Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 23 August 25 >

August 24[edit]

Waikato Region[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 as nom.. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Waikato to Category:Waikato Region, plus similar renaming of one subcategory:
Category:People from Waikato to Category:People from the Waikato Region
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per previous renames of New Zealand regions and discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand. Waikato is a region, a district, and the name of New Zealand's longest river. The article has been renamed to Waikato Region per the earlier discussions, and almost all of the category's subcats already use the proposed form. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename ,even speedily, per previous discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Waikato region. The capital is superflous. Rich Farmbrough, 19:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Um, no it isn't. It's the standard usage. And given that all the other renames done to NZ regional categories have been to the capitalised form with no objections, why should this one be the only one with a lower case "r"? Grutness...wha? 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, "Waikato region" could in fact be a different area than "Waikato Region". "Waikato Region" is a defined geographical/political entity. "Waikato region" is the area of the country around the Waikato River, which may include some areas outside of "Waikato Region". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated, to standardise these category names. With caps. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 26 August 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.

Poles vs Polish people (test case)[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:
--Xdamrtalk 20:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Poles of Hungarian descent to Category:Polish people of Hungarian descent
Propose renaming Category:Poles of German descent to Category:Polish people of German descent
Propose renaming Category:Poles of Czech descent to Category:Polish people of Czech descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It has never made sense to me why many of these "ethnic descent" categories use a noun form "FOOs of GOOian descent" when the ultimate parent category is "FOOian people": Category:Polish people, not Category:Poles (which exists, but is for something completely different). For consistency, shouldn't we be using "FOOian people of GOOian descent"? No other categories use this form, and even these ethnic descent ones don't use it consistently. All of the immediate top-level subcategories of Category:People by ethnic or national origin use "FOOian people"—it's just the grand-daughter categories that start to diverge. The advantage of using "FOOian people" is emphasized when we consider that for many nationalities, there is no good noun form to use: would we really want to use "Frenchmen of GOOian descent"? No—and all of the subcategories of Category:French people by ethnic or national origin use "French people". For simplicity and cross-nationality and parent–daughter category consistency, I propose we use "FOOian people of GOOian descent". Yes, it adds a word where sometimes one could be eliminated, but I believe the benefits of cross-nationality and parent–daughter category consistency outweigh this benefit. Here I have nominated the Polish ones that use "Poles". If this proposal is supported, I am willing in the coming weeks to subsequently go through these various ethnic descent categories and nominate the ones that that use the noun form. It will be a big job, but it's about time the names for these get standardized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this nom, as there are many types of pole. And I will probably support the wider extension to "FOOian people of GOOian descent". Eg there are a lot of Swedes in Category:Swedish people by ethnic or national origin, which reminds me of the headline Swedes 2 Turnips 1. Occuli (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for reasons given by nominator. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I agree with the nominator's rationale. Actually, we has a "Danes" to "Danish people" nomination a few days ago, which I also supported. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Some nationalities can be used as a noun. Poles, Russians, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, etc. In these cases the inclusion of "people" is redundant and thus unnecessary. Conversely, we talk of Frenchman, Englishman, etc (or woman), so that these require "people", similarly British (where there is no noun available. If I refer to a Pole or a Dane, I mean a man or woman, except for Great Dane (a breed of dog). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the nominator, I realise this, but the point is to bring a degree of inter-category consistency. Since not all nationalities have "noun terms", doesn't it make more sense to just consistently use "Fooian people" for all of them, as do all the parent-level categories at Category:People by nationality? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 30 August 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:Pulp Fiction[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: Delete. NW (Talk) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pulp Fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't have enough articles to warrant an entire category. TTN (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed, 3 articles is a little on the low side. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 25 August 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:Unfree images[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: Merge. (As suggested, Category:Wikipedia non-free files may be more correct, but this change would require nominating the target category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Unfree images to Category:Non-free Wikipedia files
Nominator's rationale: Is there a difference between "unfree" and "non-free"? Hmm... — RockMFR 22:23, 24 August 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:Evangelical Association/Church Americans[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: Merge Category:Evangelical Association/Church Americans to Category:American Evangelicals. --Xdamrtalk 20:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Evangelical Association/Church Americans to Category:Something
Nominator's rationale: Rename to something grammatical (this is one of Pastor Wayne's creations) or perhaps upmerge to Category:American Evangelicals. Occuli (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge But if kept, it should be renamed. Carlaude:Talk 11:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something. I am indifferent to the upmerge proposal. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: I would suggest Category:Evangelical United Brethren Church, unless this is entirely about the period before the 1946 merger. However, where colleges merge, we treat alumni of the predecessors as alumni of the merged successor; so why not with churches. Oppose any upmerge as the parent is a general one for evangelical christians (who might belong to any one of many denominations), whereas this appears to refer to a single denomination. However, I lack personal knowledge of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 30 August 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:Badfinger members[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: Withdrawn. --Mike Selinker (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Badfinger members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Very limited category and it isn't going to grow any further; this grouping is adequately covered by links from Badfinger itself. Rodhullandemu 20:51, 24 August 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:Sports World Rankings[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: Speedily rename per speedy criterion #2; simple capitalization fix. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sports World Rankings to Category:Sports world rankings
Nominator's rationale: -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:11, 24 August 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:Origins of Sports[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 to Category:Sports by country of origin. NW (Talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Origins of Sports to Category:Origins of sports
Nominator's rationale: -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah. That is a better idea. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:Sports by country of origin and with all sports they should be categorised into which country they originated inYoundbuckerz (talk) 14:25, 28 August 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:Psychic film festivals[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: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Psychic film festivals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Category has a single article International Psychic Film Festival which appears to be defunct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator as too small a category. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 25 August 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:Indian Navy destroyers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indian Navy destroyers to Category:Destroyers of the Indian Navy
Propose renaming Category:Regia Marina destroyers to Category:Destroyers of the Regia Marina (added)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the naming style of the other categories in Category:Destroyers by navy. The first category was created after the conclusion of a recent CFD that addressed this naming style. The second listing was not itself properly categorized and, thus, missed in the last CFD, so I'm including it now. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:47, 24 August 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:The Family members and supporters[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: Delete. (As mentioned, a category solely for members might be feasible if more articles could be included; it would also need to be named appropriately—probably not Category:The Family members. The only member in the category at closing was Abraham Vereide.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Family members and supporters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category attempts to connect persons to an organization woes article appears to have a heavy negative POV push and may violate guideline WP:COAT. Per guidleine WP:BLPCAT this may place the persons listed in this category in a false light. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:23, 24 August 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:Pashto singers[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: Merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Pashto singers to Category:Pashto-language singers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Redundant category. Both contain singers that perform in the Pashto language. Jafeluv (talk) 10:58, 24 August 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.

Various converts[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 all per nominator's revised proposals. Given that there are no objections to the broad scope of these renames I intend to implement them as proposed and leave the ironing-out to future case-by-case nominations. --Xdamrtalk 23:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category structure of Category:Religious converts is a mess, presently. First of all, "FOO converts" means converts to "FOO", so "FOO converts to GOO" is self-contradictory. I propose standardizing the form to "Converts from FOO to GOO". Most of them are already in this format; this proposal essentially changes the ones that aren't yet in this format. (There are some slight inconsistencies; e.g., I'm not sure why "Protestant Christianity" is used rather than "Protestantism", but I've just tried to conform with what's already out there. These could be changed later if desired.) Quite a few of these categories we could perhaps do without, but as a start I thought we could get the names standardized, and then users could nominate some for deletion as desired. The last one listed is being nominated for deletion/merging, since it is small and is most obvious among those that won't be needed for awhile. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom in its entirety. The last one is splendidly obscure - the single article is about someone who moved from being a Jehovah's Witness (which after some digging turns out to be non-trinitarian) to agnosticism to Catholic. Occuli (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the general idea. However, I would prefer using "Protestantism" and "Nestorianism" instead of "Protestant Christianity" and "Nestorian Christianity". The category names are lengthy as is, and the shorter names would also match the way the corresponding articles are named. It might be a good idea to sort the religious converts category both by adopted religion and former religion, but that's beyond this discussion, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those suggestions would be fine with me as nominator. In fact, I probably think on balance those adjustments are a good idea. I've included these options in brackets above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to "Protestantism" as it is purposely avoided by many Protestant groups in favor of the label "Christianity". "Protestant Christianity" is better. This should at the least should be split out of this CfD as a separate issue. Carlaude:Talk 11:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Practitioners of "Mormonism" also purposefully avoid "Mormonism" and prefer to be recognized as practitioners of "Christianity". But we don't use "Mormon Christianity" just because they might like it. I think "Protestantism" is probably more commonly used in sources. Ultimately, neither is "wrong"—just a stylistic preference I suppose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New proposed renaming

Extended content
  • Support -- with Changes
  • There is no need to have "Converts from FOO to GOO" along side "Converts to GOO."
It is more Consistent and more clear to have instead "Converts to GOO from FOO." This also fits well with the fact that a person's article nearly always covers the new faith (part of their life) in more detail and with more notiblity than the old faith. Carlaude:Talk 12:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know the term "Nestorian" was considered pejorative... I would suggest leaving the "converts by religion" categories as intermediate ones - that way, one could construct a subcategorization by both the former religion (like, Category:Converts from Catholicism) and adopted religion (like Category:Converts to Islam). Child categories like Category:Converts to Islam from Catholicism would then be included in both. I have no preference over "from X to Y" versus "to Y from X". Jafeluv (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jafeluv that [Catholic converts by religion] should be renamed, not merged (there could easily be [Catholic converts by nationality], by century, by height etc); I have no views on the superiority of 'from/to' v 'to/from'; and take no position on the merits of Carlaude's other modifications, beyond noting that they sound reasonable. Occuli (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Catholic converts by height? Is that some delicious beans right there? Jafeluv (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting a parallel, competing nomination is a great way to have a nomination result in no consensus. ... Couldn't we have gotten the mess out of the way first and then worked on the kinks in future nominations? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just saying (as I said)—it's a good way to get no consensus. I'm not clear on the meaning of your third sentence, so I don't think I can respond to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am only asking you to discuss the renaming ideas, rather than just complaining. Failing to discuss is also a good way to get no consensus. Carlaude:Talk 18:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I would like to discuss my proposal. But as I mentioned above I'm having a hard time understanding both the content and rationale of much of what you have said, so I'm willing to just re-state in a general sense that I support my original proposal. As for specifics, I'm with Occuli in that I don't really have a view on the superiority of "to/from" vs. "from/to". If it is deemed to be of any significance, I would have thought that it would have best be taken care of in a follow-up nomination so that all of the categories that use the "from/to" format could be discussed together. Otherwise, if we change to "to/from", we are left in a position of having some one way and some the other way. Which is why I said it probably would have been good to work on getting some consistency first, and then tweaking the system as a whole later, if further adjustments are desired. I think you may find that a step-wise approach is most conducive to consensus building. (I've already presented "Protestant Christianity" or "Protestantism" as alternative possibilities. No view on "Nestorianism" issue—was just proposing to reformat what already existed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support revised version, as long as we are sure that the content does in fact match the proposal. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what the concern is here, per "...sure that the content does in fact match the proposal." Maybe we can look into it if you say more. Carlaude:Talk 00:56, 31 August 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:People from Darlington[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: No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 12:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Darlington to Category:People from Darlington, County Durham
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous and needs to be moved to a non ambiguous name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The town is at Darlington, indicating that it's primary topic. The category name should match the article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – this is fairly marginal as Darlington seems the largest of the various Darlingtons by a factor of 10 or so. However there is Category:People from Darlington County, South Carolina, and clarity is a good thing. Occuli (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the US and racing circles, Darlington only means the Darlington Raceway where the common name is Darlington. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thankfully, Wikipedia does not operate only on what people in the US know. In the rest of the world (including the rest of the world's racing circles), Darlington means the place in northern England. Having said that, a rename does seem reasonable. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and Grutness. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in keeping with the primary topic. Jeni (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 3 September 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:People from Stanley[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 Category:People from Stanley to Category:People from Stanley, County Durham. NW (Talk) 22:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Stanley to Category:People from Stanley, County Durham
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous. Proposed name matches the lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 24 August 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:People from Durham[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 Category:People from Durham to Category:People from Durham, County Durham.
Without entering into the fairly sterile debate over which 'Durham' is the more significant, per the closer's comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_17#Birmingham - "If there is a possibility that readers (or for that matter, editors, as evidenced below) would be confused, we should correct the situation." This is one of the situations where the requirement for clarity overrides the usual naming link between categories and their main articles. --Xdamrtalk 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Durham to Category:People from Durham (district) Category:People from Durham, County Durham
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The target apparently was emptied at some point and the contents moved to the current ambiguous named category. It is better to return to the not ambiguous name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durham (district) has the same degree of ambiguity as Durham. Occuli (talk) 07:49, 24 August 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:Reclining sex positions[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: Delete (merging to Category:Drawings of sex positions as suggested). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Reclining sex positions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains only a single image (which, incidentally, is not the best depiction of a reclining sex position since the female is not reclining), but since it could potentially be populated with a couple of articles I will address it in that context. Category:Sex positions contains only about 30 articles right now, so it seems unnecessary to further subdivide that category by type. The image is otherwise categorized, so there is no need to upmerge. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:26, 24 August 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:Kentucky State Thorobreds men's basketball players[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kentucky State Thorobreds men's basketball players to Category:Kentucky State Thorobreds basketball players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is one of the relatively rare examples of a school where the men's and women's teams have separate nicknames. "Thorobreds" is used exclusively to refer to men's athletics at KSU; women are known as "Thorobrettes". See, for example, the "Quick Facts" page for women's basketball on the school's official athletics site. Dale Arnett (talk) 04:39, 24 August 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:Invulnerable characters[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: Delete. NW (Talk) 22:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Invulnerable characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No defined criteria of inclusion, as the term "invulnerable" is pretty vague when talking about characters. What does it make a character invulnerable? To be immortal? To be untouchable? To be lucky enough to avoid harm (like James Bond or the Looney Tunes Roadrunner)? --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's not at all clear what this means. James Bond, the Roadrunner, Tintin—all invulnerable in their own way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an in the last resort intenable proposition. Even AChilles wasn't after all completely invulnerable. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 25 August 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:New World Order[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: Delete, underpopulated (1 article) on 04/09/09. --Xdamrtalk 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:New World Order to Category:New World Order (conspiracy theory)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate to match main article New World Order (conspiracy theory). New World Order is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - single-item category. Otto4711 (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It had some other stuff in there earlier, but I see it's been emptied. Agree with deletion if it remains unpopulated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Concur with comment of Otto4711. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Delete if will stay this small. But in general I always feel an urge to take steps against editors who empty categories under discussion. Starting with a 24h ban... I take this highly. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 25 August 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:Arts redirects[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: Delete:
--Xdamrtalk 23:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Arts redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Performing arts redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dance redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete There is no clear reason for these categories. Tracking redirects does not seem to be a reason to keep these categories. These were all created by one user, and I cannot find a discussion about the necessity of them all. See also:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_16#Category:Artist_redirects (result was delete).Clubmarx (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd also like to nominate the many subcategories of Category:Dance_redirects, (too many to list manually). I've requested help on this. Clubmarx (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While categorizing pages as redirects can be considered useful, I don't see the point in creating categories for different types of redirects. Unlikely to be useful. Jafeluv (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – I rather like Category:Dance redirects having the main article Dance redirects. Also Category:Redirects with 900+ top level members, states that it should only consist of subcategories. These are all administrative categories (affecting only redirects, which are not seen by the casual reader) so it seems to me that anyone who wishes to corrall them into subcategories is welcome to do so. Occuli (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mention it, I see that Dance redirects is a redirect to Dance that seems to serve no other purpose than to act as the "main article" of that category. I think I'll take it to RfD as well... Jafeluv (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Listed here. Jafeluv (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To your second point: Category:Redirects is indeed a valid administrative category, but its contents are not subcategorized by type of target article, but rather by type of redirect. There are, for example, the subcategories Category:Redirects from alternative names, Category:Redirects from misspellings, and Category:Redirects from plurals. I hope this helps to clear up the issue. Jafeluv (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale at a similar proposal here. -- œ™ 18:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Completely unnecessary. We don't usually do this and there's no need to start now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 9 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_24&oldid=1144513392"