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. The discussions listed below and the various articles and talk pages in this area make it clear that the articles and classifications need work. Playa is clearly ambiguous and the use is not the primary use, the beach is. I think that Hmains is correct in saying that we also need a category for alkali covered lands. In my opinion we also need a category for dry lakes. So I don't view this the end of this but as the beginning of some cleanup as the contents in these categories are better classified by adding more categories. That work is not a part of closing this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. salt pan, salt flat, playa, takyr,... are one and the same geological feature, as both WP and EB agree. - Altenmann >t 00:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the cat per nom, and the article to match Per Playa "Alkali flats are known by this name in some parts of Mexico and the western United States", but not even Sth America. Since, as the article says, Playa means beach for the Spanish-speaking world, & the European English-speaking one, a regional US term seems hardly justifiable as the article title. The only issue is whether there is an overall term for salt flats & alkali flats. But that's not an issue for the category, which only covers the salt ones. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can support that - better than my suggestion, in fact. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- As a non-Geologist, I understand what a salt pan (or salt flat) is; I would not know what a playa is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom It also appears from the Playa article that two separate categories are required: 'Salt flats' for salt covered lands and 'playas' for alkalai covered lands. In any case, a geogolist should sort this out. Hmains (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. 7 23:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nominator and #6. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no need to disambiguate the category as there is no ambiguity in category space. HidingT 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename to disambiguate from the place and river in Spain. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename' to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename -- very sensible, I am so used to "TEI" in the intended meaning that I haven't noticed it leads to a disamb page. And it may even be better to have the full name in the category list, now that I think of it. My apologies for giving you guys extra work on this. XPtr (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid the ambiguous initialism. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename' to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I'm pretty sure this is what this category was supposed to be for. The article for the party is at National Renewal (Chile) so the nomination conforms to how we usually name politicians of a particular party. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, who seems to be correct. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are the "similar cats" that this naming format would match? As far as I can tell, I have adopted the most commonly-used format. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, not particularly. I was wondering what "them" was. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subcategories of Category:Politicians by country which match the form I proposed. On my end I have little + signs next to all the categories and if I click them it shows all the sub-categories. If you click it next to the "Moldovan politicians" category you get quite a few, "Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova MPs", for example, and that was the first I clicked at random. There are plenty more which shows there is no clear standard for this sort of thing. Does that help any better, or would a complete list of all such categories be required? HidingT 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was the sarcasm necessary? I was just trying to find out which ones you were referring to so I could look at them. As I said, I think I've adopted the most common naming format for politicians of a particular party. The Moldovan one you cite seems to be a combination of party and political position, which this category is not. E.g., to take a subcategory at random, in Category:Fijian politicians the politicians-by-party categories appear to use the name format of "[POLITICAL PARTY] politicians", where "[POLITICAL PARTY]" is named after the WP article for that party. I'm sure there are other forms used if they are all looked through, but I thought adopting the most commonly-used form would be most sensible. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't intended any sarcasm. You haven't adopted the most common naming format for politicians of a particular party. There are many alternatives in all the sub-categories within the parent category I have directed you to, and none of them appear to be more common that any other. It's very evenly split, as we can see by glancing at the Fiji example you give which gives a split of four to three. HidingT 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not seeing it. It looks like 7–0 to me. They all use "[POLITICAL PARTY] politicians":
Please tell me what I am missing. Perhaps you are misinterpreting something. This would explain why you can see no discernible pattern across all categories, because it's clearly present from what I can observe. I'm focussing, of course, on categories for politicians of a particular party not all of the various subcategories of Category:Politicians by country, which include politicians by position as well as politicians by party. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to tell me what I am missing, since I've already suggested Category:Chilean National Renewal politicians. If that name is acceptable to you, I fail to see why we are arguing, since Wikipedia guidance is to ignore the addition of a dab phrase wherever possible. Forget I spoke. The guidance has changed since the last time I checked. HidingT 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not (trying to) argu-(ing)-(e), I'm just trying to make sense of what you are saying, because it contradicts what I see. I think we should conform to the usual standard, and I can't see evidence that indicates the standard for politicians by party is anything other than what I have suggested. Whether that involves parentheses in the name or not seems to me to be rather beside the point. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you said the by-party subcategories in Category:Fijian politicians only followed the format I mentioned 4–3; and other related comments. Whatever, though—it doesn't matter. The easiest way to answer your direct question is that the proposal follows (what I believe is) the most common naming pattern for these categories, which is "[POLITICAL PARTY] politicians", where "[POLITICAL PARTY]" matches the WP name for the party; your proposal does not follow this pattern, obviously. I haven't said your suggestion is wrong, I just prefer a different format. If you acknowledge the same I think the issue is resolved to my satisfaction. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gravy. I understand your system now. I still don't see it being the standard though, since I'm finding categories which deviate. "Mexican politicians by party", which I mention hoping we can maintain the spirit of BEANS. HidingT 11:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename' to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename, because all the sub-categories are for council elections. Since there are no elected regional councils in England, the only other class of England-only election is parliamentary by-elections ... and those aren't numerous enough to need sub-categorising below Category:1997 in England (or whatever the relevant year in England category may be in each case). BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested by Peterkingiron. The categories seem to be consistently called "English local elections" although the category for each individual authority is called e.g. "Arun council elections". The phrase local elections is in common use. Incidentally BrownHairedGirl, there is one English regional 'council', the London Assembly, and its elections should be covered by local electionsSussexonian (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more accurately reflect the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:do not rename. Proposed target category could be manually created and populated as a separate category.Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many of the subcategories refer to competitions rather than leagues as there is no "upper" defunct competitions category. I see no need to create categories for both defunct leagues and competitions (e.g. cups/series/finals etc). The broader term "competitions" would better encompasses the category we currently have here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps split to create a sibling competitions category. Calling a league a "competition" makes no sense in U.S. English; the former is an organization which arranges competitions, the latter are discrete events.- choster 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Leagues are not competitions. Leagues are organised levels of groups engaging in competitions. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with nominator but also agree that for the sake of US English users having both pages, the later housing the former, would be best Mayumashu (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "National League" is an organized group of teams that compete with one another. The "World Series" is a competition that decides a winner amongst competitors. They are not the same things. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vast majority of entries are for defunct leagues. Any defunct competitions should be split off into an appropriate category. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support Rename to match standard usage in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This nomination is a followup to a CFR proposal on government in leeds, at CFD Nov 16 (a relisting from CfD October 26). There seems to be an emerging consensus there for my suggestion to rename all these categories to reflect the fact that they refer to local government (rather than national govt), and are all under the hierarchy starting at Category:Local government in England. The county categories which I have found are already named "Local government in foo", and this nomination brings their sub-categories into line. Note that owing to the ambiguity of the current category names, many of these categories contain articles on other political issues in the respective areas, such as parliamemtray constituencies, by-elections and Members of Parliament. I am in the process of moving the relevant articles to from "Government in foo" to the appropriate "Politics of foo" categories, under Category:Politics of England. In some cases this involves creating new "Politics of foo" categories, such as Category:Politics of Hyndburn. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and earlier discussion. Occuli (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - though government is technically partially still correct no-one in those places would expect that you meant local government. RichFarmbrough, 19:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. This is a necessary follow up to the previous decision on Leeds. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match standard in parent ctageory. Alansohn (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Hmmm Seems the wrong way round to me. Actually "Thurrock politics" might be more meaningful than either. RichFarmbrough, 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Reply The alternative is to rename a few hundred other sub-categories of Category:Politics of England. I can see a case for alternatives, but when naming categories I prefer consistency to perfection :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nominator. This is the format of the parent and all other subcategories. Speedy #4. Debresser (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match other subcats. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Songs that are playable elements in computer entertainment[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 the first three and rename the fourth as nominated. — ξxplicit 03:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this precedent, categorizing songs by the games they're in is overcategorization. The Sonic category is mostly about the soundtracks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. This certainly is not defining, and would therefore constitute overcategorization in my opinion. No opinion on the Sonic ones; don't know enough about that one. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deletes / Rename per nom. The three deletes organize songs for which the category is not a defining characteristic. The Sonic ctageory is defining and the rename is appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Second time I nominate this type of category. The previous nomination can be found on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. I feel this is The Right Thing To Do, and think that the previous nomination failed largely because of a personal vendetta against me by one of the participants in that discussion who is now no longer active on Wikipedia. Arguments for rename are:
But ignores the "uniformity" argument. The format "from month year" is the standard for all monthly maintenance categories. We can use {{Monthly cleanup category}} if we rename, and it will sort just perfectly. Debresser (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose. These are hidden administrative categories, for use by people working CFD's (and by CFD I mean Categories for discussion; one click to the category itself will clear up any possible ambiguity for anyone else). Renaming is not necessary. --Kbdank71 15:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all maintenance categories are hidden, and still they recieve normal names. Many of them have been discussed on Cfd at one time or the other, and your argument has not been brought forth before, to my (limited) knowledge. In any case, consensus seems to be that even hidden maintenance categories need to be properly named. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I often see acronyms like "CfD" and, when they're not wikilinked, have to stop and think, is this "Categories for Deletion", "Candidates for Discussion" or what? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As any fule knoe, CfD = Conundrums freely Deliberated. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Getting these cats in line with all the others will also allow the use of standard templates such as {{Progress box}}. --Pascal666 19:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for those precise reasons, and to move away from jargon. RichFarmbrough, 19:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Two questions. To the best of my knowledge, these categories are populated automatically by the templates {{cfd}}, {{cfm}} and {{cfr}}, and are never populated manually. Is this correct? If they are being populated manually, then reasonably terse names would assist greatly ... but if not, then what damage is done by naming them more verbosely named? Please note that I haven't !voted yet. I'm trying to understand the reasons for Kbdank71's objections, because and although we often disagree, Kbdank71 usually has a good reason for taking a particular view at CfD. However I don't a good reason here, and wonder have I missed something. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are generally populated by the templates. However some editors have added the category manually. When manually added, it is usually not listed for discussion and the nomination needs to be cleaned up since it is not complete. So you are probably correct to say that it is only populated by the templates. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before above, and has been said elsewhere by others who are even more knowledgable in the technical aspects, if renamed we can start using {{Monthly cleanup category}}, and there wil be no need for piping. See the example of the 60 (!) categories in #4. Debresser (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're keen for consistency, there's no reason not to fix the other ~60 to be ..._YYYY-mm aswell, right? —Sladen (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Approaching this issue logically, one would adjust the 1 to the 60. But yes, consistency need be. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's of course not 1:60 but 4:1427 and of course the ratio is not important it is really 1427-4 that measures the extra cost of going to YYYY MM. RichFarmbrough, 18:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Reluctant support rename for consistency. The ability to use {{Monthly cleanup category}} and {{Progress box}} seems like a useful enough goal to make this worthwhile, though I hate the loss of conciseness. Long category names clutter up the page (although in this case it effects only those like me who use show hidden categories), and I would support a group nomination to change all other monthly maintenance categories to a more concise format which would sort without piping. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Monthly cleanup category}} is smart enough to insert the correct sort order. It extracts the necessary information from the pagename. RichFarmbrough, 18:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Support. Abbreviations are useful in routine conversation, but they present a barrier to newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- no strong view on precise formulation (as long as it will sort right, but the final preposition should be "in" or "of" not "from", which suggests subsequent months are in the category too! Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the December and January ones as empty categories created too early. No reason to be creating these cats more than a few days before their anticipated use. Neutral on the rename. VegaDark (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the practise on Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month, to create all maintenance categories a few hours before the first place on the globe enters the new month. The proposed rename will allow to add Cfd there as well. An additional minor benefit of that page is that you can see right away if a category was created prematurely, and then delete it, to be able to track templates that are incorrectly dated with next month's dates. Perhaps these arguments will sway you to support the rename? Debresser (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Support rename if that is the case and these categories are added to that list. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, provided it doesn't complicate {{cfd}} and {{cfr}} significantly. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kbdank71. The guidance to expand abbreviations can be ignored if you ask me, the primary architect of that particular line as it relates to categories. HidingT 23:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That argument has been refuted already, see above. Furthermore, since when can guidelines be ignored? And then there were three more arguments. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to more clearly describe the contents of the categories and to match other corresponding categories. Alansohn (talk) 20:57, 26 November 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:Archaeological museums in Greek Macedonia[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. — ξxplicit 21:32, 27 November 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:20th-century Indian people/Category:21st-century Indian 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:keep both. — ξxplicit 03:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely redundant and unnecessary. In addition, it has been created to include only notable people (according to the creator), which is laughable because he adds it only to articles of people he considers notable personalities (both categories contain only a few names), even though they are not. Shahid • Talk2me 12:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with all similar categories. Debresser (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And what is the nominator on about saying that the creator, me as it turns out, adds only those who he (me) considers notable. I have never said this and checking the pages in question confirms this. In fact, it and similar pages are underpopulated, that s all. Mayumashu (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per recent and consistent past consensus here. This has been disscussed twice in the last few months. See the August 14 and June 29 CfDs Isn't there a limit to how many times this can be done? Carlaude:Talk 04:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to allow for organization by century and to correspond to a rather well-defined structure by country. Arguments about current contents being "laughable" are more appropriately addressed by populating the category rather than by deleting it. Alansohn (talk) 21:00, 26 November 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:Wikipedian Fortaleza Esporte Clube 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:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Scheme of categorisation for this area is by-country, not by-continent. --Xdamrtalk 14:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. We have Category:Atheists by nationality, and it's enough to include the subjects there. Also, our practice is to classify people by nationality, not by continent. - BiruitorulTalk 07:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Empty to nat cats, & Delete per nom. I see someone is kindly working on dispersing them, I forget who. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful parent category. HidingT 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate parent for its national categories and as an aid to navigation. Any entries in here should be distributed by nation. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:50, 23 November 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.
