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.
Agree with Visionholder here, as discussed at WT:PRIMATE. However, we might want to think about dropping all those silly subcategories of Category:Deaths due to animal attacks entirely. None have a lot of pages in them, so this smacks of overcategorization. Ucucha 02:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's overkill. But in our discussion, I'm not going outside of the scope of our project. (WikiProject Death has already marked the replacement category, so people in other projects could potentially use these.) If the category exists, I'll maintain it after renaming it appropriately. If we can get rid of these categories all together, I'd be very happy. – VisionHolder (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "non-human primates" as "monkeys" is simpler. Support merging all sub-categories into "Deaths due to animal attacks". DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that would be non-human animal attacks, no? You forget apes in your keep rationale. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If either category has to be kept (which I'd prefer neither), I'd rather keep the category broad so if people start creating articles where someone was killed by an ape, loris (they're toxic), lemur (sepsis from a bite, for instance), etc., then new categories would not be needed. As you pointed out, there are very few articles that even belong in this category so far, so if someone noteworthy is killed by a chimpanzee, I'd hate to see a new category pop up when it could just go into Category:Deaths due to non-human primate attacks. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think that any category with just one or two items in it should be merged with another category: in this case the parent one. Renaming it to something that is unnecessarily more complicated doesn't address the key issue, which is that the category is absurdly small and not particularly useful. If there is a sudden massacre of humans by apes then the category will be large enough to resurrect, but there is no point in creating categories for events which might never occur. DrKiernan (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Monkeys is a simpler term, more familiar to wikipedia's non-specialist readership. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could take credit for the term "non-human primate," but that's the term used in the literature for any... well... non-human primate. I couldn't use "Deaths due to primate attacks" because then all murders would be included. Again, the point was to create a topic that would discourage the creation of similar topics, like "Deaths due to gorilla attacks", "Deaths due to loris bites", "Deaths due to chimpanzee attacks", etc., etc., etc. I was just trying to keep things consolidated with respects to WP:OC. I'm sorry no one likes it. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:45, 29 January 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overhauling categorization scheme for primates, see WT:PRIMATE#Scheme. This category does not reflect a true taxon and as such is just a useless extra step between Category:Primates and the categories for New and Old World monkeys. Ucucha 23:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a monkeys category, the New World and Old World monkey categories will suffice. I do however think that some similar categories, such as Category:Ducks should remain. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment at the very least it needs to be a dab category 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The categories you mentioned are slated to be renamed so that "non-human primates" replaces "monkeys" in both cases. Please check the 2 proposed schemes linked above. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Wikipedia is written for a general audience, rather than a specialist one, and when that general audience looks for a category on this sort of primate, it will expect it to be called "monkeys", just like the head article monkey. Whether or not the term reflects a taxon is irrelevant: plenty of readers will not concern themselves with taxons (and probably think a taxon is a means for the govt to take more money from them). By all means, let's have taxonomic labels too, but please do not make an obstacle course for readers by removing Category:Monkeys. If anyone is worried about the extra step between Category:Primates and Category:New World monkeys/Category:Old World monkeys, just put articles in both. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't strongly object to leaving Category:Monkeys with Category:New World monkeys and Category:Old World monkeys contained within. In fact, with the scheme I've been working on for Category:Primates I have taken great pains to give priority to common names over taxonomic names, so I know where you're coming from. We were just trying to be consistent with our project stance that the group is paraphyletic. Keeping the category for non-technical readers only adds one level to the category tree. P.S. - my apologizes for my out-of-process handling of this has been posted here. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-populate category. This category appears to have been depopulated out-of-process immediately before his CFD was opened. I am in the process of repopulating it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just a biology cat. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but primarily as a parent only category. Most articles should appear only in subcategories, but we have a number that do not refer to any particular taxon. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 31 January 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:United States political party election color templates[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.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. There is no purpose or distinction between this and its meta-category. Over-categorization, perhaps? —Markles 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom unless someone can provide some persuasive rationale for a distinction between the two categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 26 January 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.
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.
Delete there is no meaningful common characteristic here for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Anything related to Charles Fort should be removed and place in the appropriate category relating to him. However there would seem to be a few articles that need to be placed elsewhere, assuming they are not WP:HOAXES. Is there a merge target for the rest? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that any of the remaining articles really belong in the same category. What do cattle mutilation and spirit photography have in common? Really? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:08, 1 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with the main article and the parent category. –Black Falcon(talk) 20:59, 1 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:Musical artist logos licensed under Creative Commons[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. Can be a delete as empty under speedy criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Empty category. Seems like any appropriate images should be on Commons and the category should be there too. Prezbo (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can be created again if content emerges. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:33, 26 January 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.
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) 00:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CAT/GRS, "categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic". To my knowledge, there is no particular relation between the male gender and canoeing (if anything, I would assume that it is a male-dominated sport). A category for female canoeists may be warranted, but its existence would not necessitate the existence of a category for males.
Delete per WP:CAT/GRS and sheer redundancy to the various Olympic canoeists categories. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there is a perfectly logical rationale behind this, as there is Category:Sportsmen, subcat of Category:Men (parallel to Category:Sportswomen, subcat of Category:Women), many of which are the creations of the tireless Mayumashu. Category:Sportsmen does lead inexorably to Category:Male canoeists amongst many others. But it seems an enormous task to do this for every sport ... and then there are the centuries, which will be needed to accomplish all this ... Occuli (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of Category:Sportsmen does not necessitate the creation of a subcategory for every sport. The primary focus of the guideline (at least the "Gender" portion) is that gender-specific categories should be created only in cases "where gender has a specific relation to the topic", so Category:Sportsmen can continue to exist as a container category for appropriate subcategories without it or Category:Men be converted into a fully-extended category scheme. –Black Falcon(talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- assuming we are dealing with sportmen, rather than mere users of canoes, we need spearate categories because male and female canoeists do not (I think) compete against each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as part of a larger move to divide occupations by sex (and only those occupations) where the sexes compete separately. Mayumashu (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That idea may have merit. Has there been any discussion, perhaps involving the Sports and games work group of WikiProject Biography, about a change of this scale? –Black Falcon(talk) 20:52, 1 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.
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 per discussion and other closed discussions in this area. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While Category:People by occupation and century has become an established category scheme, its existence by no means requires us to create an intersection for every occupation and century. I believe that the intersection of this particular occupation with these particular centuries ought to be deleted for the following reasons:
The intersections do not appear to reflect a distinct and significant subject of academic or popular interest. While categories (and topics) such as Category:5th-century historians (5th-century history), Category:8th-century philosophers (8th-century philosophy), and Category:19th-century painters (19th-century art) meet that criterion, canoeing does not appear to meet it. There appears to be academic interest in the topic of canoeing in certain cultures (e.g., The canoe in Canadian cultures) and in the topic of sports in certain centuries (e.g., Sports and games of the 18th and 19th centuries), but no equivalent interest in the topics of 20th-century and 21st-century canoeing.
The parent category, Category:Canoeists, is already subdivided into Olympic and non-Olympic canoeists and by nationality. The articles in "Canoeists by century" category tree are, on average, in 4.2 other categories, not counting stub categories, that identify their subjects as canoeists. Creating and properly populating by-century categories would result in two or three very large categories, leaning heavily toward recent times, and sparsely- or barely-populated categories for other centuries. Although the practice of canoeing has been around for millennia, canoeing as a professional sport is a relatively recent development. Subdividing the large categories would result in numerous trivial triple- or quadruple-intersection subcategories (e.g., Category:21st-century Canadian male canoeists). Overall, a proliferation of by-century categories seems to hinder navigation more than it helps when it comes to topics that relate primarily to recent times. (This argument—not the wording, but the idea—is stolen from User:BrownHairedGirl. I'm shameless, but at least I'm honest (some of the time).)
Delete per nom. "Canoeists by century"? Seriously, people, this by-century categorization is getting a tad out of hand. By-century categorization only really makes much sense if it contains subcategories by year, which people cannot be divided into in most cases. Otherwise it's just a needless overcategorization. Does/would anyone even examine sportspeople by century in this way? "I'm not interested in canoeists from 1999 or 2000—just the ones from 2001 and 2002...". What? Yes, someone could always argue it's useful (somehow), but I just don't think these sportspeople by century categories are a good idea, and won't be until around the 25th century or so. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philosophy is a subject that lends itself to division by era; indeed universities teach it by era and region. Canoeing... not so much. The best known ones are well-served by the Category:Olympic canoeists by year, which does much of what Good Olfactory was talking about. The ones who didn't ever make an Olympics are lost by deleting this, but there don't seem to be many of those here. (Of the five articles in this tree, all of them were in at least one of the Olympic canoeist by Olympics cats as well.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - yes, it makes sense to talk of '19th-century explorers' but not yet of 20th-century footballers. If there were notable 16th-century canoeists, commonly described as such, then let there be a category. (I would have no objection to Category:Female canoeists as surely there must be quite a few.) Occuli (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. As discussed at several recent related CFDs, categorising sportspeople by century serves no useful navigational purpose and causes category clutter on articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 26 January 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: A more descriptive title and will not make it sound like an article namespace category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Yeah. There is some redundancy. Yp. Needs sorting out. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:44, 26 January 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.
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) 00:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. No apparent distinction. Goustien (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' and resort/recat as appropriate. "Eastern" could mean Middle-Eastern, in which case, several portions of Europe and Africa are also within its auspices... as well there's Oceania, which has Melanesian/micronesian/polynesian cultures which are derived from Asia, and are "Eastern". 76.66.200.154 (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Eastern" is too vague. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 28 January 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support All the articles in the Category:Turkish mythology use the term Turkic. If they're not identical, they're close enough that having both is confusing. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Erlik defeated the supernatural. This proves that editing a Wiki is stronger than any supernatural category-populator.
The supernatural category-populator, I now find, is called {{Infobox Turkish deity}}, and was rendered dysfunctional by this edit. I don't think we want infobox templates to include such categories at all; it now has two others. Ucucha 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. But disagree with Ucucha about the template: templates may bestow relevant categories. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- In my view, "Turkish" should refer to the present country of Turkey, most of whose inhabitants have been Muslim or Christian for many centuries and will hence have no pagan mythology. "Turkic" refers to a wider ethnic/linguistic groupsing of peoples. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 31 January 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.
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 per nom. Yes, I commented in the discussion, but not about this proposal. As I read the discussion, there is support for this merger and also for a cleanup of categories in this area. So approving this merge clears the table for a possible larger discussion. I'll note that there are some issues with the first one, but that can be cleared up by a separate rename discussion if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The new category names reflect updated names for the races. The old categories should probably have been moved to the new names. DH85868993 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. Yeah, this should have been done here. (Though these races seem to change names so often, I wonder if we could find a more permanent name for these. Something like "Fall Phoenix Nascar Race". Nah. That'd be useless.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think not!!! I am double checking all of mmy work and all of these how they are now are correct.Ask and NASCAR personell and see if I was doing write.I am just saying the race name changed and changed again so I had to movew it back to Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips at the Glen at first they were saying that it was the Watkins Glen 220,but they at that time did not know what the name for the race would be so in m opinion Category:Watkins Glen 220 should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rethink – this is an encyclopedia, not an advertising hoarding, and names should reflect this. Most of the above suggestions are incomprehensible outside a very small circle. Something like "Fall Phoenix Nascar Race" would be a vast improvement, as at least it suggests that this is race of some sort, and I have heard of Nascar. (Barclays Premier League redirects to Premier League, as it should.) Occuli (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support a rethink. Either delete all the categories as blatant advertising, or rename them to some neutral term, or merge them to a neutrally-named common category, because these categories are all quite small.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)(NASCAR1996)-These are names for the races held it the highest division of NASCAR the race names have a chance to change every year its upv to the sponsors of the racetrack.And most of them are new and some pages do not exist!!!!!!!!-(nascar1996)[reply]
Comment. One point that I have made in the past is that renaming categories like these is a bad idea. The category name might match the name of the article, but not all of the contents are about the race under the current name. The also happens for tennis tournaments and golf and who knows what else. I think that we need to have a discussion about leaving the races and tournaments under the name that existed when the competition occurred, or under the generic name for the event and not the marketing name. By making changes like this we are effectively rewriting history! That is not what an encyclopedia should be doing. I'll also add that if the proposed speedy rename guideline was in place, this would not even be here for discussion! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; we can always rethink, but there's no reason to retain the current category names which are incorrect as well as boosterish. I'd expect names evoke a visceral WP:IHATEIT response, but the analogy to the Premier League, or tennis tournaments, or conversely Chrysler Building (shouldn't that be 405 Lexington Avenue, New York?), is inapt. Many of these events and competitions have never been known by any generic/unsponsored name, or such a name is so disused as to be forgotten, or the obvious "generic" name is actually incorrect and misleading (e.g. the Nationwide Series was formerly known as the Busch Grand National Series, but the Grand National Series (sans Busch) is a completely different competition now known as the Sprint Cup Series and colloquially as the "Sprint Cup"). Please read the articles when discussing categories. One glance at Toyota/Save Mart 350 or Subway Fresh Fit 600 or Lenox Industrial Tools 301 demonstrates that for many of these events, the ghastly official name is actually the simplest, least ambiguous, and most neutral name to use— not in every case, but often enough. As an encyclopedia, WP reflects the real world, and sometimes the reflection will thus be tacky. It's not WP's job to make real life seem more tasteful than it is by allowing Pocono 500 but denying UAW-GM Teamwork 500.- choster (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible "rethink" framework. I'd suggest that we rename all of these by racetrack, rebuilding the categories in the style of Category:NASCAR races at Watkins Glen International, Category:NASCAR races at Richmond International Raceway, and so on. None of these categories are so big that the two annual events in Phoenix couldn't be in the same category, and still be meaningfully segregated from those in Detroit. Racetrack names are essentially stable, and there's only a couple dozen of them. Does anyone like that idea?--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really good idea: it will create stable and comprehensible categories. I'll support that unless someone has a better idea. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I agree with choster that "the ghastly official name is actually the simplest, least ambiguous, and most neutral name to use", even if it means we sometimes have to rename categories every few years. DH85868993 (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't agree that using the latest name is the most neutral, because if we do that we tag an event named after the current sponsor with a category named after a previous sponsor. Placing the "Coca Cola 500" in a "Category:Pepsi 501" doesn't seem right. (OK, I made up those examples, but I hope the point is clear) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. One point to note is that the lead articles are currently also renamed whenever the race changes name, so you wouldn't have (lead article) "Coca Cola 500" in "Category:Pepsi 501", but you might have (individual race reports) "2007 Coca Cola 500", "2008 Coca Cola 500" and "2009 Coca Cola 500" in "Category:Pepsi 501" together with (renamed lead article) "Pepsi 501" and "2010 Pepsi 501". DH85868993 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These races are a complete mess and ghastly is the right word. I don't know how anyone can keep up with the name changes. I know I can't -- I'm a fan and arguably the senior member of WikiProject NASCAR. On one hand, having the current name as the category makes sense for neutrality reasons - but I agree that it's blatant corporate sponsorship at its finest. I hate how we'd have to rename these categories for whatever sponsor shells out the money each year. So I think we should lump all of the articles at the track level and stop this corporate madness. Then the (up to) two events at a track stay together, so it doesn't get overwhelming. Royalbroil 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose this and I'll support it. We need to do something and suggestions from the involved project should help drive consensus. I think a trial rename proposal for one or two tracks to see if there is consensus would be the way to approach the larger rename question. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I'll support this as well. This makes the number of succategories in these two categories drop from 58 to 31, which is nice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me too, but again, reorganizing the category structure is a parallel process to updating these category names.- choster (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't want to take over this nomination, especially since the nominator disagrees with my suggestion. It seems like there's no objection to a merge, but enough impetus behind a more global rename that either way this is closed, there will be a quick renomination of the whole scheme.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to proceed with the merge (to fix the problem that currently most articles in the nominated categories are included in both the "old" and "new" categories), and then devise/propose a new categorisation scheme. DH85868993 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If these changes are made, each category page will need to list the previous race names. In alumni categories we treat alumni of institutions that merge or change name as alumni of successors. I do not see why the like ahould not be done in other fields, but clarity is needed, or readers will be confused. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the editor who created the new categories has apparently had a change of heart about the "Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips at The Glen" --> "Watkins Glen 220" change, and emptied Category:Watkins Glen 220. So my recommendation is now to just deleteCategory:Watkins Glen 220 but merge the other four [and then devise/propose/discuss a revised categorisation scheme]. DH85868993 (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the out-of-process emptying of Category:Watkins Glen 220, it's still a better name for the category than "Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips at The GleA future discussion may come up with an even better name, but that's no reason not to make the proposed changes now. --22:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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.
