Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 25 October 27 >

October 26[edit]

Category:First ladies that posed nude[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. — ξxplicit 06:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:First ladies that posed nude (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ok. We don't categorize people who have posed nude—it's overcategorization of performer by performance, essentially. Therefore there is no reason to categorize by intersection of occupation and having posed nude. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created solely for Carla Bruni, who incidentally wasn't the First Lady of France when she modeled nude; in that sense there aren't even any applicable members of this category. And it's exceedingly trivial, etc... The category's addition was reverted within a day as no one would take it seriously. As it's empty, it can just be speedied within four days (if not before then). postdlf (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank heavens this can't be extended to any U.S. first ladies. Remember the special Nancy Reagan Playboy edition from 1987? Must ... purge ... mental image ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The French don't use "First Lady", or any equivalent, anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial intersection, overcategorisation, etc. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally trivial - Wikigi | talk to me | 09:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial characteristic, almost an attack category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 29 October 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:Bay class landing ship dock ships[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:Bay class landing ship dock ships to Category:Bay class landing ship docks. --Xdamrtalk 20:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bay class landing ship dock ships to Category:Bay class landing ship docks
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article, Bay class landing ship dock. I would also be fine with renaming the article to match the class, but don't know enough about these ships to make a determination one way or the other. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:41, 26 October 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:Planetary systems[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 20:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming All stars with planets listed in Category:Planetary systems and all stars with hypothetical planets listed in Category:Hypothetical planetary systems should be moved to Category:Stars with planets and Category:Stars with hypothetical planets, respectively. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: The main article in this category is currently at planetary system. However, the articles in this category mostly deal primarily with the star itself, not the associated planetary system (outside our Solar System, it is not worthwhile to distinguish the two). Neither the current category nor the proposed rename seems illogical to me, so I would be fine with either, but I advise to keep for stability unless there are convincing arguments that renaming causes a substantial improvement in the quality of categorization. Ucucha 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This name allows us to categorize planetary system articles that are not star articles, as well as stars with planets that don't have separate planetary system articles. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Category:Stars with planets seems like systems with more than one planet-- and that is not what is covered by the category. I am not sure if there is a better name or not. Carlaude:Talk 01:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stars with planets is not always a system with more than one planets. This category will contain stars with just one planet. The planetary system category is all star articles with planets and none to planet articles, that's a bit strange. Stars are not planetary systems, but a central member of the planetary systems. Planetary systems are the systems of planets, moons, circumstellar disks, asteroids, comets, and other objects that orbit the star. So it would be better to rename category in all star articles with planets to stars with planets to have more clarification. After renaming it, we could still keep the category:Planetary systems to keep these as articles and categories about circumstellar disks, astrodynamics of planetary systems, lists of extrasolar planets, solar system, and others. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear what the category does and will contain.
My point is that normally you would call that Category:Stars with one or more planets or Category:Stars with (a) planet(s). The proposed name does not match the category contents very well when most of these are stars with only one planet. Carlaude:Talk 21:24, 30 October 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:West Midlands[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 06:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:West Midlands to Category:West Midlands (county)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To avoid confusion with Category:West Midlands (region) and to follow the main article West Midlands (county). MRSC (talk) 20:41, 26 October 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:AGV[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:AGV to Category:High-speed trains. --Xdamrtalk 20:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:AGV to Category:Automotrice à grande vitesse
Nominator's rationale: To expand and match parent article, automotrice à grande vitesse, as AGV is ambiguous. Alternatively, can be merged into Category:High-speed trains as a small, eponymous category. — ξxplicit 20:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
neutral to renaming No issues with the rename - but should Category:TGV be renamed too. Please note that this type of train is just starting being produced - so the category may be expected to expand in the future as per Cat:TGV
As a note the usage AGV is common in reportage of the new vehicle eg http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=agv+rail&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= both by the manufacturer, and by railway periodicals etc so the name can be expected to become as well known as TGV (?crystalball..).Shortfatlad (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TGV should not be renamed as an expansion, since it's the common name in English, and English isn't French, so using the french expansion makes no sense in English for TGV. As for AGV... it's new... Category:AGV (high speed train) works. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AGV seems to be entering common usage, I would expect it to become common usage as with TGV, second category suggestion seems sensible, future proof and non confusing.Shortfatlad (talk) 23:33, 31 October 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:Texas political scandals[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 06:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Texas political scandals to Category:Political scandals in Texas
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In analogy with the parent category and sister categories. LarRan (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; it better clarifies that these are scandals that occurred within Texas, rather than merely involving Texans or impacting Texas. Postdlf (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and Postdlf. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 27 October 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:Rio Tinto Subsidiaries[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) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rio Tinto Subsidiaries to Category:Rio Tinto subsidiaries
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Incorrect capitalization. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This could have been done as a speedy rename. LarRan (talk) 14:36, 27 October 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:Parliamentary constituencies in the West Midlands[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 06:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the West Midlands to Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the West Midlands (region)
Category:Future parliamentary constituencies in the West Midlands to Category:Future parliamentary constituencies in the West Midlands (region)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate between the county and the region. This category applies to the region. MRSC (talk) 17:10, 26 October 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.

China Open[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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:China Open to Category:China Open (tennis)
Propose merging Category:2009 China Open to Category:China Open (tennis)
Nominator's rationale: Parent cat should be renamed to disambiguate from Category:China Open (badminton) and Category:China Open (snooker). The other category should be upmerged as it only contains 5 articles. Previous such categories have been upmerged, see discussion. Tassedethe (talk) 16:06, 26 October 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:Kashmiri cuisine[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:Kashmiri cuisine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Kashmiri cuisine to Category:Azad Kashmiri cuisine
Nominator's rationale: Same cuisine type with two different names. Maybe the longer name should be merged into the shorter name? Enric Naval (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge as parent article exists for Kashmiri cuisine, but no article exists for the proposed merge target (Azad Kashmiri cuisine). Alansohn (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge Parent Article exists for Kashmiri cuisine because Azad Kashmir is only a small part of the valley. Whole region is known as Kashmir. Instead Category:Azad Kashmiri cuisine should be merged in Category:Kashmiri cuisine.Oniongas (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per nominator's second suggestion. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge (if we need a change at all) -- As I understand it Azad Kashmir is what is on the Pakistani side of the 1948 ceasefire line, whereas the rest of Kashmir is (against the wishes of many of its Muslim inhabitants) part of India. If these categories were to remain distinct, it would be necessary to establish that theri cuisine has significnatly diverged in the past 60 years of political separation. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 29 October 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:Reptiles of Michigan[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:Reptiles of Michigan to Category:Reptiles of the United States. --Xdamrtalk 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Reptiles of Michigan to Category:Reptiles of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT. This is the only U.S. state-specific reptile category. As with all the other Michigan-specific fauna categories that have been (without exception) merged and deleted recently, none of the included species are endemic to Michigan, but instead range more widely through the United States; many are even distributed throughout North and South America. Categorizing widely-distributed species by such narrow, subnational slivers of species distribution would impose upon them hundreds (if not thousands) of categories for areas their articles don't even bother to mention. Indeed, the vast majority of the included articles do not even mention Michigan. Postdlf (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator and recent precedent. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 27 October 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.

Ships of the Dutch Republic[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 06:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Ships of the United Provinces to Category:Ships of the Dutch Republic
Category:Age of Sail ships of the United Provinces to Category:Age of Sail ships of the Dutch Republic
Category:Age of Sail merchant ships of the United Provinces to Category:Age of Sail merchant ships of the Dutch Republic
Category:Merchant ships of the United Provinces to Category:Merchant ships of the Dutch Republic
Nominator's rationale: Rename United Provinces is ambiguous; These ships are all from the predecessor of the Netherlands, which is at Dutch Republic. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 27 October 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:Trivandrum[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) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: In followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 19#Category:Visitor attractions in Trivandrum, rename categories based on main article for topic. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom.-- choster 22:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting Rename: Although Trivandrum is still widely used for the city, the official name is Thiruvananthapuram. Hence, as per norm, rename can be supported. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 06:26, 27 October 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:Low-carbon transport[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 16#Category:Low-carbon transport. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Low-carbon transport to Category:Electric vehicles
Nominator's rationale: Downmerge. So far, there is no description of the category nor any examples not from the targetted subcategory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have Category:Low-carbon economy, and Low-carbon economy includes a section on "Transportation Services." It does not, however, provide any canonical definition of "low-carbon," and the definitions it does provide are highly subjective and otherwise problematic.- choster 18:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. :-o I should have seen that. I've now attached it to Category:Low-carbon economy, and created a potentially appropriate {{catmain}}. I still think the category should be merged somewhere, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported deletion but held out in case a subject matter expert could cite some sort of international standard, comparable to Category:LEED certified buildings. Of course, where I live, almost all electricity is coal-fired, so electric vehicles do not in fact contribute to lowering carbon emissions.- choster 22:43, 30 October 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.

Lewiston Maineiacs[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 06:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lewiston MAINEiacs alumni to Category:Lewiston Maineiacs alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article (Lewiston Maineiacs) and per WP:MOSTM. RandySavageFTW (talk) 10:02, 26 October 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.

Confederate States[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 "Confederate States" format (i.e., Category:Military equipment of the Confederate States not being changed). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Confederate Army divisions to Category:Confederate States Army divisions
Propose renaming Category:Confederate Army generals to Category:Confederate States Army generals
Propose renaming Category:Confederate Army officers to Category:Confederate States Army officers
Propose renaming Category:Confederate Army soldiers to Category:Confederate States Army soldiers
Propose renaming Category:Confederate Navy admirals to Category:Confederate States Navy admirals
Propose renaming Category:Confederate Navy captains to Category:Confederate States Navy captains
Propose renaming Category:Confederate Navy commanders to Category:Confederate States Navy commanders
Propose renaming Category:Confederate Navy officers to Category:Confederate States Navy officers
Propose renaming Category:Military equipment of the Confederate States to Category:Military equipment of the Confederate States of America
Propose renaming Category:Weapons of the Confederacy to Category:Weapons of the Confederate States of America
Propose renaming Category:Confederate field artillery to Category:Confederate States of America field artillery
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent categories Category:Confederate States Army, Category:Confederate States Navy and Category:Confederate States of America. Tassedethe (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all BusterD (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match titles of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renames of most -- the first eight.
We have Category:Military equipment of the United States, not Category:Military equipment of the United States of America
Why not have Category:Military equipment of the Confederate States instead of Category:Military equipment of the Confederate States of America?
Rename its main subcat from Category:Weapons of the Confederacy to Category:Weapons of the Confederate States
Rename its sub-subcat from Category:Confederate field artillery to Category:American Civil War field artillery (or Delete -- it has one item) Field artillery is normally done by era or war, not my nation.
  • Question Why the inconsistency? All use "Confederate States", but two of them use "Confederate States of America". If this inconsistency will persist, I oppose a rename, till such time as somebody will come up with a consistent proposal. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 27 October 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:Unattached football (soccer) 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: speedy delete G4; re-creation of previously discussed and deleted material. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unattached football (soccer) players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Previous Category:Unattached footballers listified after a discussion. The resulting list was then deleted after another discussion. To quote Chris Cunningham:"Completely impractical - "unattached" is just a euphemism for "unemployed", and when one considers semi-pro players as well the scope basically extends to every able-bodied man between 16 and 45 who's ever played for a club.". Tassedethe (talk) 09:07, 26 October 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:Government in Leeds[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 16#Category:Government in Leeds. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Government in Leeds to Category:Politics of Leeds
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standardise with parent Category:Politics of West Yorkshire and others. MRSC (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled on this renaming proposal whilst sorting out the politics and govt categories for Yorkshire, having already created a Category:Politics of Leeds, and partially depopulated the nominated category. I wouldn't have proceeded had I spotted the CFR underway, but what I have done is to create the appropriate Politics of X categories, and moved out of the Government of X categories the article which don't relate to local government.
To avoid further confusion, there may be a case for renaming the subcats of Category:Local government in England to "local government" rather than just "government", but if so I suggest that this should be done as a group nomination rather than an ad-hoc basis. There are squillions of other similar categories such as Category:Government in Warrington, Category:Government in Bournemouth, Category:Government in Oldham, Category:Government in Bury, Category:Government in Wigan, Category:Government in Dorchester, Category:Government in Weymouth, Category:Government in Pendle etc ... all of which deal solely with local govt, all of which are about local rather than national govt, and should be named accordingly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 5 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:JLA 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: KEEP. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:JLA images to Category:Justice League images
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main cat. Also, this isn't strictly about JLA images, but generally about Justice League-related images. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The category is a "behind the scenes" cat (files only) and was inteded to be a short and inclusive as possible. The material covered is generally lumped under "JLA" regardless of coming from sources titled JLA, Justice League of America, Justice League, Justice League Europe, etc. - J Greb (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per J Greb, not a "customer facing" category. Hiding T 12:45, 5 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:Hang Lung[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:Hang Lung to Category:Hang Lung Group. --Xdamrtalk 20:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hang Lung to Category:Hang Lung Group
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 07:54, 26 October 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:CITIC[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 06:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CITIC to Category:CITIC Group
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 26 October 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:ICMLPO (Unity and Struggle)[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) 01:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ICMLPO (Unity and Struggle) to Category:International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 26 October 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:MTR Corporation Limited[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 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MTR Corporation Limited to Category:MTR Corporation
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article, MTR Corporation, which is named per the mos. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 07:12, 26 October 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:Kerry Group[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kerry Group to Category:Kerry Properties
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match what appears to be the main article Kerry Properties. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Kerry Group and Kerry Properties are completely different articles. There might be some intermingling within the category. — ξxplicit 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I suggest that we still do the rename and then allow the recreation of Category:Kerry Group for any that would belong there if it is in fact needed. This would allow the bots to do most of the work and clear up any confusion caused by the current naming and use. In the meantime I may do the split manually, but be aware this could have the effect of emptying the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that this be closed as withdrawn. I have split out the two companie's articles, so Category:Kerry Group only has things related to the Kerry Group. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 9 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:Hopewell[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 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hopewell to Category:Hopewell Holdings
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hopewell is totally ambiguous and the main article appears to be Hopewell Holdings. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 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:Fosun Group[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. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fosun Group to Category:Fosun International
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The correct name of the company appears to be Fosun International Limited, but by naming convention it should be Fosun International and the category should be so named. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 06:41, 26 October 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:Existense[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more user 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. postdlf (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Existense to Category:Existentialist Wikipedians
Nominator's rationale: Unclear inclusion criteria, seems to serve the same purpose as Category:Existentialist Wikipedians. — ξxplicit 06:01, 26 October 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:Cook Islands rugby league 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. — ξxplicit 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative nomination: moved from speedy renaming section.
Copied from speedy renaming section:
End of copied material.
  • Comment (nominator). I still think that this is categorization by nationality, not categorization by national team. There is no mention in many of the included articles in that the player played for the C.I. national team. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Rename per nom. - Davshul (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same here. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 27 October 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:Cook Islands rugby union footballers[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 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative nomination: moved from speedy renaming section.
Copied from speedy renaming section:
End of copied material.
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 Zealanders of Cook Islands descent[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative nomination. Moved from speedy rename section.
Copied from speedy rename section:
  • Category:New Zealanders of Cook Islands descent to Category:New Zealanders of Cook Island descent #1 (trust me on this one) — Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst I note that in an edit to the Cook Island disambiguation page Grutness added some time ago that "Cook Island is the adjectival demonym" for Cook Islands, I could not find an authoritative reference for this (nor is there mention of it in the Cook Islands article) and, indeed, on the official government website of the Cook Islands, the adjectival term used is always "Cook Islands". Furthermore, there is always the possibility of confussion between the "Cook Islands" and one of the islands known as "Cook Island" if the "singular" term is used. In addition, the Wiki article on the local language is entitled "Cook Islands Maori" and all other Cook Islands articles (e.g. including those on the national sports teams) use the plural. Accordingly, it would appear preferable not to rename. Davshul (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The language is officially Cook Islands Maori and the government is officially the Cook Islands Government (with its divisions consistently named with that), and the national sports teams use the same rule as used for other international sports teams. The individual people, however, are Cook Island people, and the term "Cook Island" is the most widely used adjectival demonym. For official sources, will the New Zealand Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs do? Or the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand? If not, how about UNICEF? Or - to trump those - The Cook Islands Government, which uses the term "Cook Island" as a demonym many times throughout its website.Grutness...wha? 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
End of copied material.
  • Comment (nominator). I still agree with Grutness; "Cook Island foo" is correct. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - In light of the discussion, I now agree that "Cook Island" would appear to be the correct term. Davshul (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always thought the (s) was added in relation to there being more than one island as there are 15 islands not just one.But I also agree with the other.Im more worried about someone posting people who dont belong under that category,namely Sonny Bill Williams,Wiki,Asotasi and Jerry Collins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toymit (talk • contribs)
  • Query regarding usage. Whilst I note, as mentioned above, that the language is "Cook Islands Maori", what is the correct term for the ethnic group? Close to the beginning of the article Cook Islands, the term used is "Cook Island Maori", but the link is to "Cook Islands Maori". Davshul (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure the ethnicity is "Cook Island Maori". There is a category for people at Category:Cook Island Māori people. Grutness would probably know how to reference this. I'm pretty sure that's the answer, but I don't know what to point you to as evidence. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:08, 4 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:Country songs[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Country songs to Category:Country music songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main category/article. Also: Category:American country songs, Category:Canadian country songs, Category:German country songs (!), and Category:Swedish country songs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 26 October 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:Musical groups by numbers[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, advise smaller, more tightly focused renominations for these categories. --Xdamrtalk 14:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Musical groups by numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am doubtful that this is a defining characteristic of a musical group and with many groups (e.g. Grateful Dead or Hawkwind) they would occupy any one of these subcategories at different points in their career. Alternative: we may want to keep this parent category and only delete the following subcategories:

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't follow. What sort on non-musical Category:Sibling trios do you have in mind? Sibling comedy trios? The CfD was not about dis-allowing non-musical sibling trios. It was just a just a name change for a category that was already about musical sibling trios. Carlaude:Talk 01:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any notable set of three siblings, really. There are non-musical ones. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 4–9; keep the duos per Postdlf. I'd say probably delete the trios one too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposal of user:Carlaude. Additionally we need categories for String Quartets and Piano Quartets. Such classical musical groups tend to last a long time and have prominence. If may be that other quartets and (possibly) quintets need splitting by musical type and keeping, but the fact that a rock, or other pop group has four members is hardly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep duos, trios, quartets, possibly quintets, as very defining (see cat Brass quintets for example), and those groups for which this is not defining simply don't need to go in them. Indifferent on higher ones, but if they are deleted, remember to merge properly to parent cats and don't simply obliterate them. • Anakin (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quartets through nonents as overcategorization. Delete Parent and merge move the musical duos and trios categories to Category:Musical groups. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:40, 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.

Category:Prehistoric Cingulates[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 - could have been speedy under criterion 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric Cingulates to Category:Prehistoric cingulates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitalization error. I believe it might actually be preferable to rename to Category:Prehistoric Cingulata instead, since "cingulate" is not really a common name, but that may deserve a little more discussion. Ucucha 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as completely uncontroversial. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 27 October 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:Eozapus[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) 06:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Eozapus to Category:Dipodidae
Nominator's rationale: Merge into Category:Dipodidae. Should have been listed and merged under Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_16#One-page_mammals_categories, but I forgot to add it to the list. Ucucha 00:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and prior discussion. --Aranae (talk) 02:05, 26 October 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:Ctenodactylidae[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) 06:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ctenodactylidae to Category:Gundis
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Gundis" is used in the main article, and it is an unambiguous and widely used common name. Ucucha 00:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and prior moves of this nature. --Aranae (talk) 02:06, 26 October 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:Surrogate albums[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. Author created new category Category:Surrogate (band) albums and requested deletion of Category:Surrogate albums (non-admin closure). — ξxplicit 02:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Surrogate albums to Category:Surrogate (band) albums
Nominator's rationale: To disambiguate and match parent article, Surrogate (band). — ξxplicit 00:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good. A newbie oversight, sorry. Weebee777 (talk) 01:06, 26 October 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:African American Cemeteries[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:African American Cemeteries to Category:African American cemeteries
Nominator's rationale: Administrative nomination. Moved from speedy rename section due to comments below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from speedy rename section:
End of copied material.
  • To give some background, the category came about when I was working on the orphaned page Quinette Cemetery. I was having trouble finding ways to link to this page. Without links to the page, this cemetery article would be a dead-end. I at least wanted to add some categories. I found other pages of historically AA cemeteries. Some were slave burial areas. Others were created because blacks were not allowed to use main cemetery. Several were listed on the National Register of Historical Places. I looked up one of them (see Union Baptist Cemetery at http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/OH/Hamilton/state6.html ). Note that the NRHP cites the area of significance as "Black Social History". So all of the ten cemetery pages in this category are related to AA history. Also, the Category:Cemeteries in the United States already has several subcategories for cemeteries of specific groups (Catholic, Jewish, Military). African American cemeteries seems to me like a natural category. As for the description, Grutness may have a point that it is vague. It is probably better limited to, "This category is for historically African American cemeteries." I'm going to go ahead and make this change.HornColumbia (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd say using the categories Category:Cemeteries in Missouri and Category:African American history should be sufficient for Quinette; I have no doubt there are cemeteries best-known for their African American historical links, but the vagueness/arbitrariness of the inclusion criteria (Do they need to be specifically defined as African-American, or just contain significant numbers of AA graves? If sothe latter what proportion of the graves have to be of AAs? 100%? 75%? 50%?) seems to go against good Wikipedia practice. I also (slightly) question the analogy with cemeteries for specific religious groups (since cemeteries are often consecrated in the name of one religion) or specific military cemeteries (which are often set aside as war memorials and cemeteries combined). I will, however, note that a good case could be made for categorising Chinese cemeteries separately, so this could well be a useful grouping in the same sort of way - I think it basically just needs more discussion one way or the other. Grutness...wha? 13:52, 26 October 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_October_26&oldid=1144513929"