Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 25

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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australasian sculpture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems unnecessary. This category had one subcategory and two articles, neither of which was for sculpture in Australasia (one was about Indonesia, the other about Easter Island). All this does is add another level of category which is empty except for the Australian child category. In any case, we use Oceania on Wikipedia, not Australasia, as it is a more widely-used and less amorphous term (and Category:Oceanian sculpture exists). Grutness...wha? 23:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 30 September 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.

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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty subcategory. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You may want to restore the contents to the category. Emptying and then nominating is not considered the proper way to make a change like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was only one name in the subcategory. I acknowledge emptying that one name, but it was not a secret. It's pretty silly especially when the only town of note (DeSmet) in the entire county (Kingsbury) has, as pointed out below, fewer than 6000 people. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – the nom has evidently decided to upmerge Category:People from De Smet, South Dakota into its county parent Category:People from Kingsbury County, South Dakota (see eg Caroline Ingalls). This seems a reasonable idea as the whole county seems to amount to under 6000 souls. Occuli (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not likely to be very many people who fit into the De Smet category, and definitely not many that would fit into the county category but not the city. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 28 September 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.

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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Style guides for technical topics to Category:Style guides for technical and scientific writing

Nominator's rationale: the list includes not only technical but also the ICMJE guidelines, which are concerned with medical writing--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 21:28, 25 September 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.

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/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia images available as SVG to Category:Images made obsolete by a SVG version

Nominator's rationale: Per the subcat.s at Category:Obsolete images as well as Wikimedia's preference for SVG; these aren't just available as SVG, but SVG is preferred. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose pending correction of assumption. As I understand it, while many Wikipedians, maybe even a majority of Wikipedians, consider SVG images to be the preferable format, there has not yet been formal consensus on this. (Is that assumption correct?) To change the name at this time would be to presuppose that consensus, and would be advocating a particular POV on that issue. --Bejnar (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response The relevant guideline is here: Wikipedia:IUP#FORMAT. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So as I read the guideline and the instructions on this page, there may be files listed on this page that are not obsoleted by their SVG counterpart. Therefore, I still oppose the name change. --Bejnar (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've seen many an SVG being deleted because it was a handtracing of a raster graphics image, and therefore inaccurate. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 19:25, 25 September 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.

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) 11:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic Places in Southwestern Indiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category isn't specific: no definition of "historic place" is given, and none really can be given. The geographic extent of the category is also problematic: Southwestern Indiana says that the region is 11 specific counties, but no sources are presented for such a definition, so there's no real reason to say that sites only in these 11 counties should be included. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Category:Historic places in Indiana is not much better. Category:Historic sites in the United States could do with a consistent 'by state' formula. Occuli (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the first part of your statement; the only real difference is that Indiana has clear boundaries, unlike the southwestern region, but it's not enough that I'd oppose its deletion. The problem with the Historic sites in the USA category is that it's a mix of officially designated historic sites (e.g. Category:Tennessee State Historic Sites), non-state-level bits (e.g. Category:Historic districts in the United States), and entries such as Historic places in Indiana. Perhaps we could try to overhaul the whole thing after this CFD is done? Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 25 September 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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Convicted bigamists to Category:People convicted of bigamy
• Category:American convicted bigamists to Category:American people convicted of bigamy
• Category:British convicted bigamists to Category:British people convicted of bigamy

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match "People convicted of..."-pattern. Karppinen (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seams reasonable to me. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bigamists is a perfectly good English noun. "People" is a redundant word. Arson, murder, theft, and other crimes have appropriate nound for their perpetrators and there is no reason why WP should not use them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to conform with standard format of categories that categorize people by criminal conviction. Peterkingiron's comment above would reflect the tree if we were considering "British bigamists", etc. but we are not. We are considering a category that includes the word "convicted" in it, and "FOOian people convicted of GOO" is the standard format. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and also per my objection to labeling people unnecessarily, especially when the label is generally perceived as negative. __meco (talk) 08:30, 4 October 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.

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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Number-one single or album artist in the UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category for artists who have had number-ones in the UK Albums Chart or UK Singles Chart. This seems like overcategorisation to me; I think it's a type of "performer by performance" category. Of course, if it's kept, it should be renamed. AnemoneProjectors 10:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly overcategorization. Nymf _hideliho! 11:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Nymf. - Gilliam (talk) 22:38, 25 September 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.

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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs by beats per minute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Songs with 120 beats per minute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Songs by beats per minute? This seems like a trivial aspect of a song to me, but then again I know not much about music. I would have thought if it was worth developing this scheme it would have been done already. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - overcategorisation, arbitrary inclusion criterion. AnemoneProjectors 10:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorization. Nymf _hideliho! 11:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non defining. When hearing Thriller does anyone think "Oh yeah, that song with 120 BPM". No. Lugnuts (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Beats per minute is an important characteristic to make mashups and splices of songs, which is the reason I made the group. SuperSquirrelWiki (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not for any of the above reasons—I actually disagree with those reasons and think this a great category—but for the reason that there are too many songs with tempo changes and there would be a lot of disputes. Also, remixes, covers, and acoustic versions would all have different tempos and would make for too many BPM categories in an article. Other than that, though, BPM is a great way to categorize songs and can really help, e.g. if you want only slow, calm Saturday morning music, or upbeat dance tracks. Yvesnimmo (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Yvesnimmo - it's certainly useful information, but as a category it's impossible to do right. Just as an example, look at the famous "Tainted Love" - the article features three cover versions and lists dozens more. I know three different versions of the song (Gloria Jones's, Soft Cell's, and My Brightest Diamond's) and each is at a different tempo. It can't be done. Roscelese (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone is willing to look the metronome markings up in the sheet music, and as other have said, different sections of the same piee can have different markings. Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 27 September 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.

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 and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:School killings in Finland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As only two major shootings have occurred, school killings in Finland are extremely rare. There is no need to categorize these two events. Karppinen (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:School massacres. Lugnuts (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as SMALLCAT and upmerge the two articles to Category:School massacres--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or upmerge this ill-advised category. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:33, 30 September 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.

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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Corrupt police officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just like the recently deleted category of corrupt FBI agents, this is redundant and unnecessary category. Karppinen (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I see this as an appropriate category, however it needs to be renamed. I propose changing the name to Category:Police officers convicted of corruption. __meco (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Merco. Lugnuts (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Comment. I might also add that unfortunately nobody had the acuity to rescue Category:Corrupt FBI agents by similarly renaming that, so I suggest it be recreated under that appropriate name if the present nomination ends with my renaming solution. __meco (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't rename. Not even a majority of these were convicted of a crime known as "corruption". Some were convicted of murder, some kidnapping, some perverting the course of justice, some police brutality, and so forth. This is currently a category mish-mash of police officers who used their authority to enable the commission of various crimes. In most jurisdictions, there is no crime known as "corruption". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a truly non-sequiturial argument as those procedurally would have to go from the category following the proposed name change. We already have a category for police misconduct, and if need be further diversification of this may be pursued. This category following a name change per my proposal would be completely straightforward and easy to maintain. If corruption as a legal term later proves to be untenable, then we can revisit this category. I'm by no means convinced that Good Olfactory is correct in their assessment finding that it isn't widely applicable. We do have the article Police corruption which starts off with a pretty adequately delimiting definition:

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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Perhaps this could be a list? I certainly don't see the need for this as a category. __meco (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not sure this category is needed in that FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives already contains the current top ten. I haven't participated in Cfds before, so I'll step back and observe. Location (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals included that is an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. We have the template for current ones and the general practice is to avoid "current" and "past" designations in categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Olfactory. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 06:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep I created this Category because I felt that the current FBI 10 most wanted were lost in the Category:FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. I figured that since these people are different then the other Category:FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (who were all dead or captured), that they disserved a separate category. However, I do realize that this may not be correct according to the general practice is to avoid "current" and "past" designations in categories. Hence the “week keep”. So, I'm open to different options. It may be important to note that the "current" is populated by the {{Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted}} not directly, so if Category:Current FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives is removed, the template needs to be fixed.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as Alansohn notes, this is a highly defining characteristic. Having a category for just the ones currently on the list is quite useful. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an obvious help in navigation to the "Current" fugitives within the category. Thus "general practice" should be ignored.QuAzGaA 18:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- If populated by the infobox, this will be automatically maintained, as the infobox is updated. Normally we do not like "current" and "former" categories, because a current category needs to be maintained. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 30 September 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.

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assisted suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename or Add New. Assisted suicide is too general of a category name for what could be more accurately described as physician-assisted suicide. For example, William Francis Melchert-Dinkel assisted in others' suicides and is a criminal. His actions are in no way related to physician-assisted suicide is legal in two US states, Oregon & Washington, under their Death with Dignity laws. I suggest renaming the category Category:Assisted suicide to be physician-assisted suicide and to remove Mr. Melchert-Dinkel from the category. Melissathebarber (talk) 15 September 2010

* Keep - not every case of assisted suicide is physician assisted. Category:Physician-assisted suicide can be created and populated with this category as a parent. I suggest Category:Right to die movement be created and added to parent this one as well. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 20:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 08:48, 25 September 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.

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/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Development projects in Louisville, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Proposing as a deletion which may well be the result. However if that is the consensus, a few of the articles may need parenting to Louisville, Kentucky, The problem here is that this is a one of category and development project is ambiguous. I think it is better to simply place these in the various building and construction categories. Most of these articles already have this in place, but there are a few tricky ones like converting a rail bridge to a pike path. I'm open to a rename or a merge if one of these is a good option. The most reasonable merge may be to Category:Building projects in the United States and Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky and then to disperse as necessary. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why not to rename to Category:Construction projects in Louisville, Kentucky? Ruslik_Zero 15:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the only by city category and I question the need for making a category structure like this since it would generally be for categories with a small number of articles. Second, the articles are better covered in the other proposed and under construction categories. Development projects and construction projects are rather ambiguous as to what they cover. Is a proposed trail system a development project? Better to delete this one of category since it really is not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 07:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky, pruning out any that will not lead to buildings. A building under construction will soon be a building, so that we do not need a categopry for future buildings. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 30 September 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Diplomatic missions in New Zealand. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Diplomatic missions in Wellington to Category:Diplomatic missions in Wellington City

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the "people" category earlier, these are all in Wellington city - there's no need for a separate category for the entire urban area, so a renaming is better than adding one extra layer of categorisation. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Diplomatic missions in New Zealand, which ought to cover all resident missions. Since Wellington (or is it Wellington City?) is the capital of New Zealand, it is almost inevitable that they will all be there. Consulates elsewhere in the country probably do not need a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can live with that - support upmerge. Grutness...wha? 08:24, 1 October 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.

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) 11:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former Nestorian Christians to Category:Former members of the Assyrian Church of the East

Nominator's rationale: "Nestorian" is a slur and the Assyrian Church of the East isn't Nestorian. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and delete child category There is one page in Category:Converts to Catholicism from the Assyrian Church, the latter being the only member of the category presently considered. Even then the reason for that categorization is a bit unclear to me, at any rate. Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both (rename as nom if kept) -- The one person categorised in the daughter category appears to have led a schism in the Assyrian Church of the East (correct name - Nestorian is a term of abuse by outsiders). In the process, be became reconciled to Rome, thereby reversing a schism about 1000 years before. This is a reconciliation, not a true conversion from one religion to another. I gather that he carried a significnat portion of the church with him, but they are probably all NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 30 September 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.

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 for now; I suggest a renomination if the images are moved to commons, at which time the category would likely be deleted if only the main article remained. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Burj Dubai to Category:Burj Khalifa

Nominator's rationale: The Burj Dubai skyscraper was long ago renamed as the "Burj Khalifa." The name of this category is outdated and needs to match the parent article. Mar4d (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, should be routine so this could be speedied. __meco (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai as there doesn't appear to be any added benefit to navigating across a single article. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent article. There are 4 images in the category. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Alansohn (actually only the article, but if consensus demands the images also). The images will be moved to commons at some point so there is no reason to retain this category until that happens. If someone thinks the images need a category, then they should be moved to an existing image category. I'll note that Category:Images of Dubai office buildings was deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 27 September 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.

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 10:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ghost albums to Category:Ghost (1984 band) albums

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Ghost (1984 band), and to disambiguate, as there's also Ghost (2004 band). — ξ^xplicit 01:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Mar4d (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. When i created this, i didn't realise there were multiple WP-notable groups of the same name. Proposal sounds wholly sensible. tomasz. 14:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename, optionally make Category:Ghost albums a dab cat --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:13, 28 September 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.

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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Wellington to Category:People from Wellington City

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This one's a curly one, and may be the first of several. The capital of new Zealand is Wellington City. It is one of four cities within the urban area of Wellington, which is itself within the Wellington Region. Unfortunately there are a number of categories which simply say "X of/in/from Wellington", without making any distinction. Most of them, there's a simple way round it - make a parent called "X of/in/from the Wellington Region" and a child called "X of/in/from Wellington City". This one, however, makes it clear in its heading that it is for people from the city of Wellington. As such, it would make it easier just to rename the category. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per vast likelihood of miscategorization. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:44, 25 September 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.