Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 13

< February 12	February 14 >

February 13[edit]

Category:Musical instrument destruction[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: listify (already done). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Novelty category with no informative purpose, clutters up category listings for bands. Entire concept of category could be covered in a single article List of musicians known for destroying instruments or similar. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fine for a list. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify* I suppose a list will do, except I'm curious why that wouldn't be deleted too?Yeago (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I listified it here as List of musicians known for destroying instruments. Everyone okay with deleting now? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well my original question remains: can't the same justification be used to delete it there, too? What's the difference in treatment with Categories?Yeago (talk) 17:04, 19 February 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:Matsuri Hino manga[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. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Completely unnecessary category for a manga author who has only written four titles. Not prolific enough to need a category, and all four are already properly wikified from her article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unnecessary category. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 17 February 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:Failed pilots[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:Television pilots not picked up as a series. Kbdank71 15:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Failed pilots to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per strong consensus against categorizing "failures" as POV. Not sure what the best name is. Otto4711 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't think of a better name, but it needs one - at first I thought this was a category for people who'd failed to become a pilot! Lugnuts (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does Category:Pilots not picked up as a series work? I think it passes the POV test. Don't know if you need to included TV in the name. I do wonder if a list would be better here since the dates and type of show might be significant. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television pilots not picked up as series works. I think "television is necessary to match the parent Category:Television pilots. Otto4711 (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did mean Category:Television pilots not picked up as a series, right? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "a" is not grammatically necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either Otto's or Vegaswikian's formulation is fine by me; I think that Otto's is more British English where indefinite articles are dispensed with more often etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it works as American English too, when you consider that the plurality of the noun "series" is ambiguous by definition (we don't pluralize it "serieses", after all). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 04:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However series is used as a singular here. I just think that since the form with the 'a' works in the various versions of English, it might be preferred. Working but not reading right is a problem. I will agree that both suggestions are better then what we have now. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry. Failure seems an adequate term. If you want to soften it, use 'Unsuccessful'. All of this word wrangling is not only odd, but leading to needleess ambiguity.Yeago (talk) 17:11, 19 February 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:Jewish Christians[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 (default to delete) - As this is a recreation of a category which has been deleted twice per two separate CfDs, and there is, per this discussion, no current consensus concerning whether it should be a category, defaulting to WP:CSD#G4 - recreation, and therefore, delete.

(Note to those interested, I took the deletion review of this CfD into consideration of this closure. Even without the 2 puppets, the consensus still appears to be delete.) - jc37 11:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1)Too ill-defined:How much Jewish ancestry, if you consider Judaism a race, 1/2, 1/4 or any, it has no official standard of inclusion Also, the category:Jewish communists which existed previously was deleted. Finally it was deleted previously Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 22#Category:Jewish Christians. --Java7837 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but purge. The contents seem mostly to be Christian converts from Judaism. A few may be Christians of Jewish descent, rather than converts. The contemporary term is Messianic Jews, but to apply that to converts of the 16th to 19th centuries would be an anachronism. On the other hand, the inclusion of the 12 apostles (also a subcategory) and others from the early Christian church, while technically correct, seems odd; they should perhaps be moved to a subcategory, perhaps Category:1st-century Jewish Christians. An alternative for the core group of converts etc. might be Category:Christians of Jewish descent. We have similar categories for expatriates. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Messianic Jew doesn't mean a Jew who became Christian, the majority in that movement weren't just to start with--Java7837 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed, Messianic Judaism is a specific religious movement. "Jewish Christians" on the other hand are people of Jewish ancestry, who, to some degree, hold a Christian religious belief. Hardly controversial -Ste vertigo 04:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these comments. My statement on Messianic Jews was imprecise. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are several Jewish ethnic groups see Abayudaya also, some of these groups have no Jewish ancestors, Ashkenazi, is an ethnicity not Jewish --Java7837 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but the term "Jewish" is firstly an ethnic term, and secondly a religious term, no? Or are you claiming it has another meaning. -Ste vertigo 04:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What people generally mean when they say that a person is of Jewish descent, they generally mean the person descends from either the Sephardi, or more commonly the Ashkenazi community, they communities are mostly of Israelite descent, but it should be noted that the only thing the Ashkenazi and Sephardi have in common, is religion, they have different histories for the last 2000 years or so, traditionally spoke different languages, ate different foods, had different forms of dress, and have different customs, they also have lived in different parts of the world, until relatively recently. Judaism is not an ethnicity, nor is Jewish, Ashkenazi is though. Abayudaya, B'nai Moshe, and other Jewish ethnic groups, are not of Israelite descent, these are communities that embraced Judaism, yet if one of the Abayudaya intermarried and his/her kids were brought up as Christian, people would be less likely to say that one of the kids of the Abayudaya is a Jewish Christian. The word proselyte, from which the word proselytize comes from, in Greek means a convert to Judaism, they had a word for this because it was not uncommon for Greeks to convert to Judaism. The only reason why people generally think Jews are a race or ethnicity, is because it has been illegal for last 2000 years or so to convert to Judaism, in Christian and Muslim countries, and still in force in Muslim countries. In fact if a person is of European descent they can bascially call themselves a Jewish Christian, because when the Roman Empire conquered Israel during the Bar Kokhba's rebellion, millions of Jews were enslaved and were forced to convert to the religion of their masters, just like the African Americans, later the Romans were forced to convert to Christianity. So why do they not Categorize European Christians, and people who descend from them, as Jewish Christians, because the category, only exists to say hey look some Jews have converted to Christianity. The category, is simply useless, and has no definition on how much ancestry from the alleged Jewish race is necessary for inclusion. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic faith is overwhelmingly following by the Romance peoples, Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, and the peoples who descend from them, like the Hispanics, but no ever ever says they are a Roman Catholic Buddhist. Because people can convert to Catholicism and people do, and this why Judaism and Catholicism are not races, nor ethnicities. --Java7837 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but purge Nearly everyone I looked at was already in one of the sub-cats, or belonged there (I have removed them from this cat). But I see no justification for deleting this as a head cat & for Benjamin Disraeli etc. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and purge if redundant - Per Johnbod, above, but with the stipulation that people not be simply removed from the category, but subcategorized appropriately. -Ste vertigo 04:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, per Early Christianity, Ive expressed my support for moving Category:Ancient Christianity to Category:Early Christianity. Category:Early Christians is the relevant corrolary here, and I suggest using that instead of using the ugly "1st-century" form in categories. True, this may not entirely distinguish which of those Early Christians were Jews, but that's what this cat is for -Ste vertigo 05:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would suggest that Category:Early Jewish Christians would be an appropriate subcategory both of Category:Early Christians and of that under discussion here. Naturally those included would be purged from both parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete disproportinate amount of Jewish ethnicity categories.- Gilliam (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, alongside Category:Arab Christians, as a sub-cat of Christians by ethnicity. This is a head category for Category:Converts from Judaism to Christianity, Category:Messianic Jews and others. I support moving articles into appropriate sub-categories, and the proposal for a new sub-Category:Early Jewish Christians, but the nominated head category should still be kept. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the nomination appears to be pushing a POV. The nominator, who originally registered as User:Jesusmyth, and his recently blocked sockpuppet User:Alpha166, have been active editors of List of converts to Judaism#List of converts to Judaism from Christianity, List of former Christians#Judaism and Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus. Conversions of notable people between religions are generally valid encyclopedic knowledge, in whichever direction they occur. Categories providing navigation links to them are therefore useful. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. The nominator, User:Java7837 might like to respond to the charges. If true, it would be enough for an Arbcom review, and a slight reprimand, perhaps banning him from editing particular articles. That said, there may have been issues with the category: deletion certainly is not the answer, but a little tidying up won't hurt. -Ste vertigo 01:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - this is a bit ridiculous. First, Jews are an ethnicity, culture and religion, but they are not a race. Second, Category:Converts from Judaism to Christianity more than covers anything this category attempts to offer. --David Shankbone 17:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Category:Christians of Jewish descent, which more aptly captures the purpose of the category. The current name is so starkly-worded as to be inadvertently misleading, and thus rather offputting for many (if not most) readers/editors. Cgingold (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the names I see in it are improperly categorized, unsourced, and/or BLP-violations. The category is inherently difficult to define, which means these issues will be endemic. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, its sub-categories are suffiently well defined to be kept. This category is a valid sub-cat of Christians by ethnicity, and is better for linking the sub-cats than "See also" links between them. Clarifying my opinion to Rename per Cgingold, Tag as {{parent category}} of Category:Converts from Judaism to Christianity, Category:Messianic Jews, Category:Knanaya people and new Category:Early Jewish Christians (or similar), and Move articles into sub-cats. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic, do you support creating a Jewish Muslims category then, since you think Jewish is an ethnicity, or do you only support this category, because you believe Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism? Like I have said earlier Ashkenazi, is a ethnicity, Sephardi, is an ethnicity, and so is Abayudaya, an ethnicity (they are not of Israelite descent). People do not need to be of Israelite descent to be Jewish, people cannot convert to Belgian for example. The fundamental problem is the general American populace is ignorant of Judaism. I cannot count the number of times I have been asked, Do Jews believe in G-d? I find it simply ridiculous that non-Jews are telling Jews what Jewish is.--Java7837 (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People do become Belgian (whether you use the word "convert" rather than "naturalize" is just semantics); that's why all these race/religion intersection categories are useless...I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with Christians of Jewish descent which has the subtlety that those who believe that Christianity descends from Judaism - even if a convert to Christianity had no Jewish ancestors - all Christians can be placed in that cat. This is a meaningless as all race/ethnic/religion/"descent" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary race/religion intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, someone else who is not clear on the difference between race and ethnicity. Someone else after me, that is. - Fayenatic (talk)

Reply: I hadn't realised it was contentious that "Jewish is an ethnicity"; I was quoting User:David Shankbone above, but I've also read it from User:IZAK at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 15#Category:Jews by religion, which I've only just come across. I hope it's not ridiculous for me to believe (or repeat) what an articulate, educated and apparently Jewish editor writes.

I've only argued that the category should be kept as a depopulated navigation aid to its existing sub-categories and a new Category:Early Jewish Christians or similar. On further exploration, the CFD discussion linked above resulted in Category:People of Jewish descent by religion which is probably sufficient.

I also hadn't realised that there were so few ethnicity/religion intersections in categories, although there are more articles about such intersections.

I'm therefore prepared to see this category deleted, but can we achieve consensus on setting up Category:Early Jewish Christians? I suggest that that is the best name since the Twelve Apostles and other earliest Christians probably would not self-identify as Category:Converts from Judaism to Christianity. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not sure of what User:Fayenetic is driving at, but for the record, the following is what I stated there and it's consistent with my position here: (Delete because this "category" will only add confusion and misrepresentation, it may also violate WP:NONSENSE. The word "Jew" or "Jewish" means BOTH a member of the Jewish RELIGION (Judaism) and being part of an ethnicity, therefore it is both ludicrous and dangerous to classify Jews as part of other religions. As far as Judaism is concerned, the moment a Jew joins another religion they become Apostates making this subject even more complicated. This topic is a violation of both WP:NEO (Jews cannot be artificially redefined by Wikipedia discussions as part of other religions. There are the Jew and Judaism articles, and more, that discuss those topics) and Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete this violation of WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP, because truth be told it is objectively, truthfuly and theologically impossible for there to be such a hybrid animal as a "Jewish Christian" or a "Christian Jew" for that matter because Judaism and Christianity are conflicting religions. Yes, there are Messianic Jews or Hebrew Christians, but they are CHRISTIANS first and foremost holding to some smattering of Jewish rituals maybe, but once one is baptized into Christianity one stops being a Jew in the religious sense and it's only ethnicity a much broader notion not tied to religion, but that cannot help one bridge Judaism with Christianity either. Christianity teaches that Judaism is over and kaput and Jews are sinners for not accepting Jesus, while Judaism teaches that Jesus was a traitor to his people and deserved what he got and that Christianity is a false religion. Judaism regards Islam as true Monotheism better than Christianity. This is not a mystery and it's well known to serious scholars and theologians. It is only in pop-culture that these kinds of things can get mixed up. On the religious level one either follows/believes Judaism and is therefore Jewish or one follows Christianity and is therefore a Christian. In addition, this category is a violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. IZAK (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of this is an argument against renaming as Category:Christians of Jewish descent per Cgingold. This has the advantage over Category:People of Jewish descent by religion that it would be an acceptable sub-cat of Category:Christians. Also, nobody has expressed any objection to adding a new Category:Early Jewish Christians and unless that happens I will take this CFD as approval in advance for that category. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment one term causes confusion and two in Judaism once anybody accepts anything as being the embodiment of G-d, they are an apostate. Also I doubt category would be made called, Ealy Jewish Goldencalfists, if the worship of Golden calf, still existed. The category, Early Jewish Christians, only exists, to say to try to say hey look the Early Christians were of Jewish descent. The problem is I doubt the Christian community would apply the same logic to making Ealy Jewish Goldencalfists. --Java7837 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Fayenatic your suggestion, that to rename it Christians of Jewish descent, has the problems, Too ill-defined:How much Jewish ancestry, if you consider Judaism a race, 1/2, 1/4 or any, it has no official standard of inclusion. Like I have said earlier you fail to listen to not all Jewish ethnic groups descend from the Israelites. Genetics studies show that the Ethiopian Jews, who number about 200,000 , are on a genetic standpoint almost indifferentiable from the Ethiopian population, showing this group may descend mostly from Ethiopian converts. yet despite this they are Jewish, a convert to Judaism, is as Jewish as Moses. As such according to the same logic a category called, Jews of Christian descent, could be created. You cannot convert into an ethnic group! Because Judaism is a religion only! No maybe one can became a citizen of Belgium by naturalization, but they are still ethnically not Belgian.

"What people generally mean when they say that a person is of Jewish descent, they generally mean the person descends from either the Sephardi, or more commonly the Ashkenazi community, they communities are mostly of Israelite descent, but it should be noted that the only thing the Ashkenazi and Sephardi have in common, is religion, they have different histories for the last 2000 years or so, traditionally spoke different languages, ate different foods, had different forms of dress, and have different customs, they also have lived in different parts of the world, until relatively recently. Judaism is not an ethnicity, nor is Jewish, Ashkenazi is though. Abayudaya, B'nai Moshe, and other Jewish ethnic groups, are not of Israelite descent, these are communities that embraced Judaism, yet if one of the Abayudaya intermarried and his/her kids were brought up as Christian, people would be less likely to say that one of the kids of the Abayudaya is a Jewish Christian. The word proselyte, from which the word proselytize comes from, in Greek means a convert to Judaism, they had a word for this because it was not uncommon for Greeks to convert to Judaism. The only reason why people generally think Jews are a race or ethnicity, is because it has been illegal for last 2000 years or so to convert to Judaism, in Christian and Muslim countries, and still in force in Muslim countries. In fact if a person is of European descent they can bascially call themselves a Jewish Christian, because when the Roman Empire conquered Israel during the Bar Kokhba's rebellion, millions of Jews were enslaved and were forced to convert to the religion of their masters, just like the African Americans, later the Romans were forced to convert to Christianity. So why do they not Categorize European Christians, and people who descend from them, as Jewish Christians, because the category, only exists to say hey look some Jews have converted to Christianity. The category, is simply useless, and has no definition on how much ancestry from the alleged Jewish race is necessary for inclusion. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic faith is overwhelmingly following by the Romance peoples, Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, and the peoples who descend from them, like the Hispanics, but no ever ever says they are a Roman Catholic Buddhist. Because people can convert to Catholicism and people do, and same applies to Judaism, and this why Judaism and Catholicism are not races, nor ethnicities."

Furthermore there are few ethnicity/religion intersections in categories in the first place

Fayenatic, do you support creating a Jewish Muslims category then, since you think Jewish is an ethnicity, or do you only support this category, because you believe Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism? Like I have said earlier Ashkenazi, is a ethnicity, Sephardi, is an ethnicity, and so is Abayudaya, an ethnicity (they are not of Israelite descent). People do not need to be of Israelite descent to be Jewish

-- Java7837 16:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You say Jewish is a religion only, but other Jewish editors say it is a religion and also an ethnicity.

Do you understand "parent category"? If there were more relevant sub-categories than Category:Converts from Judaism to Islam, then I might well support a parent category for Muslims of Jewish descent. However, there is currently only one such category, so there is no need for a new parent. In contrast, there are four categories, the contents of which are justifiable, currently grouped in this one. It makes sense to me to continue to hold them together with a head category that is appropriately named for Christian believers who have a Jewish heritage.

I have explicitly stated that there should be no articles in this category; it should be tagged as a parent category and only exist as a navigation aid between the sub-cats. So, not 1/2, not 1/4, not even 4/4 Jewish grandparents would justify an article being in this category. I'm willing to volunteer to patrol and depopulate it if any articles get added later on.

As for the new sub-cat, Category:Early Hebrew Christians might be better. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:24, 20 February 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:Battles of the Operations Against Major Confederate Cities 1862 of the American Civil War[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 to Category:Battles of the Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach of the American Civil War and Category:Conflicts in 1862. Kbdank71 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into its sole parent cat, Category:Battles of the Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach of the American Civil War. My first thought upon seeing this category was that it needed to be renamed, though I wasn't sure what the right name might be. However, I don't believe there are any other similar categories that specify 1) Battles against "major cities", and 2) Battles in a particular year. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that we don't have a category structure for battles by year. So after further reflection, I think it's best to simply upmerge these articles. Cgingold (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while there is no battles by year, there is Category:conflicts by year containing battles, so a possible additional upmerge to Category:Conflicts in 1862 may be needed. Tim! (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Battles of the Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach of the American Civil War and Category:Conflicts in 1862 per above 2. Occuli (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why to the first? That's a completely different theater, no?

Comment - I would be extremely wary of starting down the road of placing American Civil War battles directly into those conflicts by year cats -- for the simple reason that there are many scores of such articles, and they would completely swamp those categories. As things currently stand, the ACW battle articles are not categorized by year, so it's not as though we'd be losing any existing info by not doing this. My recommendation is for a full set of categories for ACW battles by year, which I suspect the WikiProject would happily take on. Cgingold (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably upmerge per nom & others. Is there any justication for all the Caps in the name - I think not. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 14 February 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:National Scenic Areas (Scotland)[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 15:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National Scenic Areas (Scotland) to Category:National Scenic Areas in Scotland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need to have brackets in category name, "Foo in Country" is standard naming. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, or even Category:Scottish National Scenic Areas - the name is only used in Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The name is apparently used in the US, China and Taiwan too, although they are presumably not directly comparable. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:13, 17 February 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.

Categories:1972 through 1989 top-tier pro tennis circuits[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: multiple Unless I have this wrong: Merge first three (1989 ATP Tour, etc) into (1989 Nabisco Grand Prix, etc), do not rename to add "tennis tour". Next, delete the ones nominated for deletion. Finally, rename the remaining ones (1xxx ATP Tour and 1xxx ATP Buenos Aires) to (1xxx Volvo/Buenos Aires Grand Prix), do not add (tennis) or (tennis tour). See [1] for list. Kbdank71 15:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging the following

(1984, 1983 no Buenos Aires tour tourney held)

Propose deleting these below (there was not a single top-tier pro tour in these years)

Nominator's rationale: the ATP Tour only began in 1990 - prior to that year there was the World Championship Tennis, the Grand Prix tennis tour and a couple others, briefly, in the early 1970s. I can find reference that Nabisco was the Grand Prix circuit's 'name sponsor' from 1985 through 1989 and Volvo from 1980 through 1984. Pepsi-Cola apparently was in 1970 but for the rest of the 1970s, I don t know. Until 1978 and again from 1982 to 1984 the WCT and Grand Prix were separate circuits so a delete is nominated for these years as the contents need to be separated. Mayumashu (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Modify/Merge/Delete: Nabisco and Volvo Grand Prix renames seem too wordy to be used as proper category titles. Propose that current Nabisco Grand Prix categories be kept, proposed Nabisco and Volvo Grand Prix categories be modified to fit (i.e. just Nabisco/Volvo Grand Prix), ATP Tour categories proposed for merging merged while the ATP Tour categories proposed for deletion be deleted. Totalinarian (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So keep Category:1989 Nabisco Grand Prix and rename to Category:1984 Volvo Grand Prix etc. and not rename to Category:1989 Nabisco Grand Prix tennis tour or Category:1984 Volvo Grand Prix tennis tour etc. I suppose, although I like the clarity that adding 'tennis tour' or 'tennis circuit' would add Mayumashu (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While adding 'tennis tour' or 'tennis circuit' certainly adds clarity to the categories, unless Nabisco or Volvo or Pepsi-Cola sponsored something like a motor racing event for a number of years, it is just easier to categorise with as specific a name as possible, as summed up here. Totalinarian (talk) 12:33, 15 February 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:Rude behavior[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. Kbdank71 15:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Arbitrary inclusion criteria and POV title. Gilliam (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This a simply too subjective a concept to serve as a category. And of course, it might also be thought to refer to what people do when they're naked. :) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Rename (see comment below), as per Wikipedia's guidelines with referencing, this category is only supposed to contain articles in which it can be referenced within the article that the behavior is rude. Some of the articles do meet that requirement; others don't. Shaliya waya (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the discussion, Shaliya waya. Even though we disagree here, it's always good to have category creators participate. Cgingold (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "rude" to one is good manners to another. Far too culturally subjective for categorization purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Whether a behavior is rude depends on context: time, location, environment. Crossing one's legs in a way that reveals the sole of one's shoe to another person is extremely rude in some cultures and utterly harmless in others. Using profanity at a place of worship is likely to be seen as rude, whereas it is acceptable in the company of like-minded friends. Compounding the problem is that, even within a single culture, rudeness is ultimately in the eye of the beholder: there's nothing to stop some people from perceiving open-mouth chewing as being rude and others from perceiving mass murder as being rude. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Rename to something. Pretty well all these topics fall short of ideal behaviour by just about any standards, and I see a cat gathering them as useful. Maybe Category:Offensive behavior, or something. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As with 'rude', whether a particular behavior is offensive is ultimately subjective across and within cultures and contexts. I could suggest Category:Antisocial behaviour, which (at least in my mind) is more official-sounding, but it also is essentially subjective and, therefore, overly inclusive (unless there is a clear, narrow medical definition of antisocial behavior of which I'm unaware). Anything from poor hygiene habits to mass murder, and from noisy eating to embezzlement, could qualify as "behavior opposed or detrimental to social order or that violates social norms"; see Antisocial. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or that. Personally I don't see the need to wait for the AMA or some such source to officially declare Hate speech, or Mooning, rude, offensive or anti-social. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think those examples illustrate the problem with the category. I consider hate speech to be one of the most (if not the most) offensive behaviors; however, hate speech against a particular group would not be considered offensive in the context of a discussion (or a bash-fest) between like-minded individuals. Just as an example: insults directed against homosexuals would be considered extremely offensive in the Netherlands, but less so in Saudi Arabia. Same for mooning: mooning a judge is offensive in virtually all contexts, but mooning a drunk friend at a frat party is less so. :-) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's really an issue for the articles. Categories don't have to cover all possible aspects of the subjects. Of course one could go for Category:Potentially antisocial behaviour, but that's too lame. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It appears, then, that we disagree on this point, since I consider the problem to be inherent in the category. In any case, iff the consensus is to rename, then my preference is for "antisocial" over "offensive". They have the same problems, in my opinion, but the former at least sounds less subjective (again, in my opinion). Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It is true. Something that is rude by one's standards may be polite by another. But obviously, articles in this category were written neutrally to describe that at least some people (meaning a significant portion of the world's population) view these behaviors as "rude" or "antisocial," even to the point that the society's that do will impose some sort of sanction against such a person. A new name more neutrally reflecting this would be appropriate. Shaliya waya (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of the world's population must consider a behaviour "rude" for it to be categorized here? Otto4711 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't try to catch out the newbie by goading him to set arbitrary selection criteria and then rule it out as WP:OC#ARBITRARY. That would be rude! - Fayenatic (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that any selection criterion based on percentages here is arbitrary. Otto4711 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Who mentioned percentages?! Fayenatic (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I did? Otto4711 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Category:Offensive behaviour. I think it is worth keeping but "Anti-social behaviour" implies a far wider category covering public drunkenness, drug dealing, graffiti and fly-tipping, most of which are beyond the original concept. Mind you... Also create head Category:Anti-social behaviour covering these and other activities identified in Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, ASBOs, etc. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- But which cultures' and sub-cultures' definitions should we use? As mentioned above, homosexuality is considered to be both offensive and a form anti-social behaviour in certain cultures. One could consider any behaviour to be offensive, uncivilized and anti-social, since what is "offensive, uncivilized and anti-social" is highly subjective and context-dependent. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Black Falcon, Otto. Seems like a pretty classic case of a POV category with arbitrary inclusionary criteria. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On further reflection, isn't "rude" more objective than "offensive"? The whole point of mooning is that it's rude, irrespective of whether those who see it think it's funny or offensive. Any rude behaviour that is notable enough to have its own article is going to be verifiably notable for being rude. So isn't there proper scope to keep the category after all? It wouldn't be hard to justify membership on the stated definition of "Behaviors considered to be rude by many societies". - Fayenatic (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative intermediate category between the head Category:Etiquette and the sub Category:Profanity might be Category:Breaches of etiquette. Probably more verifable than, say, "Selfishness" or "Inconsiderate behaviour". - Fayenatic (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 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:Pennsylvania Dutch people[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. Kbdank71 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pennsylvania Dutch people to Category:Pennsylvania German people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Pennsylvania German" is the more academically correct name used to refer to those people who immigrated to Pennsylvania prior to the year 1808 and their culture. Alphageekpa (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I recommend renaming this to either Category:People of Pennsylvania Dutch descent or Category:People of Pennsylvania German descent. It seems a bit of a stretch to say that someone like Gwyneth Paltrow is "Pennsylvania Dutch/German", even if her mother is. My inclination is to stay with "Pennsylvania Dutch", as that is far and away the more widely used term, as well as being the name of the main article. Cgingold (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People of Pennsylvania Dutch descent per Cgingold. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and have sub-category Category:People of Pennsylvania Dutch descent for Paltrow and other descendents of the group. Mayumashu (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That crossed my mind briefly. My principal concern is that the current category is already a sub-cat of Category:German-Americans, so I'm not sure how far we want to go with it. Cgingold (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary race/ethnicity category - and an improperly named one as well (are you still Pennsylvania Dutch/German if you've never been to Pennsylvania? Inquiring minds want to know. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 'Pennsylvania Dutch' be the name. This has been the term for referring to these people for hundreds of years (right or wrong). See Pennsylvania Dutch article for details Hmains (talk) 03:57, 18 February 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:Peace studies[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. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Peace and conflict studies, as that is a more encompassing term for this field, of which Peace studies is of course a major facet. Moreover, the main article is at Peace and conflict studies, while Peace studies is merely a redirect page. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to this year's new look. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 13 February 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 Troubles in Northern Ireland[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 to foo of/people killed during/etc "The Troubles (Northern Ireland)". Kbdank71 15:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland to Category:The Troubles

Category:People of the Troubles in Northern Ireland to Category:People of The Troubles
Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland media to Category:The Troubles media
Category:People killed during the Troubles to Category:People killed during The Troubles - originally at CFD/s, but added here in case there is consensus to use a parenthetical disambiguator of some sort

Nominator's rationale:

Common name: Naming conventions guide us to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". In common English usage, "The Troubles" (with the "The" being capitalized) refers to the Northern Ireland conflict; moreover, there does not seem to be any "conflict with the names of other people or things", see Troubles (disambiguation).
Consistency with the article: The naming convention identified above is followed at the main article (The Troubles) and the category should match it.
Shorter title: 'Category:The Troubles' is just 21 characters long, compared to 41 characters for 'Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland'. All things being equal, shorter titles are almost always better than longer titles.
More accurate title: The title "The Troubles in Northern Ireland" suggests that its scope excludes anything related to The Troubles that took place outside of Northern Ireland. This is plainly not the case, as the inclusion of articles such as Harrods bombing, Anglo-Irish Agreement and James Kelly (Irish Army officer) demonstrates. In fact, the very first sentence of The Troubles reads: "The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) was a period of ethno-political conflict in Northern Ireland which spilled over at various times into England, the Republic of Ireland and mainland Europe." (emphasis added)
This naming convention also leads to ambiguous category names such as Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland media; it is not clear from the title whether this refers to media related to The Troubles or portrayal of The Troubles in the media of Northern Ireland.

Notified category creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a reference to Northern Ireland in the title. 'The Troubles (Northern Ireland)' might be preferable. Category names ought to be self-explanatory and I don't think 'Category:The Troubles' is - sounds like a punk band from NY. Occuli (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah - I would have said British, myself. But an inspired idea, all the same -- and you were only off by about 360 miles: It turns out there's a real punk band called "The Troubles (RIP)", and where do they hail from? You guessed it: Belfast.

Now where were we? Oh, yes. No opinion on the band -- but I've got to agree with my esteemed colleague that the Category name should retain a reference to Northern Ireland. While I do sympathize with my other esteemed colleague, it's important to consider that even at their height in the 1970s-80s, an awful lot of English-speaking people (i.e. outside the UK & Ireland) would not have recognized the term. So on balance, I come down in favor of retaining some sort of reference to Northern Ireland -- probably parenthetically. Cgingold (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a parenthetical disambiguator over the current phrasing; although I'd like to avoid using "Northern Ireland" (per #4 above), the only alternative that comes to mind is to use years, but that would be problematic since the claimed start-year of The Troubles varies by source (no later than 1969, but various works indicate a start-year as early as 1966). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the parenthetical disambiguator is an improvement over the current formulation precisely because it leaves out the word "in", and can therefore be construed more broadly. Cgingold (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rename suggestion is not nearly clear enough for a category name. Personally I think (& have said there) the article should be renamed, since "troubles" is actually a generic term, and episodes known as "The Troubles" in Britain & Ireland stretch back to the middle ages. To my grandmother and her generation "The Troubles" meant the Irish Civil war & the period leading up to it. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point -- I have seen/heard the Irish Civil War referred to as "The Troubles" on occasion. But are these other uses of sufficient concern to require additional disambiguation? Cgingold (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've argued that at The Troubles, but the current cat name is sufficient I suppose. Northern Ireland was relatively quiet in the post WWI troubles, apart from Unionist shows of strength. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The troubles can also refer to 1918-1822. However the last nom should be renamed for consistency :*Category:People killed during the Troubles in Nortern Ireland. Alternatively, to include Republican atrocities in Great Britain and the Loyalist bombing in Dublin, it might be better to refer to the "Northern Irish Troubles". Certainly, a location indicator needs to be included, because the bare "troubles" is not self-explanatory. It may be the main article that needs renaming, not the categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be in favor of Cgingold's suggestion to use a parenthetical disambiguator: i.e. Category:The Troubles (Northern Ireland)? That would be enough to set it apart from categories such as Category:The Troubles in Derry, which is (unlike the categories included in this nomination) limited to the geographic region named in the category title. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:21, 18 February 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.

American Civil War categories[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: upmerge to parent categories. Kbdank71 15:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: These CFDs are a follow-on to the Feb. 8 CFD for Category:Battles of the Expedition to Port Royal Sound of the American Civil War. Cgingold (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Battles of the Operations of the Gulf Blockading Squadron of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Expedition to St. John's Bluff of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Operations near Saint Mark's of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Operations in LaFourche District of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow McMuff (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Operations Against Fort Pulaski of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow McMuff (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Expedition to Hillsboro River of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Categort too narrow McMuff (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Carolina Coast Blockade of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval Attacks on Fort McAllister of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Potomac River Blockade of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow.McMuff (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Operations against Tampa of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow.McMuff (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Florida Expedition of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow. McMuff (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Operations to Blockade the Texas Coast II of the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category too narrow.McMuff (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge in each case to the respective parent categories (some of which might well also be too narrow). Eg upmerge the last one to Category:Campaigns of the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War and Category:Texas in the American Civil War. Occuli (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to appropriate parent categories, by theatre of war. All these categories seem much too narrow to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to appropriate parent categories, by theatre of war, per all. Has Pastor Wayne developed an interest in the ACW? Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the work of Pastor Wayne's sidekick, Pastor Garth. Cgingold (talk) 08:09, 14 February 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 Mexico Chiles (USISL) 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Mexico Chiles (USISL) players to Category:New Mexico Roadrunners

Nominator's rationale: was team's actual nickname when franchise was in USISL. (See New Mexico Chiles) Mayumashu (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article states "The new team [USISL] took on the Chiles name". Occuli (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You re right - got confused. Move to withdraw nomination Mayumashu (talk) 17:53, 13 February 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.