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. Kbdank71 13:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Caps, per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the main article is indeed Salt-n-Pepa but Salt-N-Pepa is used throughout. Occuli (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Amazon lists various albums according to the artwork, which gives us Salt 'N' Pepa, Salt-N-Pepa, Salt N Pepa, Salt 'N Pepa (and this ignores the fact that the artwork is sometimes uppercase N and sometimes lower case...). If the band and advisors/marketing team aren't sure, what chance WP? If you are still happy with your nom, then I can support on the grounds that it's short for "and" and that should be lowercase. Not that there aren't people inhabiting CfD that like to have a go at my understanding of grammar! <LOL> --Richhoncho (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I'm pretty partial to proper capitalization, but frankly, I don't care - I just want the article and categories to match. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename (I had thought pretty much along the same lines as Richhoncho) - even the Australian ARIA charts have had different forms of the band's name over the years. I think being short for a conjunctive it should be lower case though. Orderinchaos 09:41, 2 May 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. Kbdank71 13:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Caps, per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 29 April 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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not a meaningful class of songs; non-notable categorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with Cannabis comedy albums and several other recent cannabis deletions, overcategorization of songs by supposed subject matter. Songs can touch on any number of subjects, resulting in category clutter if we went down this road. I thought we'd done this one already, in fact. Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dread to think what "ecstasy music" or "cocaine music" would look like. Orderinchaos 09:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent with Cannabis comedy albums category. If a spoken word category for comedy albums about pot (at least in part) isn't defining, then it's hard to see how a category for songs that were somehow inspired by pot (such as Got to Get You into My Life, so categorized) could ever be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 2 May 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.
Category:Film awards for Best Original Screenplay[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge and Rename. Not all awards in this category are for "Original" screenplays. Suggest a new master cat in line with WP:NCCAT guidelines for non-capitalization of regular nouns. Best original and adapted subcats could be created later if need be, which I frankly doubt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I tried to follow the instructions for umbrella nominations for this and the one below, apparently without success.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally proposed Category:Screenwriting awards but then realized that would not distinguish between TV and film work. So I've retained the "Films awards for..." part of the title. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to more accurately reflect content of category. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 29 April 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.
Category:Film awards for Best Adapted Screenplay[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge and Rename. Not all awards in this category are for "Adapted" screenplays. Suggest a new master cat in line with WP:NCCAT guidelines for non-capitalization of regular nouns. Best original and adapted subcats could be created later if need be, which I frankly doubt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to more accurately reflect content of category. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 29 April 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 per nom. Loughs of Scotland was not tagged, so it won't be included in this nomination. Kbdank71 13:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge up to Category:Lakes of England. This seems to be an unnecessary category. None of the other names for lakes have categories e.g. 'mere', 'tarn'. We only need to distinguish natural features from man-made features regardless of what they are called. The List of English loughs is useful and is all we need. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as nominated. List of English loughs states: In many cases, "loughs" have been renamed, and the bodies of water are generally quite small, e.g. pond sized. Loughs that are notable enough to have articles are lakes. The list can remain a navigation aid between lakes that share the name "lough" and also as a record of like-named bodies of water that are less notable. - Fayenatic(talk) 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Category:Lochs of Scotland - I would agree with that. It's categorising by a property of the name rather than by a property of the body of water. Occuli (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference between a Lough and a Lake other than its name? Is the difference objective - say defined by the government or by academics? If it's merely a naming thing, upmerge. If it's a technical distinction, it may merit keeping. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK it's a purely regional difference, as per Lough.HeartofaDog (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is it's linguistic - "Lough" has Celtic origins, while "Lake" has Anglo-Saxon origins. Orderinchaos 09:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as nominated - no significant difference.HeartofaDog (talk) 23:13, 29 April 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 (do not merge). As others have done, I suggest perhaps some work on definitions being added, and perhaps a rename proposal of the "by interest" categories to something else a bit more clear.Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although superficially similar, these are actually based on quite distinct organizing principles. We all understand what's meant by "topic", so no need to elaborate. The problem, of course, is that "by interest" is not so readily understood (in fact, I would definitely support renaming, if a better name can be found). "Interest" seems to translate to something like "of interest to people of a particular group or orientation" (or something to that effect). So, for example, Women's magazines are not about women -- rather, they are magazines which focus on topics that are of interest to women.
As in that case, there are probably some items that have been lodged here but don't really belong, so I expect some cleanup may be needed. But merging into Category:Media by topic is most assuredly not the proper solution. Cgingold (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no description at all on the Category:Media by interest page, just a See also: Category:Categories by topic. It's a rather subtle distinction you're making and I'm not sure I completely buy it. One thing I am sure of: there will continue to be confusion and CfRs until someone who supports this category distinction takes the time to explain it on the category pages, rather than in discussions here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction really is not subtle -- but your confusion is nonetheless entirely understandable. As I said above, the meaning of the category name is not as readily understood as "topic", and it would benefit from renaming. I believe I may have a good solution: how about renaming this category and all sub-cats using the term "community of interest"? I think that captures the intent pretty well. Cgingold (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see "community of" as really helping. I'd rather see "Publications by interest" as a subcategory of "Media by topic," because I don't see topic/interest distinction as distinctly as you -- and others -- do. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't go for that. Ah, well. I'll leave it to the community to decide. Incidentally, I might not have bothered CfDing this if I had known there was precedent for retaining. I guess the thing to do next time is check the talk pages of all sub- and master categories to see if I am treading on familiar ground. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify a little further: Using the example of Women's magazines, a great variety of topics are addressed in such magazines -- the only common factor being that those topics are thought to be of interest to women readers (and are perhaps dealt with in ways that may be more "tuned" to that readership). No doubt some of the articles will, in fact, be about women -- as would also be true for all sorts of publications -- but that does not mean that these magazines are exclusively "about" women, which is what is meant by the term "topic". Hope that helps! Cgingold (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patient explanations. Since these publications are not so much about women, but rather for them, perhaps we could reflect that more clearly in the category title, such as a "Category:Media by target audience" sort of scheme? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting suggestion, I'll have to give it some thought. It might be good to close out this CFD and start a new one focused on renaming instead of merging, seeing as this one hasn't attracted any other participants. Cgingold (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the categories are renamed, it would be helpful if a brief description was added to the categories in question. It would help contributors and visitors to better understand their purpose. - Eureka Lott 00:20, 3 May 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.
Category:Footballers who had fingers amputated to continue careers[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation by a non-defining attribute & narrow intersection. Missing a finger doesn't really affect their sporting career. Only 3 members, unlikely to get many more. The-Pope (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – these are not soccer players so it is not wholly ludicrous. There is Category:Amputees, so an upmerge to the appropriate nationality categories might be OK. Occuli (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One finger qualifies as an amputee? Doubt it. Category says lost a limb, which IMO is more than a finger. Delete. NVO (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a list already (including 2 of these 3) in amputation (which includes others with lost digits in its list of amputees). I don't feel strongly either way; amputee does generally suggest that more than a finger or toe has been removed. Occuli (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining, like various operations we've deleted in the past. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic. I wouldn't make a list of them either. - Fayenatic(talk) 13:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. I found it hard to believe that there was more than one such person, and that there are three is astounding. The characteristic is defining, and all three articles make rather clear mention of the fact in their lead paragraphs. Despite that, the category is WP:OC#SMALL, and there is no reason that self-mutilation (with or without medical assistance) will become a trend in the sport, though I thought that body piercings would never catch on. As such, this provides little benefit as an aid to navigation. If by some chance this does expand, then the category should be recreated. Alansohn (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one made me laugh out loud. Overcat to the max. Orderinchaos 09:43, 2 May 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. Kbdank71 13:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This a little problematic for me. The only entry is listed as a classical piece, which appears to have a different set of rules to the songwriter categories and I have nominated accordingly. Alternatively it should be renamed as Category:Songs written by John Taverner as it is a choral piece. Any help on this nomination would be welcome. Richhoncho (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Compositions by John Tavener. It is important to distinguish between John Tavener who is currently working and John Taverner who died in 1545. Several of the modern Tavener's major works are for the voice, but it is not appropriate to call them "Songs" and therefore such a category is unnecessary. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If I hadn't had typos in the proposed name (now amended) I might have spotted this. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:29, 28 April 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. Kbdank71 13:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To bring into line with the main article, Yip Harburg. Please note there is a good argument that the article should be renamed to E. Y. Harburg. Richhoncho (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. As I pointed out when I moved the article to "Yip Harburg" about 4 months ago, "he is most commonly, I dare say universally, known by this name." There are scores of other bio articles that have been handled the same way, using the most common name for the title and giving the full name and/or other variants in the lede. (Somebody left a note claiming they had a hard time finding the article, but they must have typed something wrong because the redirect from E. Y. Harburg was created at the same time as the page move.) Cgingold (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm the one who created the category and debated which name to use from the start; he's known as Yip, so do it. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no problem with renaming, though I remember doing a Google search back when I created the category and finding it vastly in favor of "E. Y." Any idea as to what the man himself preferred? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and was surprised to discover that E.Y does indeed get more G-hits than Yip. But the disparity isn't "vast" -- and we don't slavishly adhere to such results in any event. I don't have direct evidence as to what he himself preferred, but I think it's reasonable to infer that he wouldn't be so widely known as "Yip" if it didn't have his blessing. More important, I think, is the fact that the foundation that was set up to perpetuate his legacy is called the Yip Harburg Foundation.Cgingold (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The US postage stamp (shown on his article page) shows his name as "Yip" which confirms Yip for me. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:14, 4 May 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.
Category:Songs with music by Juventino P. Rosa[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match name with corresponding article. I am assuming the article name is correct. Richhoncho (talk) 07:33, 28 April 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. Kbdank71 13:17, 6 May 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. Kbdank71 13:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To bring into line with others in the category. NB. Although Sondheim may be primarily known as a lyricist he is a composer in his own right and some of the songs in this category were composed by Sondheim. Richhoncho (talk) 07:23, 28 April 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. Kbdank71 13:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Paul James" is the pen name of James Warburg. Richhoncho (talk) 07:11, 28 April 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.
Category:Songs with music by Raymond Hubbell[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match name of corresponding article. Richhoncho (talk) 07:08, 28 April 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. Kbdank71 13:18, 6 May 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. Kbdank71 13:19, 6 May 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. Kbdank71 13:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Only one entry in category and no corresponding article. As usual, any additional entries in the cat, or creation of corresponding article would be appreciated. Also nominated
Delete both per nom - not needed. Robofish (talk) 05:31, 4 May 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. Kbdank71 13:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match the main article, which was renamed some time ago. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article. The parent could use some expansion though.--Lenticel(talk) 14:51, 29 April 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. Kbdank71 13:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Per nom. — Σxplicit 05:22, 29 April 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. Kbdank71 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per most in Category:Israeli people by ethnic or national origin (although I do think the category system would be more useful if left to Carlossuarez46, who has a consistently austere and coherent take on these matters). Occuli (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remain or Rename: why is this nice category useless? --Cmaric (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
don't rename as proposed. Renaming unnecessarily shrinks the category; what about Austrian residents holding Israel passports who are not of either Austrian or Israeli descent? Quite a large community given Vienna's past role as a jewish transport hub. They are Austrian-Israelis too. NVO (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The supra-category page is 'people by ethnic or national origin/descent'. Included here are citizens of Israel of either ethnic or national Austrian descent or origin Mayumashu (talk) 21:40, 5 May 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. Kbdank71 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - absent the improperly categorized articles for actors on the show, there is only the show's article itself. Category not needed for it and the episodes subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary, and a misleading name. When I saw it, I thought it was some kind of supercategory for parks and recreation (which wouldn't be a good idea either). Robofish (talk) 05:30, 4 May 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: The correct name of the program is "Asset", not "Assets", and the main article name has been changed accordingly. Rrius (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page you linked to also uses "Troubled Asset Relief Program". The statute itself uses both terms, the title says, "TITLE I--TROUBLED ASSETS RELIEF PROGRAM", but it also says "The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or 'TARP')". Both versions are used multiple times in the statute, with the singular version perhaps used a few times more. In any event, the main article is at Troubled Asset Relief Program. -Rrius (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no personal preference, but FWIW here are the Google results for exclusive use of one term or the other (leaving out those which use both terms):
219,000 English pages for "Troubled Assets Relief Program"
1,230,000 English pages for "Troubled Asset Relief Program"
We're not, of course, bound by G-hits. But the disparity is great enough to suggest that we use the latter. Cgingold (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - the singular name appears to be the correct one. Robofish (talk) 05:29, 4 May 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.
Nominator's rationale: This category is much too specific. These articles would be better off in a category like Category:Atlus characters. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of Persona video game characters or delete - category is for character lists from the Persona video game series and it's capturing exactly that. If there are sufficient other lists for Atlus video games then creating a parent category using the company name may be appropriate. Disambiguation is needed because there's a TV series based on the video game which could have its own character lists. Alternatively this is a small category with little or no likelihood of expansion, so it could be deleted on that basis. Otto4711 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (at best) Per Otto (I thought this related to the classic Ingmar Bergman film...) otherwise, delete per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 07:31, 28 April 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.
