Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 28

< April 27	April 29 >

April 28[edit]

Category:Visitor attractions in Orange County, Florida[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. — ξ ^xplicit 19:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no need for this duplicate since the category Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando has been created and accepted by consensus. Marc Averette (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: "Orange County" is not a duplicate of "Greater Orlando", and "Orange County" could be seen as a sub-category of "Greater Orlando". SpikeJones (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re parent to to Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando. This is one of 4 counties is the Greater Orlando area. I'm reluctant to keep since this only has one subcategory and there do not appear to be many county level categories in Florida for visitor attractions. Category:Visitor attractions in the Tampa Bay Area includes one by county museum category but there is Category:Visitor attractions in Miami-Dade County, Florida. So while not part of a series in Florida, this would be a reasonable way to group visitor attractions. Hence keeping with a new parent may be a solution for now. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subcategory of Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2010 (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:Gargoyle 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: speedily deleted by creator and sole editor, User:J Milburn. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Main article Gargoyle which this albums category is for has been deleted. Also category now has only one item which has a speedy deletion tag and prod tag on it. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:06, 28 April 2010 (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:Tomás de Torrejón y Velsco[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Tomás de Torrejón y Velsco to article Tomás de Torrejón y Velsco

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains an image. Better as an article (if possible). Failing, that: delete Jubilee ♫clipman 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The image is being moved to commons. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2010 (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:Barefootedness[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete by WP:OC#TRIVIA and shared name, imo. While I have seen attempts to use Wikipedia to promote the barefoot "movement" (and dare I say, fetishism) in the past, the category creator is making a good faith attempt to establish a category. However, I believe this category is a largely grouping of things not truly defined by "barefootedness." "Barefoot doctors" and "barefoot and pregnant" are terms that happen to have barefoot in the name but are not really about being barefoot, in essence. "Natural hoove care" speaks for itself, I think, as horses do not have "feet" in our sense of the word. And Nike Free and VivoBarefoot are merely shoe brands that attempt to provide a more natural feel when worn. If we remove the more questionable entries we are left with a rather small category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you Shawn for a detailed explanation in the nomination, and for assuming good faith. As category creator, here is my reasoning: “barefootedness” is a well-defined concept and category, complementary to “shoes”, and properly as much a part of “footware” as “atheism” is part of “religion”.

It’s primarily an attempt to categorize existing articles on aspects of human barefootedness (e.g., barefootedness generally, the social movement, parks, running, skiing), together with cultural associations (barefoot and naked, barefoot doctors), shoes designed to emulate barefootedness, and barefootedness in other creatures (notably horses). It’s not a huge category, but nor is it terribly small.

In fact, it’s probably better to categorize as part of “footware” and not in “social movements”, since only some of the articles are about barefootedness as a social movement (and the movement itself may be a small category; one could imagine “Laws regarding barefootedness” etc. though, so it’s not without growth potential).

Regarding the shoes, as VivoBarefoot suggests by the very name, the design of this shoe (and ones with similar intentions – Masai Barefoot Technology, Nike Free, etc.) is to emulate barefootedness – they are specifically associated with barefootedness, as the referenced articles indicate and the name often suggests.

Regarding natural hoof care, horse do in fact have feet, and are habitually shod. This is a distinct concept from human barefootedness, but “Animal barefootedness” does seem a small category, so I though it best to include in a broad “barefootedness” category – while I think this is a valid and useful category, subcategories would likely be too small.

Without a category, the pages would still be ultimately discoverable (via links from Barefoot, ultimately), but would be less well organized and connected, which is precisely the purpose of categories.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that there's a substantial enough connection between all of these articles to justify a category. The examples already cited prove the point well. Barefoot doctor, barefoot and pregnant, natural hoof care? Mmm.... no. To some extent it's overcategorization by shared word; in another sense it's overcategorization by anthropomorphizing animals. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 3 May 2010 (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:Heathcliff[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:Heathcliff (comic strip). — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overly small category with no chance of expansion. Categorizes only one comic strip and three derivative works of the same. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would say that there is a fairly reasonable chance of expansion, considering it is an old, popular, and long lasting comic strip, with several adaptations to different media, and various collectibles that might generate articles. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Category: Heathcliff (comic strip) as those not conversant with the funny pages are going to think Wuthering Heights instead of "cartoon cat". Mangoe (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remame per above. - The Bushranger (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2010 (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:Printing issues[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Issues is a strange grouping, this category is an unnecessary subcategory of Category:Printing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 28 April 2010 (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:Cities, towns and villages in Abkhazia[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 and delete as nominated. — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities, towns and villages in Abkhazia to Category:Populated places in Abkhazia

Propose deleting Category:Settlements in Abkhazia

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per linked discussion. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "Communities" to "Populated places", which sounds rather awkward. But there seems to be a good bit of consensus (a quite rare beastie!) for "Populated places", so I won't rock the boat. Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, in coordination with the others. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:16, 6 May 2010 (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:Settlements in the Arctic[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:Populated places in the Arctic. — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Settlements in the Arctic to ~~Category:Populated arctic places~~Category:Populated Arctic places

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. This is the intended format for this category and its subcats (i.e Category:Populated Arctic places of Finland); subcats will be nominated for rename with the other categories for their countries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "Arctic". Always capitalised. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 13:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Populated places in the Arctic. I think this reads better and is more in line with the higher level categories of populated places. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Populated places in the Arctic to follow the naming conventions of all other pop. place categories. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 20:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Populated places in the Arctic to follow the naming conventions of the other categories.^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 04:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Populated places in the Arctic. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2010 (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:Settlements by year of disestablishment[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Settlements by year of disestablishment to Category:Populated places by year of disestablishment

Reason: Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. Note that I have tagged the parent category and the decade categories, but not the individual years. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per linked discussions. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 20:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As long as we keep it consistent. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:16, 6 May 2010 (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:Juno Awards[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Juno Awards to Category:Juno Award

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is Juno Award: not plural. However the main category above is plural? As of 28 April 2010, the sub category is Category:Juno Award winners. No "s" on Juno. Inconsistent naming between the parent and child categories. I am looking to bring naming consistency to items under it's parent Category:Canadian music awards. Argolin (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – we have Brit Awards, Category:BRIT Awards and I think the article should be Juno Awards (it begins 'The Juno Awards' and the logo is 'Awards', the website is http://junoawards.ca/). Occuli (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Category:Academy Awards which has been discussed at cfd many times and its article is Academy Award. Occuli (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have listed the items separately under the Category:Canadian music awards:

Argolin (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these fall into 3 groups. The Calixa-Lavallée Award is an award made (usually) to one person per year. The Jules Léger Prize for New Chamber Music is awarded to one person per year; the Polaris Music Prize is given to 1 album per year. In contrast the Juno Awards are presented each year to many people in different categories, and there are many articles such as the Juno Awards of 2001. Category:MuchMusic Video Awards makes many awards each year: cf 2004 MuchMusic Video Awards. Category:East Coast Music Awards only contains East Coast Music Association which has no sources and should probably be deleted along with the category. Occuli (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm generally in agreement with Occuli on this. It seems that if an award is just presented to one person per year, the corresponding category should be singular. If it's an award for which there are many "types" and multiple recipients in a year, like the Junos or the Academy Awards, the category should be pluralized. However, I note that we have Category:Nobel Prize and not Category:Nobel Prizes, which does not seem to follow this pattern. But I think we should. I guess you could say I oppose this change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as original nominator, I wish to withdraw it. Can an an administrator please close this discussion? Thank you. Argolin (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian American physicists[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 Category:American physicists and Category:American people of Indian descent. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian American physicists to Category:American scientists of Indian descent

Nominator's rationale: too narrow a focus for this kind of category Mayumashu (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to the existing Category:American physicists and Category:American people of Indian descent. Occuli (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as Occuli. It can be re-created if there is a reasonable prospect of populating it properly (which i doubt). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2010 (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:Juno Award winners[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Juno Award winners to Category:Juno Award recipients

Nominator's rationale: Rename. ~~Trying to bring the Canadian music awards into line with other awards. Examples:~~

List of Grammy Hall of Fame Award recipients

Category:Grammy Hall of Fame Award recipients

List of Australian Local Hero Award recipients

List of Young Australian of the Year Award recipients

List of Nuclear-Free Future Award recipients.

~~The music groups / musicians did not win a lotto prize. They are in receipt of an award. I am trying to bring consistency to items under Category:Canadian music awards.~~ Argolin (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – there is Category:Music award winners with a host of 'winners' subcats... I must say that 'award winner' seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable phrase and more common than 'award recipient' (as generally there is some sort of competition, with a winner). Occuli (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's another the thing: competition. It's not a bicycle race. Recipients:[1] One who receives, such as one who receives money or goods. Argolin (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'And the recipient is ...' is not the usual phrase. There are plenty of competitions not involving bicycles. (You have tagged it as a speedy which it isn't.) Occuli (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard 'This year's recipient for this or that is...'. And competition: it is an award not a race (bike, boat, swim or otherwise). Thanks for your input. Argolin (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I honestly don't see what the problem with using either "winner" or "recipient" would be. You can certainly "win" something that is not a lotto or a race. The Junos are essentially a competition, in which people vote on who is most deserving. I'm leaning towards opposing this unless it can be demonstrated that "recipients" is universally used in awards categories on WP. But I'm not seeing that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to bring a little more consistency in my world under Category:Canadian music awards. Argolin (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the categories in that tree currently all use "winners". Aren't they already consistent? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as original nominator, I wish to withdraw it. Can an an administrator please close this discussion? Thank you. Argolin (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2010 (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:Overseas Chinese groups[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Overseas Chinese groups to Category:Chinese diaspora

Nominator's rationale: mean the same thing and the standard WP category naming pattern is 'Fooian diaspora' - see subcats listed at Category:Diasporas Mayumashu (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Right or wrong, I believe this is standard and fairly universal now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:33, 6 May 2010 (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:Mortgage-backed security[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. — ξ ^xplicit 19:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is ill populated and those are better covered by other categories. Furthermore it does not fit under "securities" or "fixed income securities." It is ill defined also. Greg Bard 21:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and populate I'm not sure why a type of "security" wouldn't fit under "securities". I would observe that of the three types listed in Mortgage-backed security having articles, none of them is in the category, for whatever reason. There is some sort of a categorization issue that needs to be resolved here. Mangoe (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mangoe. Since this was a major element in the Credit Crunch, we ought to be able to have a category on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2010 (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:Video board games[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video board games to Category:Board game video games

Nominator's rationale: More clear title. I'm neutral. Suggested on WT:VG NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category name is poor, but suggestion isn't much of an improvement, keep until a better name is offered. Szzuk (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current name seems to be the least of the possible evils for this one. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2010 (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:Cuban-American architects[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 Category:American people of Cuban descent and Category:American architects. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cuban-American architects to Category:American people of Cuban descent, Category:American architects of Latin American descent, and possibly Category:Architects of Cuban descent

Nominator's rationale: too narrow a focus for a cat of this nature (and with only one link populating it). Mayumashu (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to the existing Category:American people of Cuban descent, Category:American architects. Occuli (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as Occuli. Too narrow a triple intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2010 (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:Soils by country[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. 07:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Soils by country to Category:Soil by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename so that it can be populated with a wider range of articles, ie. soil and soil related articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – there is no Category:Soils, its parent is Category:Soil, and its only subcat is 'Soil in the USA'. Occuli (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per both. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2010 (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:Anglican Church of New Zealand[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/2010 May 18#Category:Anglican Church of New Zealand. — ξ ^xplicit 19:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anglican Church of New Zealand to Category:Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The official name of this church is Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. Suggest renaming the category to match the main article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, there are other Anglican denominations in NZ that are not in communion with the ACANZP (and therefore Canterbury). While they don't yet have NZ-specific articles, we still need to allow for their inclusion in an appropriate category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be called category:Anglicanism in New Zealand (perhaps under category:Anglicanism by country) and the "Church in A, NZ, & P" would be a sub-cat, (which should also go under category:Anglican denominations. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nom). Given the circumstances, I think renaming to Category:Anglicanism in New Zealand would be a good idea. There is an argument that that in fact what was intended, since a subcategory is Category:New Zealand Anglicans, and not all New Zealand Anglicans are members of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. I think it's better at this stage to have the broader category rather than the more specific one that I proposed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (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:Films with two parts[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Pointless and excessively minute category that has no definition nor seeming real critieria and we already have Category:Film series and its subcats. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Movies that truly have two parts might well fit under Category:Film serials instead of/in addition to Category:Film series. As for this, however, it's hopelessly broad and ill-defined - for instance, it has already attracted a "Foo"/"Foo 2" pair as a "film with two parts". - The Bushranger (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Saint-Isidore, Prescott and Russell[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:People from Prescott and Russell, Ontario. — ξ ^xplicit 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Saint-Isidore, Prescott and Russell to Category:People from St. Isidore, Ontario

Nominator's rationale: Rename. When a place in Canada needs disambiguation, the normal way to do it is to include the province or territory the place is located in. This category uses the county. Note that this also brings the name into conformity with the article St. Isidore, Ontario. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In truth, we really don't need this at all under either name; St. Isidore is just a neighbourhood within a municipality, not a town in its own right, and even its parent municipality doesn't have (and couldn't really support) its own dedicated "People from Place" category — and we certainly shouldn't be creating such categories for individual neighbourhoods whose parent municipalities don't even have them yet. Further, I see that it was created by an editor whose entire edit history so far has been one chunk of deletion bait after another. Delete and upmerge entries back to Category:People from Prescott and Russell, Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine by me (nominator). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I d go with Bearcat's suggestion as well Mayumashu (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll third (fourth?) that. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On pretty much the same grounds as my earlier comment, can we kill its sister Category:People from Embrun, Ontario at the same time, please? Bearcat (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also fine with me, although the closer may require a new nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:33, 5 May 2010 (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.