Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 5

< February 4	February 6 >

February 5[edit]

Category:Converts to Sikhism from Islam[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 both parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Converts to Sikhism from Islam to Category:Converts to Sikhism

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. List of converts to Sikhism is short as well, so there appears to be little room for growth. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as nom and also to Category:Converts from Islam. These are unlikely to be large categories. Nevertheless, I hope this is not putting the people listed in harm's way, since Sharia law permits apostates to be murdered without sanction and indeed commends it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note well, there is a Category:Former Muslims but no Category:Converts from Islam. ^{Carlaude:Talk}

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:Family members of the Sikh Gurus[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. — ξ ^xplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Family members of the Sikh Gurus to Category:Family members of the Sikh gurus

Nominator's rationale: Per main category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Category:Sikh gurus and Sikh gurus. I propose renaming Template:Family tree of the Sikh Gurus along with this category. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 6 February 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:Lithuanian Aviation constructors[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lithuanian Aviation constructors to Category:Lithuanian aerospace engineers

Nominator's rationale: Renameper convention of Category:Aerospace engineers. I can't find any other "Aviation constructor" categories, and Category:Aerospace engineers seems to be the best fit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per parent category, aerospace engineering and list of aerospace engineers. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 13 February 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:Heroes' Days[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 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective category. Trivialist (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous non-consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_24#Category:Heroes.27_Days. Probably needs a rationale to reopen now? AllyD (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Having just read the previous discussion, I can find no enthusiasm there for keeping the category in its current form; in fact, there appears to have no editor advocating a straightforward "keep". That seems to me to be evidence of a consensus that the category is problematic, and while I'd prefer a longer delay after a "keep" closure, three months seems to me to be a reasonable time to revisit a category which all agree is flawed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've struggled with this one a number of times. I've suggested renames in the past, but it's been pointed out that the suggestions would create category names that are relatively overbroad and meaningless (e.g., "Observances that honor individual people"). I agree, and think that the best solution is to delete this category and put it out of its oft-nominated misery. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking through various entries in the category, I think they're reasonably supported through national observance categories and don't think the non-existence of this problematic category would be a great loss. AllyD (talk) 21:13, 8 February 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.

Cyclists by century[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 Category:Cyclists by century; merge Category:20th-century cyclists and Category:21st-century cyclists to Category:Cyclists. — ξ ^xplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

Category:Cyclists by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging

Nominator's rationale: Another set of ill-conceived sportspeople-by-century categories. The bicycle dates only from the late 19th-century, so the era of notable cyclists has lasted for less than 120 years. It makes no sense to divide a 120-year period into blocs of 100 years, and since there seems to be no logic in dividing cyclists by decade, these categories have no use as containers for shorter periods. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Along with most per century and per decade categories that should be deleted or - as in this case - merged. We should add something about this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Debresser (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. By-century is of little use in a discipline of such a short existence. I don't think it's a navigational help. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 9 February 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.

Racehorse owners and breeders by century[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 Category:Racehorse owners and breeders by century; merge Category:20th-century racehorse owners and breeders and Category:21st-century racehorse owners and breeders to Category:Racehorse owners and breeders. — ξ ^xplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Category:Racehorse owners and breeders by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging:

Nominator's rationale: Neutral for now. This is a test nomination, to test one point of what I think is a consensus emerging in the CFD discussions on people-by-century categories: that by-century categorisation of people is appropriate only when the biographical articles concerned are spread over many centuries, but not when the group is only 150 years old, as applies with many sports.
This isn't quite the perfect test case I hoped it would be, because because it includes only two by-century categories ... but since organised horse-racing dates back at least five centuries (see e.g. Horseracing in Great Britain#History), it seems to me that there should be related biographical articles from five centuries, and that by-century categories may be an appropriate way of organising them.
However, as with other sport-related categories, wikipedia's recentist bias means that most of the biographical articles relate to the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and by-century categorisation of a group dominated by the last 50 years imposes an arbitrary break in listings, as well as causing category clutter by adding two extra categories to the many people whose careers span the two centuries. In some previous discussions, Johnbod suggested that by-century categorisation of people should be applied only up to the 19th-century; adopting that principle in this case would mean merging the two sub-cats, but keeping the parent Category:Racehorse owners and breeders by century for 19th-century and earlier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Merge Along with most per century and per decade categories that should be deleted or - as in this case - merged. We should add something about this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Debresser (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, who summarizes the issue well. These are akin to the sportspeople-by-century categories that have recently been deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 9 February 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.

Speed skaters by century[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 Category:Speed skaters by century; merge Category:19th-century speed skaters and Category:20th-century speed skaters to Category:Speed skaters; merge Category:20th-century male speed skaters and Category:20th-century female speed skaters to Category:Speed skaters. — ξ ^xplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Category:Speed skaters by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging:

Nominator's rationale: Another set of ill-conceived sportspeople-by-century categories. Although speed-skating goes back many centuries, it only became an organised sport in the mid-to-late 19th-century, and since it's organised sport which throws up notable sportspeople (through record-keeping, race-reporting and all the other forms of written coverage which establish notability), the era of notable speed-skaters has lasted for about 150 years (or less, depending on what events we regard as landmarks). It makes no sense to divide a 150-year period into blocs of 100 years, and since there seems to be no logic in dividing speed-skaters by decade, these categories have no use as containers for shorter periods. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with most per century and per decade categories. We should add something about this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Debresser (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have just added the by-gender sub-cats of Category:20th-century speed skaters to the nomination, having missed them earlier. I currently have no view either way on whether by-gender categories are appropriate for speed skaters but there is no Category:Female speed skaters or Category:Male speed skaters and it seems wrong to use this CfD to create them, so the proposed upmerger loses the by-gender categorisation.
In any case, these five categories contain exactly two articles, so deleting the by-gender categorisation creates no barrier to new gendered categories of speed skaters if there is a consensus to establish them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although I have no opinion on whether there should be gender categories. WFCforLife (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor, but we should have gender categories, as men and women do not compete together. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- As Peterkingiron said, men and women do not compete together, so they should have separate categories. Maurreen (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete as nominated. I don't believe any of these sportspeople-by-century categories are well-conceived, at least none that I have seen so far. I agree that this discussion doesn't have to have any bearing on whether they are divided by gender in a non-by-century way in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 9 February 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.

Radio personalities by century[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 Category:Radio personalities by century; merge Category:20th-century radio personalities and Category:21st-century radio personalities to Category:Radio personalities. — ξ ^xplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Category:Radio personalities by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging:

Nominator's rationale: Broadcast radio only began at the end of 1919, so it's only 90s years old. It makes no sense to divide a 90-year-old topic into blocks of 100 years, except as containers for blocs of shorter period. However, categorising this occupation by decade makes no sense, bewcause radio careers do not fit neatly into decades, and applying by-decade categorisation would cause horrible category-clutter, not just on a few standout cases such as Alistair Cooke, but on hundreds of others such as Terry Wogan, Jimmy Young, Tony Blackburn, John Peel, or Clonmel's legendary opera-addict Tommy O'Brien (who disgracefully has no wikipedia biography). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with most per century and per decade categories. We should add something about this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Debresser (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I would like to go on record as saying that John Peel was a standout radio personality. WFCforLife (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We do not do "current" and "former" categories and this is letting them in by the backdoor. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge as nominated. Now media people by century? This is not a phrase that is typically in common usage by me, but WTF? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 9 February 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:Purple Stereo Countdown 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: deleted by Good Olfactory (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — ξ ^xplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All articles previously in this category have been deleted through CSD or PROD. Purple Stereo Countdown is a non-notable indie record label, so this category is unlikely to be needed for viable articles in the foreseeable future. Some articles which formerly populated this category: Bucket Full of Fear, Comaphoria (album), The Fantastical Flute Fanatic, Ambient Works Vol. 1 and others. Wine Guy Talk 08:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as empty. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 5 February 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:Football (soccer) laws[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:Laws of association football. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football (soccer) laws to Category:Laws of association football

Nominator's rationale The laws are known as the "Laws of the game". Clearly we cannot have "the game", so I have instead put "association football" there. In the event that the CfD below fails, I would counter propose changing the category to Category:Laws of football (soccer). WFCforLife (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It should be "rule" not "law" ... since there are actual "laws" as defined as things that get you arrested by a police officer, concerning soccer. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your point, they are referred to as the Laws of the game, and therefore the category should probably follow the parent article. On the basis that nobody is going to see the category and think they are going to get arrested for disobeying its contents, there's no ambiguity. WFCforLife (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the category should match the article, but Laws of the game will not do for the article as it is obviously ambiguous. That is, the article should be moved first. There is Laws of rugby league so Laws of association football would seem reasonable. (I don't myself see anything wrong with using Law in this context. The referee is the equivalent of the police officer.) Occuli (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but the previous move discussion there ended as a keep, on the basis that they are both commonly and officially known as the "Laws of the Game". For the category, I think both Category:Laws of the Game and Category:Laws of the Game (association football) would be inappropriate, so I see little need to wait for any future move. WFCforLife (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am right: to say that 'Laws of the Game' refers exclusively to association football is highly POV. Possibly in some parts of the UK it does, but it might equally refer to the etiquette involved in kerb-crawling (see the game, in particular The Game). In that case I support the rename, on the grounds that category names should always be unambiguous. Occuli (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are other sports that call their regulations the 'Laws of the Game' - rugby league is one, as Occuli noted. The previous move discussion on Laws of the Game occurred before articles for those other sports had not been created. Rugby league now has one but here are a some others I've found that use that title:
Rugby union, see: http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/laws/index.html
Short mat bowls, see: http://www.booksonbowls.co.uk/esmbalaws.html
Eton Fives, see: http://www.etonfives.co.uk/about.fives/laws.html
Laws of Australian football, published as "Laws of Australian football", though this web page is titled 'Laws of the Game': http://www.afl.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=43770
Then there are a couple of other games but these are just derivatives regulated by FIFA:
Futsal, see: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/developing/futsal/lawsofthegame.html
Beach football, see: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/developing/beachsoccer/lawsofthegame.html LunarLander // talk // 15:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend copy-pasting that post to WP:Requested moves- it's a fair argument. But the fact that there are laws for Rugby League and other sports has no bearing whatsoever on this category name. WFCforLife (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it doesn't make any difference to the category name. Just adding to the info already stated. LunarLander // talk // 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Laws of association football. This is precise and unambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- regardless of whether the consensus is to rename or to keep the current form, please can the closing admin take the discussion below into account when closing. It would be inappropriate to leave "football (soccer)" in the name. WFCforLife (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this comment. LunarLander // talk // 21:10, 13 February 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:Association football[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 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming all subcategories to swap "football (soccer)" for "association football" as follows:

Proposed names

Category:Football (soccer) academies to Category:Association football academies

Category:Football (soccer) awards to Category:Association football awards

Category:Football (soccer) clubs to Category:Association football clubs

Category:Football (soccer) competitions to Category:Association football competitions

Category:Football (soccer) by continent to Category:Association football by continent

Category:Football (soccer) by country to Category:Association football by country

Category:Football (soccer) culture to Category:Association football culture

Category:Football (soccer) equipment to Category:Association football equipment

Category:History of football (soccer) to Category:History of association football

Category:Football (soccer) related lists to Category:Association football-related lists

Category:Football (soccer) logos to Category:Association football logos

Category:Football (soccer) matches to Category:Association football matches

Category:Football (soccer) media to Category:Association football media

Category:National football (soccer) teams to Category:National association football teams

Category:Football (soccer) organizations to Category:Association football organizations

Category:Football (soccer) people to Category:Association football people

Category:Football (soccer) rankings to Category:Association football rankings

Category:Football (soccer) records and statistics to Category:Association football records and statistics

Category:Football (soccer) seasons to Category:Association football seasons

Category:Football (soccer) tactics and skills to Category:Association football tactics and skills

Category:Football (soccer) terminology to Category:Association football terminology

Category:Football (soccer) trophies to Category:Association football trophies

Category:Football (soccer) variants to Category:Association football variants

Category:Football (soccer) venues to Category:Association football venues

Category:Women's football (soccer) to Category:Women's association football

Category:Football (soccer) by year to Category:Association football by year

Category:Youth football (soccer) to Category:Youth association football

Category:Football (soccer) stubs to Category:Association football stubs

Category:Football (soccer) templates to Category:Association football templates

Updated categories below this line WFCforLife (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football (soccer) goalkeepers to Category:Association football goalkeepers

Category:Football (soccer) defenders to Category:Association football defenders

Category:Football (soccer) forwards to Category:Association football forwards

Category:Football (soccer) midfielders to Category:Association football midfielders

Category:Football (soccer) position missing to Category:Association football position missing

Category:Football (soccer) utility players to Category:Association football utility players

Category:Football (soccer) fullbacks to Category:Association football fullbacks

Category:Football (soccer) sweepers to Category:Association football sweepers

Category:Football (soccer) wingers to Category:Association football wingers

Category:Football (soccer) central defenders to Category:Association football central defenders

Category:Football (soccer) positions to Category:Association football positions

Category:Football (soccer) position templates to Category:Association football position templates

Category:Football (soccer) players by position to Category:Association football players by position

Nominator's rationale to follow the convention set by the parent category, and the parent article. I have deliberately omitted the "laws" category, because I am going to suggest a new name entirely. I have also taken the trouble to write a succinct but useful description of the naming convention, which I applied at the same time as adding the CFD tag. WFCforLife (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the aforementioned header is as follows:

Association football is the official name of the sport governed by the International Federation of Association football (FIFA). It is known in some parts of the world as "soccer"; a derivative of the word "association". In others, it is known simply as "football". For more information on the sport, see association football. For information about all sports known as football, see football. For information about usage of the words "football" and "soccer" by country, see football (word). WFCforLife (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all as nominated, ~~except change Category:Football (soccer) related lists to Category:Association football-related lists (note the dash in "football-related"),~~ for consistency with the article Association football and Category:Association football. In many cases, renaming will cause additional standardization between category and article titles (e.g., Category:Women's football (soccer) → Category:Women's association football, per Women's association football). Kudos to WFCforLife for adding an informative description to each category. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the nom for Category:Association football-related lists as suggested. WFCforLife (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, comment struck. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as nominated, and indeed kudos to WFC. Occuli (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all including the updated ones. Occuli (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the nom with worldwide categories that I had missed. I will personally inform previous contributors to the discussion, to ensure that their opinions are not changed by these additions. WFCforLife (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to confirm that my opinion remains the same for the newly-included categories and, in fact, for any similar category that is not country, region, or competition-specific. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
REname all -- I hope we have an end to the long running saga over what to call soccer. I expect there will be some follow ups to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If by follow ups you mean further noms, that's possible. The work isn't done, but the convention appears to have finally been settled. For international use, such as the categories I've nominated, it's "association football". If specific to Europe and South America it's "football", provided the context is clear. In North America and Oceania it's plain "soccer", with the exception of Australia, where "Football (soccer)" quite accurately reflects the situation there. WFCforLife (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, but leave redirects for soccer at least. While I think the proposed scheme is the best solution, I worry some people will not understand what "association football" means, especially in the US. Leaving behind "Category:Soccer terminology" as a category redirect might help.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I did that when Category:Football (soccer) moved to Category:Association football, and if it can't be done automatically for these renames I'll be happy to do so again. WFCforLife (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, we might as well rename Category:Football (soccer) position missing to something intelligible, like Category:Association football players without position categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm sure this will prove uncontroversial and consensus can be reached for that change. WFCforLife (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per reasons already given. I've been in favor of this for a while. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:48, 9 February 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:Lists of college basketball announcers[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of college basketball announcers to Category:Lists of college basketball announcers in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found as an incomplete speedy doing December cleanup. Relisting. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. AFAICS, all the articles in this category relate to USAnia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 14 February 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:College basketball tournaments[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:College basketball tournaments to Category:College basketball tournaments in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found doing December cleanup as a speedy. Relisting. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The category includes a Japanese competition (All Japan Intercollegiate Basketball Championship), and there are already appropriate subcats for the American competitions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 14 February 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:North-South Expressway Networks[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:North–South Expressway Networks, Malaysia. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:North-South Expressway Networks to Category:North–South Expressway Networks

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found as an incomplete speedy from December. Relisting. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:North-South Expressway Networks, Malaysia. I don't like the use of endashes in category names, but with or without the endash this category name is deeply ambiguous. It refers to North–South Expressway, Malaysia, but there's no way for the reader to know that without opening up the category page: I assumed at first glance that it referred to expressways anywhere in the world running on a north-south axis. adding Malaysia clarifies the purpose of this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know why this should be Category:North-South Expressway Networks, Malaysia rather then Category:North-South Expressway, Malaysia or Category:North-South Expressway network, Malaysia? The main article is North-South Expressway, Malaysia. The article is a bit confusing, but it looks like the route is really a collection of roads. I'll add that the article hints that the preferred name for the whole effort might be 'North South Expressway Project' which is the source of PLUS used through the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename using en-dash; don't know the proper name otherwise. Use of the en-dash is a speedy criterion that was adopted after much debate. The easiest solution is to just have category redirects on the hyphenated versions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, including Malaysia. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 7 February 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:African American Muslims[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African American Muslims to Category:Muslims of African American descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found as an incomplete speedy doing December cleanup. Relisting. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – these are different things. The first is a subcat of Category:American Muslims (and Category:African Americans), the second is a subcat of Category:Muslims of American descent (which we don't have, reasonably enough). A correct rename would be Category:American Muslims of African descent (but why change from the universally used term?); or Category:African-American Muslims (as it is an adjective). BTW there is Category:African American Methodists. Occuli (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:African-American Muslims. Properly hyphenating the adjectival phrase resolves the ambiguity nicely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli. Debresser (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep 'African American' without a hyphen is the agreed on name pattern for all such categories in WP. See the parent Category:African Americans and its children and grandchildren. Hmains (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Without a hyphen when it's a noun. With a hyphen when it's an adjective. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Rename to Category:African-American Muslims to correct hyphenation for this defining category. Alansohn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 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:Members of the Socialist Party USA[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. — ξ ^xplicit 08:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Socialist Party USA to Category:Socialist Party USA politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found as incomplete doing December cleanup. May have been intended to be a part of this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This category had deliberately been excluded pending verification that all constituents could, in fact, be deemed "politicians," which is indeed the case, but for which the tedium of confirmation is difficult to exaggerate.- choster (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not every party member is a politician. They may be a member, but notable for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case they shouldn't be in the category! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Should only contain politicians. We don't categorize people by mere membership in a political party. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 8 February 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.