Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 6

< June 5	June 7 >

June 6

Category:Educational philosophy

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Educational philosophy to Category:Philosophy of education

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I suggest making the change for consistency with other fields of philosophy (e.g., philosophy of science, philosophy of history, etc.) and for consistency with common usage. hargettp (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:PHILOSOPHY notified. AllyD (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:EDUCATION notified. Greg Bard 23:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support on basis of nominator's rationale. --Morton Shumway (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2010 (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.

Category:Aéropostale

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Contains one article and one file (the company logo), not likely to expand. Prezbo (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the logo is not free it is likely a copyvio having it in the category so it was removed leaving just the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A one-item category isn't necessarily something to delete, but there's little point in keeping a category for a company when there's unlikely to ever be anything in there but one article. Smacks a bit of WP:VANITY. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:16, 14 June 2010 (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.

Category:German and Scandinavian legendary creatures

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:German and Scandinavian legendary creatures to Category:Germanic legendary creatures

Nominator's rationale: The category as it is uses 'German' in an unusual way and admits this in the category description. The standard way to describe something which includes all of the Germanic-speaking peoples (the Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, English etc), as it seems is the intention of this category, is 'Germanic'. Munci (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although I'm not entirely certain the category is needed at all any more; Category:German legendary creatures and Category:Scandinavian legendary creatures have both been created since, and Category:European legendary creatures has been created as a higher-level category. When I created this one, it was a direct subcategory of Category:Legendary creatures by culture, as part of my broader effort to categorize a large number of previously-unsorted legendary-creature articles. "Germanic" would probably have been a better name to begin with, and I no longer remember why I chose this one. I suppose the category would still be marginally useful for categorizing creatures that appear across a broad variety of Germanic cultures, such as Elf. Shimeru (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2010 (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.

Category:RAFAEL Armament Development Authority

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, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:RAFAEL Armament Development Authority to Category:Rafael Advanced Defense Systems

Nominator's rationale: The company changed its name (not sure when), but the main article and the official website both indicate that Rafael Advanced Defense Systems is the correct and current name. Moved from WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. See also the other "old name vs. new name" debate here today. Absent a good reason not to do so, use the most common name, and absent strong evidence of one being more common than the other, use the current one. Enshrining obsolete names simply because they were there first does nothing to help our readers. Cf. Category:Brunswick Corporation, and note that it isn't Category:Brunswick Balke & Collender, much less Category:Brunswick & Balke with a separate Category:Collender & Co.. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:21, 14 June 2010 (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.

Category:Saint Pierre and Miquelon work gorup members

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Saint Pierre and Miquelon work gorup members to Category:Saint Pierre and Miquelon work group members

Nominator's rationale: I think the word "gorup" may simply be a misspelling of "group" (hence suited to a speedy rename under C2.A) but I may have overlooked something and thought discussion might help uncover the legitimate reason for the use of "gorup". 24.44.14.186 (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – to judge from Template:User Saint Pierre and Miquelon work group this is a wikiproject membership group, not usually categorised (?). If kept it is certainly 'group'. Occuli (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is to rename, not to delete the category. Wikiprojects often have member categories, for examples take a look at User:John Carter/Userboxes which lists approximately 125 wikiproject membership categories. Note also the Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject which contains 770 further categories of wikiproject participation. It is indeed rather common for a wikiproject to offer a category for its participants. 24.44.14.186 (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to correct stupid error of bozo who can't even spell right. Thanks for catching that. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename: Typo fixes do not need to go through full CfD process. NB: Just because the nominator posed a "rename or not" question does not mean that everyone at CfD is limited to only discussing those options. There's nothing procedurally wrong with a "delete" !vote (though obviously the delete rationale is faulty in this case). This kind of begs the question, though, of whether or not there ought to be some kind of clearer naming convention for participants in WikiProjects and their task forces/work[ing] groups. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:14, 14 June 2010 (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.

Category:Jiangsu Classic

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. I will leave a category redirect on Category:Jiangsu Classic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jiangsu Classic to Category:Wuxi Classic

Nominator's rationale: The event was renamed to Wuxi Classic this year. See: WPBSA. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per like nominations. We are not here to rewrite history. Keep this category, and make it a subcategory of Category:Wuxi Classic. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom; this has nothing to do with "rewriting history", but having a sane number of categories. If we created a separate article and category for every rename of something, the category system would be next to useless (note that we do not have a Category:The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, nor separate articles for David Johansson and Buster Poindexter). For someone like a person, use the most common name. For something like an event, that people call by its current name, use the current name. I.e., use common sense. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — This doesn't re-write history – the only purpose of categories is to organise articles - we are not retrospectively renaming the individual articles for the years it was the Jiangsu Classic. Making it a subcategory of the Wuxi category would be counter-intuitive. The snooker articles shouldn't be organised according to sponsorship since this can change on an annual basis. The main article has been renamed to the Wuxi Classic (since it's the convention to use the current name) and it has sub-articles for the previous years (which includes Jiangsu years) so the category should really reflect this organisation. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SMcCandlish's reasoning. To avoid confusion, both names should be indicated in the category description (done) and Category:Jiangsu Classic should be recreated as a category redirect. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:57, 14 June 2010 (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.

American hip hop groups, musicians and producers by location

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:

Relisted at 2010 JUN 30 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:East Coast hip hop groups
Category:East Coast hip hop musicians
Category:East Coast hip hop producers
Category:Midwest hip hop musicians
Category:Midwest hip hop producers
Category:Southern hip hop groups
Category:Southern hip hop musicians
Category:Southern hip hop producers
Category:West Coast hip hop artists
Category:West Coast hip hop groups
Category:West Coast hip hop musicians
Category:West Coast hip hop producers

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Like rappers in earlier discussion, these musicians and groups don't need to be categorized by what coastline they're from, either. Karppinen (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case some of these don't have this category, Upmerge to Category:American hip hop groups or equivalent.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not being an expert, but if any of these are legit subgenres of hip hop, then they shouldn't be deleted. If they're an attempt to categorize by location, then I agree. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These are a bit more complex. The rapper categories were part of the deleted Category:American rappers by location, which is why I nominated for deletion. This group of categories are not part of any Category:American musicians by location or similar, but part of Category:East Coast hip hop, Category:Hip hop groups by genre, etc. Unfortunately, these categories seem to have lost their way and pages aren't being categorized that way. Instead, they're being categorized as the rapper categories were, and that's by where the performer(s) are from; note that two of the Foo hip hop musicians categories are part of Category:East Coast musicians and Category:Musicians from the Southern United States, which has nothing to do with the type of genre. I support the deletion of Category:West Coast hip hop artists, as this is acting as a duplicate of Category:West Coast rappers; Category:East Coast hip hop producers, Category:West Coast hip hop producers, Category:Midwest hip hop producers and Category:Southern hip hop producers can all probably be merged to Category:American hip hop record producers as there's no clear line as to how a beat can be classified to belong to a certain coast, at least not until a rapper from a certain coastline decides to use it, then it automatically becomes from that coast purely based on the rapper. The musicians and groups categories require a cleanup, at most. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 8 June 2010 (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.

Category:Cities and towns in Catalonia

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns in Catalonia to Category:Municipalities in Catalonia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All other subcategories of category:Municipalities of Spain are formatted "Municipalities of (X)".--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match naming of the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2010 (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.

Category:Cities and towns of the Sassanid Empire

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns of the Sassanid Empire to Category:Cities of the Sassanid Empire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are all cities. One member of this category, Takht-e Soleymān, was neither a city nor a town, and it is already in category:Sassanid castles where it belongs, so I removed it. All the rest are cities.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (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.

Category:Cities and towns in Hunan

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns in Hunan to Category:Towns in Hunan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. We already have category:Cities in Hunan. These are all towns.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (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.

Category:Cities and Towns of Cumberland, MD-WV-PA

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:Populated places in the Cumberland, MD-WV MSA. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities and Towns of Cumberland, MD-WV-PA to ~~Category:Populated places in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA~~Category:Populated places in the Cumberland, MD-WV MSA

Nominator's rationale: Rename. We don't have "Cities and Towns" categories for U.S. places, as cities and towns are split into their respective categories. This, however, has cities, towns, villages, and unincorporated communities, so it should have the catchall "Populated places".Mike Selinker (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Populated places in Cumberland, MD-WV MSA, or should that be Category:Populated places in the Cumberland, MD-WV MSA, which matches the main article name, Cumberland, MD-WV MSA. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the latter. Nomination adjusted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Populated places in Cumberland, MD-WV MSA. It seems to me that no other Cumberland-related category title includes the definite article before the placename. If that is an error, then they all should be renamed. (By the way, almost all subcategories of Category:Cumberland, Maryland use "MD-WV-PA", though perhaps they should all be moved into Category:Cumberland, MD-WV MSA?) Another option is to rename the article to Cumberland Metro and change the categories to match. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MSA stands for Metropolitan Statistical Area, so I think the article makes sense.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's my thinking. If the other categories need renaming, then that can be discussed in another nomination. Clearly the last points raised by Black Falcon need a discussion, but I don't see why the need for that discussion should prevent us from cleaning up this straggler from the city and towns cleanup. I don't see the objection here being to dropping the city and town, just which target to use. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2010 (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.

Category:Cities and counties in the Tampa Bay Area

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities and counties in the Tampa Bay Area to Category:Cities in the Tampa Bay Area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. We have no "Cities and counties" categories. I've moved the counties into a new Category:Counties in the Tampa Bay Area, and all that remains here are cities.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2010 (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.

Border Region

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Border Region (California) to Category:San Diego–Imperial, California

Propose renaming Category:People from the California border region to Category:People from San Diego–Imperial, California

Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns in the California border region to Category:Cities in San Diego–Imperial, California

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article name for this region is San Diego–Imperial, California. The "Cities and towns" category contains only one city.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2010 (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.

Category:Post-apocalyptic literature

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: withdrawn. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Post-apocalyptic literature to Category:Post-apocalyptic fiction

Nominator's rationale: I can't see what the distinction is here between "literature" and "fiction." "Post-apocalyptic fiction" is a parent category, and every article in this category is about fiction.Prezbo (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Post-apocalyptic literature is the subset of post-apocalyptic fiction which is in written form. This is in contrast with other subsets of post-apocalyptic fiction, such as films, games, and television series. It is an appropriate subcategory of Category:Literature by genre. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, I'm sorry for not seeing that. Consider this withdrawn.Prezbo (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. :) Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:23, 7 June 2010 (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.

Cities and settlements of famous people

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: Withdrawn as obsolete / delete after listifying, per previous nomination. I have created List of populated places whose identities come from Philip II of Macedon and List of populated places whose identities come from Alexander the Great, so these can be emptied and deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Cities and settlements of Alexander the Great

Propose deleting Category:Cities and settlements of Philip II of Macedon

Nominator's rationale: A relist of two categories from this withdrawn sub-nomination that make very little sense at all. These are "Cities and settlements by people who named them," a structure for which no other namer of places is used. Also, the term "Settlements" is falling on disfavor on CfD except for very specific political designations, which these categories don't have. Plus the entries themselves are all over the place; some have only tertiary connection to the conquerer. At best listify, but better if deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on my previous comments on these, I don't see this being the best choice for a category given the overly broad inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 05:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that the major CfD discussion on the renames closed with these two listed as listify. So two choices, withdraw and let the listify work go on or leave this open to see if there is a consensus to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm inclined to follow the closer's decision. So what would the listified articles be called? "List of populated places whose identity comes from (X)"?--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The decision did not specify. So I guess another option here would be to decide on the list article's name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll call them "List of populated places whose identities come from (X)" and then if someone wants to rename later, they can do so with impunity.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So done: List of populated places whose identities come from Philip II of Macedon and List of populated places whose identities come from Alexander the Great. Closing the nomination now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2010 (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.

Category:Writers who illustrated their own writing

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem like a notable intersection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taking notable examples such as Alasdair Gray and Mervyn Peake, I'd say this is more than an intersection, but an integral part of the way they work and they way those works are received. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – what is being intersected? I would agree that writers who also illustrated would be perhaps difficult to justify (ie Category:Writers intersected with Category:Illustrators) but this is 'Writers who illustrated their own writing'. Occuli (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare that I disagree with Occuli but I'm still not completely convinced that this isn't a trivial intersection. Plus, it just seems, well, like a weird category -- which is hardly a deletion criterion, I know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just don't understand the issue here. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2010 (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.

Category:Dual code rugby internationals

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 08:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dual code rugby internationals to Category:Dual-code rugby internationals

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per key article and normal punctuation of adjectival form. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename. Hyphenation of compound adjectives is basic grammar, making this a typo. Ergo, full CfD process is unnecessary. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:24, 14 June 2010 (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.