there is a counter part to this category - it is category:WikiProject Chicago tracking categories. If one of these pairs is deleted the other might as well also be deleted. The two split Category:Category-Class Chicago articles into two subsets each serving a different area of interest - either readers/editors or Chicago Project members. Pknkly (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does this help the assessment process? That's the reason these categories really exist. And why is this project so unique to require this level of detail? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category was not meant to support the assessment process, it was meant to support the wp:categorization process. As I understand it, categories exist for two reasons: (1) support the various functions of a project (one of those function is the assessment process and the other is to support and maintain a categorization scheme); and (2) provide an alternative navigational method for readers to find articles. This category is meant to help project members to support a categorization scheme that fulfills the second role of a category. This project is not unique in any special way, it simply needs to come to terms with a categorization scheme, document it, and continue to develop and work with supporting processes (e.g., use of bots and project categories). Pknkly (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am confused as to the organization of categories. As I understand it Category:WikiProject Chicago, Category:WikiProject Chicago articles, and Category:Category-Class Chicago articles are standard categories for projects. I am in support of all categories that are consistent with established categorizations. I am sort of unsure why projects need Category:WikiProject Chicago tracking categories and Category:WikiProject Chicago content categories and whether they are redundant, but feel our project should do whatever is standard and justified by common procedure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too was confused as to the organization of categories. I looked and failed to find a document that explains the Chicago Project categorization scheme and its use of established categories. Without such a document I have no idea what phrases such as "established categorization", "standard categories", and "common procedure" mean. From what I've seen none of the "standard" categories provide the information that Category:WikiProject Chicago tracking categories and Category:WikiProject Chicago content categories are designed to provide. To me it looks like all the categories you gave in the above "standard" categories mix content and project categories. It doesn't look like redundancy. Pknkly (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. you know, I like to do what other projects do. Mostly, this is because before you there were few people that considered WP:CHICAGO the main project that they want to improve. Thus, if I create categories just like all the other projects, I know that a lot of other people have thought about the proper way to do things. The three categories I mentioned above are all categories that dozens and dozens of other projects have all decided are necessary and desirable to have. The two you are adding seem to have no analogs to categories other projects use. This causes me to wonder how necessary and desirable they are. Can you more clearly explain exactly what is suppose to be in those categories and why the project is better because of these categories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I saw your message. I need time to try and respond in a way that doesn't repeat most of what I have said. Pknkly (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for not understanding the first time, but I don't.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up some sections within a documents that are under development that uses this category in hopes that I could use it to present my argument. Using a document that is under development to document a categorization scheme that is under development to justify the existence of this category just doesn't seem right. So, I'll probably be repeating myself but hopefully in simpler terms. I'm placing my concluding statement at the bottom. Pknkly (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Here is our impasse. You are confused by "established categorization", "standard categories", and "common procedure" mean and I am confused about the need for your pair of categories. When I say standard categories or common procedure, I mean a category that naturally fits as a subcategory of higher level categories that exist. E.g. Category:Category-Class Chicago articles. This article rolls up into Category:Category-Class articles, which is a category that has numerous analogous categories. It is also a natural subcategory of Category:Chicago articles by quality, which includes all classes of that have a quality ranking and those classes that do not have quality rankings because they are not in the article space. It is clear that the project would sort of be missing a standard category that fits in with common procedure if we did not have such a category. Even a category such as Category:Airports in the Chicago metropolitan area is a sort of standard category that fits into the broader scheme as a subcat of Category:Transportation in Chicago, Illinois, Category:Airports in Illinois, and Category:Airports by city. Note that each of those cats is a subcat in the larger hierarchy of wikipedia cats. Without looking I am guessing that there are categories that each of these parent categories are logical subcats of. Basically what would convince me that we need Category:WikiProject Chicago content categories is Category:Content categories with analogous subcats for dozens (maybe hundreds) of projects. Similarly, Category:WikiProject Chicago tracking categories would seem essential if there were a Category:Tracking categories with numerous analgous subcats. That is what I mean by "established categorization", "standard categories", and "common procedure". Basically, I think this would fly if you went to a project which makes decisions about categories and convinced people that this is a worthwhile system for categories in general. If those people come to a consensus that all projects need these categories then we need them. If they say these categories are not productive for projects, then our project is no different. Since there aren't a lot of minds helping us to reach conclusions about proper procedure within the project, we should leverage the collective thought for the project to guide us. I think all projects that are short on manpower could save a lot of time and hassle in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. Category:Tracking categories is not redlinked. This means many other projects believe such a category should exist. However, I do not see subcats like ours in the category. Thus, we have either misnamed our category or are wrong about its use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding statement for not deleting the category. By definition (see wp:categorization#Project categories there are two main types of categories - content and project. Therefore, it should be allowed to have two types of list categories for Wikipedia projects. One for content categories and the other for project categories. In my opinion it is important to have the category because it provides an element within the Chicago Project Categorization Scheme that logically breaks down all the Chicago Project categories into the two major groups of categories. With its counter part Category:WikiProject Chicago tracking categories there is no other category that currently does this. The immediate benefit is that project members could quickly spot categories that were improperly categorized. Because this category would contain nothing but content categories, future benefit may be that a bot could spot miscategorized categories or articles because all the categories within this category are to be within the main namespace. Pknkly (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Can you explain the difference between having this category and saying an article should be in Category:Chicago, Illinois or some other category within the projects list of categories (see WP:CHIBOTCATS)? Is this a category that should just be renamed Category:Chicago, Illinois-related article categories?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several answers for:

(1) "Explain difference between ...." - This category is a project tracking category and Category:Chicago, Illinois, though it is not clearly stated within the category, looks to me like a content category. As the Chicago Project Categorization Scheme is further developed I hope we can make the purpose of a category clearer (see effective categories ).Pknkly (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2) "...other category within list of categories..." - This points to a need for the two categories (content and tracking). CHIBOTCATS has all the categories. I would have to go through all the categories to answer your question. I think it would be great to have one category whose members were all the project categories and that is what the counterpart this this category is going to be unless it is deleted. I did my best to look at the titles of the categories within CHIBOTCATS and could not find any that does what this category would do.Pknkly (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(3) "...category renamed Category:Chicago, Illinois-related article categories." - This category (the one being considered for deletion) is a a Chicago Project project tracking category and as such the title should be prefixed with "WikiProject Chicago" (I believe this is correct - please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions. Also, I believe the renaming to the proposed name may require that there would have to be another category to cover the Chicago metropolitan area related article categories (those that are for articles beyond the city limits of Chicago). Pknkly (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation When the Chicago Project Categorization Scheme is complete we could have a better idea on the usefulness of this category. As the development evolves alternatives for the use of this category may be discovered or its use becomes clearer. It seems to me that with greater regularity the questions and answers are related to the development of the scheme which is better discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Categories. Pknkly (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support After all this debate, I am somewhat convinced it is a useful category.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 31 October 2009 (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:Conglomerates (geology). NW (Talk) 15:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Conglomerates to Category:Conglomerates (geology)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article Conglomerate (geology) and to disambiguate from business conglomerates at Category:Conglomerate companies. Tassedethe (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, although one can think of many of the companies whose natural place is under a rock, Boom-boom! Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Visabeira doesn't belong in this category. Which just comes tho prove the urgent need for this rename. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2009 (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 all; proper new name for Category:Companies in Trivandrum will be determined based on an other discussion which is still open. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming and merging various Companies in Foo or Companies headquartered in Foo categories to Companies based in Foo

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Aichi to Category:Companies based in Aichi Prefecture

Propose merging Category:Companies headquartered in Bratislava to Category:Companies based in Bratislava

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Chiba to Category:Companies based in Chiba Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Fukuoka to Category:Companies based in Fukuoka Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Hiroshima to Category:Companies based in Hiroshima

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Hyōgo to Category:Companies based in Hyōgo Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Ibaraki to Category:Companies based in Ibaraki Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Kanagawa to Category:Companies based in Kanagawa Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Karachi to Category:Companies based in Karachi District

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Kobe to Category:Companies based in Kobe

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Kyoto to Category:Companies based in Kyoto Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Nagano to Category:Companies based in Nagano Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Okinawa to Category:Companies based in Okinawa Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Osaka to Category:Companies based in Osaka Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Saitama to Category:Companies based in Saitama Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Shizuoka to Category:Companies based in Shizuoka Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies headquartered in Yamaguchi to Category:Companies based in Yamaguchi Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Anhui to Category:Companies based in Anhui

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Beijing to Category:Companies based in Beijing

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Bergamo to Category:Companies based in Bergamo

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Bologna to Category:Companies based in Bologna

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Chongqing to Category:Companies based in Chongqing

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Dalian to Category:Companies based in Dalian

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Emilia-Romagna to Category:Companies based in Emilia-Romagna

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Florence to Category:Companies based in Florence

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Fujian to Category:Companies based in Fujian

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Fukui Prefecture to Category:Companies based in Fukui Prefecture

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Genoa to Category:Companies based in Genoa

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Guangdong to Category:Companies based in Guangdong

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Guangzhou to Category:Companies based in Guangzhou

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Guizhou to Category:Companies based in Guizhou

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Hebei to Category:Companies based in Hebei

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Heilongjiang to Category:Companies based in Heilongjiang

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Henan to Category:Companies based in Henan

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Hubei to Category:Companies based in Hubei

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Hunan to Category:Companies based in Hunan

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Inner Mongolia to Category:Companies based in Inner Mongolia

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Jiangsu to Category:Companies based in Jiangsu

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Jiangxi to Category:Companies based in Jiangxi

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Jilin to Category:Companies based in Jilin

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Kerala to Category:Companies based in Kerala

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Liaoning to Category:Companies based in Liaoning

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Liguria to Category:Companies based in Liguria

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Lombardy to Category:Companies based in Lombardy

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Milan to Category:Companies based in Milan

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Naples to Category:Companies based in Naples

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Parma to Category:Companies based in Parma

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Piedmont to Category:Companies based in Piedmont

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Qinghai to Category:Companies based in Qinghai

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Rome to Category:Companies based in Rome

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Shaanxi to Category:Companies based in Shaanxi

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Shandong to Category:Companies based in Shandong

Propose merging Category:Companies in Shanghai to Category:Companies based in Shanghai

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Shantou to Category:Companies based in Shantou

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Shenyang to Category:Companies based in Shenyang

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Shenzhen to Category:Companies based in Shenzhen

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Sichuan to Category:Companies based in Sichuan

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Tianjin to Category:Companies based in Tianjin

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Trivandrum to Category:Companies based in Trivandrum (or Category:Companies based in Thiruvananthapuram based on other discussion)

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Turin to Category:Companies based in Turin

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Tuscany to Category:Companies based in Tuscany

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Veneto to Category:Companies based in Veneto

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Xinjiang to Category:Companies based in Xinjiang

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Yunnan to Category:Companies based in Yunnan

Propose renaming Category:Companies in Zhejiang to Category:Companies based in Zhejiang

Propose renaming Category:Companies of Shanxi to Category:Companies based in Shanxi

Nominator's rationale To be consistent with the naming scheme used in Category:Companies e.g Category:Companies of the United States by state or Category:Companies of Norway by location. Also to correct locations to the name of the appropriate parent category (e.g. Kyoto Prefecture not Kyoto). Tassedethe (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom except Category:Companies in Trivandrum should become Category:Companies based in Thiruvananthapuram (Thiruvananthapuram is now the official English name). Categorizing companies by geographic areas of operation is utterly unsustainable.-- choster 04:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that the stated exception is now part of an other group nom, and the existence of this other group nom is mentioned in the nomination list. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Category:Companies in Trivandrum can be renamed to Category:Companies based in Thiruvananthapuram. This nomenclature satisfies the purpose of this category ( to catagorize the companies based in Thiruvananthapuram). Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: DELETE/MERGE per nom. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Commonwealth Games basketballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Suggest merging Category:Basketballers at the 2006 Commonwealth Games to Category:Basketball players at the 2006 Commonwealth Games

Nominator's rationale: Basketball players is preferred (per Category:Basketball players). The first category is superfluous to Category:Commonwealth Games basketball players. Tassedethe (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete/rename per nom per established usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 24 October 2009 (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) 01:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Common chords to Category:Chords

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Further categorization not required for a single template. Tassedethe (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2009 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Common albums to Category:Common (entertainer) albums

Propose renaming Category:Common (rapper) songs to Category:Common (entertainer) songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the main article Common (entertainer). Tassedethe (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. To match parent article, Common (entertainer). Common is too common of a word. — ξ^xplicit 07:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom per established conventions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 24 October 2009 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:I'm a Celebrity…Get Me out of Here! to Category:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!

Nominator's rationale: per WP:ELLIPSIS. The use of a non-keyboard character in these categories makes using and editing them cumbersome for only minor typographical gain. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 10:09, 26 October 2009 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Commodores albums to Category:Commodores albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the main article Commodores and the related category Category:Commodores songs. Tassedethe (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. To match parent article. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. For reasons above. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2009 (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) 01:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legião Urbana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for a music group just has standard album and song subcats and so is superfluous. Tassedethe (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. But couldn't you have just removed this category from the songs/albums sub-cats and this one would have been speedied as empty? :) --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it was speedy deleted as empty it could be recreated by refilling. By discussing its deletion it can only be recreated if its contents substantially change, i.e. more articles and subcategories, otherwise it can be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Tassedethe (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2009 (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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ewa Sonnet singles to Category:Ewa Sonnet songs

Propose renaming Category:Legião Urbana singles to Category:Legião Urbana songs

Propose merging Category:CSS singles to Category:CSS songs

Propose merging Category:Bajofondo singles to Category:Bajofondo songs

Propose merging Category:Imogen Heap singles to Category:Imogen Heap songs

Propose merging Category:Psapp singles to Category:Psapp songs

Nominator's rationale: Standard category for artists is Foo songs not Foo singles, per Category:Songs by artist. See previous discussion. Tassedethe (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename first two per standard naming conventions. Merge the rest as there's no need for separate categories. — ξ^xplicit 20:11, 22 October 2009 (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/rename as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose renaming Category:Royworld singles to Category:Royworld songs

Nominator's rationale:. Apart from the standard albums and songs categories the parent category just contains the main article and discography. Unneeded for navigation. The singles category should be renamed to the standard per Category:Songs by artist. Tassedethe (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Delete parent category and rename singles to songs per category conventions. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2009 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Haitian international footballers to Category:Haiti international footballers

Propose renaming Category:Welsh under-23 international footballers to Category:Wales under-23 international footballers

Propose renaming Category:Syrian international footballers to Category:Syria international footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. International footballers should be referred to by their country but not the adjectival form (per Category:Football (soccer) players by national team). Tassedethe (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename alll per correct argument of nominator. See also Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Speedy_rename_-_Criterion_4. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2009 (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) 01:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Expatriates from Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo expatriates

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Correct name per Category:Expatriates by nationality. Tassedethe (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per correct argument of nominator. See also Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Speedy_rename_-_Criterion_4. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (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 ALL to "Organisations based in..." postdlf (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Organizations in French Polynesia to Category:Organizations based in French Polynesia

Propose renaming Category:Organizations in Kosovo to Category:Organizations based in Kosovo

Propose renaming Category:Organizations in Montenegro to Category:Organizations based in Montenegro

Propose renaming Category:Organizations in São Tomé and Príncipe to Category:Organizations based in São Tomé and Príncipe

Propose renaming Category:Organizations in the Cook Islands to Category:Organizations based in the Cook Islands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming in Category:Organizations by country. Tassedethe (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk)
• Rename, but using "organisations", which is the standard spelling in the Cook Islands and - as a UK English spelling - would normally be used for categories dealing with countries using other European languages. Grutness...wha? 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using 'organisations' per Grutness. At minimum, for the Cook Islands, which is country in free association with NZ and therefore uses UK/NZ spelling. But the other ones probably could also use UK English, though it's not as critical. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 24 October 2009 (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. postdlf (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Foreign relations of Greenland to Category:Politics of Greenland and Category:Foreign relations of Denmark

Nominator's rationale: Merge. In Greenland, foreign relations are still controlled by Denmark. Greenland has no autonomous foreign policy, ambassadors, diplomatic missions, etc.; nor does Greenland sign treaties, join international organizations as a state, etc. Some non-UN member countries, like the Cook Islands, control some parts of their own foreign relations, but Greenland is not yet one of them. This category will never really be a useful category until it has some foundation in reality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Up-)Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (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: Self-close; category was speedily deleted by uninvolved admin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mohsin Hamid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Main article and a "novels by" subcategory are insufficient to justify an eponymous category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy the creator was a sock of Strider11. It was Skeptifall in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Strider11#Suspected_sockpuppets. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2009 (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. — ξ^xplicit 23:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kateri Tekakwitha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A main bio article and a school named after the person is not enough to justify an eponymous category for a person. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too small and not likely to get expanded. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2009 (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. postdlf (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British-American politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a defining intersection of ethnicity and occupation. If fully populated would likely include a huge proportion of those in Category:American politicians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- this has a single article, on some one whose British links are weak. He presumably has (or had) British nationality due to his birth, but it is notorious that Greek shipping magnates (such as his father) claim to be non-domiciled for tax purposes. Since his profession is "diplomat", he is hardly a politician. Furthermore, there are so many Americans of British descent that British-American (or do we mean American-British) is a hardly defining characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — too large to be useful, not a defining characteristic. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — the same editor also created Category:Welsh-American politicians (current population one) and Category:Welsh-Americans politicians (wrong spelling, current population a different one). Also Category:Greek-American politicians (typo, ignoring the already existing and fairly well populated Category:Greek American politicians). These duplicates should get cleaned up. And I'm not sure whether "Welsh-American politicians" is even legit – it's arguably a trivial intersection since there's no self-identified Welsh-American voting block or population in the U.S. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also recently created Category:Norwegian-Americans actors AND Category:Norwegian-American actors; Category:Greek-American musicians AND Category:Greek-American musicans; Category:German-American musicans—many, many other intersections of American ethnicities and professions containing one or two articles only, some spelled correctly and some not. I think we have a problem here. This follows on the heels of the editor's creation of the NHL "Fram Teams" category fiasco. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have to say the dismissal of Welsh Americans ignores the conditions in Pennsylvania in 1900. There were clearly defined Welsh populations, and they very likely had a voting block. Something not existing today does not prove it never existed.Johnpacklambert (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2009 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reviewed non-free images to Category:Reviewed non-free files

Nominator's rationale: Category contains all content in file namespace and should be renamed for clarity. — ξ^xplicit 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Just as all "images". Debresser (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2009 (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.