Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 13 July 15 >

July 14[edit]

Category:Communist parties in early Soviet Union[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Communist parties in early Soviet Union to Category:Communist parties in the Soviet Union
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since it includes Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union as a subcategory, there is no reason to restrict this to pre-CPSU parties in the early Soviet Union. It can just as easily be named to encompass all the communist parties that ever existed in the Soviet Union. If renamed, the category definition must be changed, but the contents can remain the same. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose exact proposal, support rename in general: it needs a better name. The Union emerged in December 1922. The contents (and, imo, intention) of the category focus on the earlier period (the Union very soon became a single-party state). It is not precisely about Soviet Russia, neither about the former Empire (Polish and Finnish factions are excluded, Lithuanian is included, FWIW) - rather, about the huge sea of confusion and lawlessness. East of Borschov 08:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Open to any other proposals. From what I've seen, most categories refer to the period starting in 1917 as "the Soviet Union", though of course that's not 100% accurate, as you indicate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). Unless someone has a better idea, I think the rename is still a good idea. As mentioned above, most categories use "in the Soviet Union" to refer to everything post-1917, rather than post-1922. Adding "early" to this adds nothing, and is especially perplexing if one does realise that the Soviet Union only officially emerged in 1922. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom I poked around into several of the artciles. New name seems harmless and maybe even helpful. Hmains (talk) 03:16, 16 July 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:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union[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. What Soman describes is workable, and can happen without CfD discussion. Then, if no contents remain, this can be deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union to Category:Communist parties in post-Soviet states
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Right now this category is ambiguous—it's unclear if it means communist parties that existed in the Soviet Union, it being a "former" country; or if it means communist parties that have existed in the territory that was formerly the Soviet Union since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In reality it is categorizing the latter. I suggest renaming this to match its parent category Category:Post-Soviet states, which should clarify the meaning somewhat. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Category:post-Soviet states does not contain any states (countries) except for Category:Post-Soviet Russia. For quite obvious reasons, wikipedians don't want their countries categorized as post-soviet, and no one cares to wrestle this consensus. Category:post-Soviet states should be re-evaluated first. East of Borschov 08:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a bit of a difficult category, since it includes both pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet parties in the lands that once was the USSR. I created it since it was very difficult to differentiate between Europe and Asia categories otherwise. But perhaps it best option would be to delete the category, and move material either to Europe or Asia, and have a sub-cat Category:Communist Parties in the Russian Federation and Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union included in both Europe and Asia categories. --Soman (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I didn't realise there was pre-Soviet parties in there too. In light of that, I agree that this is a bit more difficult. Too bad there's no handy collective term that can refer to the territory that was once the Soviet Union? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Actually, the problem goes upward to the parent cats Category:Post-Soviet states and Category:Soviet states, which have no definition, no main article, an odd mix in their articles and subcats, etc. Maybe if these cats are figured out first, then this category under discussion will find a good name and home. Hmains (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I was proposing to match this category with the parent category, and that is essentially seen as not an ideal solution because there are issues with the parent categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 20 July 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:Towson University sports[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. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Towson University sports to Category:Towson Tigers
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming practice for athletic categories of college programs. Geologik (talk) 23:34, 14 July 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.

MEPs subcategories[edit]

Lists of MEPs[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. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of Members of the European Parliament from the Republic of Ireland to Category:Lists of Members of the European Parliament for the Republic of Ireland
Propose renaming Category:Lists of Members of the European Parliament from Poland to Category:Lists of Members of the European Parliament for Poland
Propose renaming Category:Lists of Members of the European Parliament for United Kingdom constituencies to Category:Lists of Members of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "For" was selected over "from" in this discussion. The format of the British one is being adjusted to match the selected by-country format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 14 July 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.
MEPs for Germany[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 merge as nominated. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MEPs representing the German constituency serving 2004-2009 to Category:MEPs for Germany 2004–2009
Propose upmerging Category:MEPs representing the German constituency serving before 2004 to Category:Members of the European Parliament for Germany
Nominator's rationale: Rename/upmerge. A follow-up nomination to these discussions. I now suggest renaming the Germany subcategory to conform with the formats that were selected in the previous discussions. 2004 is an arbitrary cut-off to have a "remainders" category, so this one can be upmerged to the main category pending further more specific subcategorization. Note that Germany has only one constituency; they are all just "for Germany". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 14 July 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.
MEPs for Luxembourg[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 merge as nominated. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MEPs representing the Luxembourg constituency serving 2004-2009 to Category:MEPs for Luxembourg 2004–2009
Propose renaming Category:MEPs representing the Luxembourg constituency serving 2009-2014 to Category:MEPs for Luxembourg 2009–2014
Propose upmerging Category:MEPs representing the Luxembourg constituency serving before 2004 to Category:Members of the European Parliament for Luxembourg
Nominator's rationale: Rename/upmerge. A follow-up nomination to these discussions. I now suggest renaming the Luxembourg subcategories to conform with the formats that were selected in the previous discussions. 2004 is an arbitrary cut-off to have a "remainders" category, so this one can be upmerged to the main category pending further more specific subcategorization. Note that Luxembourg has only one constituency; they are all just "for Luxembourg". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 14 July 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.
British MEPs[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: Self-withdraw, per discussion below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OPTION 1:
Propose renaming Category:Members of the European Parliament for English constituencies to Category:Members of the European Parliament for England
Propose renaming Category:Members of the European Parliament for Scottish constituencies to Category:Members of the European Parliament for Scotland
Propose renaming Category:Members of the European Parliament for Welsh constituencies to Category:Members of the European Parliament for Wales
OPTION 2:
Propose renaming Category:Members of the European Parliament for Northern Ireland to Category:Members of the European Parliament for Northern Ireland constituencies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The ones listed in OPTION 1 could be changed to match the "by-country" format that was selected, but since they are a subcategory of Category:Members of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom, strictly speaking they wouldn't have to change. However, if the consensus is that these do not change, then I suggest OPTION 2 be made for consistency within the category. I prefer option 1, but I could understand if there is a desire to change the phrasing for the British subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both options. The current names reflect the situations wrt to those the different countries, and the apparent discrepancy here arises out an asymmetry in the organisation of constituencies, as follows:
  1. Northern Ireland has only ever had one EP constituency. All MEPs elected there since have been "MEPs for Northern Ireland", so "for Northern Ireland constituencies" adds an inappropriate plural.
  2. Scotland and Wales had multiple constituencies until 1999, and then one constituency for all of Scotland and one for all of Wales. So "MEP for Scotland" is ambiguous: it could be read as meaning either "MEPs for one of the nine Scottish constituencies" or "MEPs for the Scotland (European Parliament constituency)". Same applies to Wales.
  3. England has always had multiple EP constituencies: ~50 until 1999, and then 9. In this context "MEPs" for England" could be taken to refer to an England (European Parliament constituency) (like Scotland and Wales), even tho there is no such thing.
Finally, the terminology "for Welsh constituencies", "for Scottish constituencies" was intentionally chosen to mirror the categories for Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Scottish constituencies, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Welsh constituencies, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies, etc.
I know that this nomination was well-intentioned, but I think that it pushes standardisation beyond the phase which it clarifies, and into a point where it would unintentionally cause confusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I think I will withdraw this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 15 July 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:MEPs representing the French constituencies[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MEPs representing the French constituencies to Category:MEPs for France by constituency
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is essentially a container "by constitutency" category. I suggest renaming it in this fashion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 14 July 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.
MEPs for constituencies in France[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 without disambiguation. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming these constituency categories to the much more simple "MEPs for" format. I also suggest using the names of the constituencies used in WP. An option would be to include the word "(constituency)" at the end of each of these names if the constituency names are thought to be too generic or ambiguous. (If these categories are renamed, the subcategories will be nominated for a discussion of whether we want to upmerge them or rename them to match.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 14 July 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:Hybrid vehicle authorities[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. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Hybrid vehicle authorities to Category:Hybrid vehicles
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge single entry category with limited immediate growth. I was thinking of upmerging to Category:Hybrid vehicle organizations or similar but that did not exist and there is nothing in the parent that would help to populate a categroy like this. Allow recreation if and when the category can be reasonably populated.Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 14 July 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:Hispanic American history[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hispanic American history to Category:Hispanic and Latino American history
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination. Found doing cleanup as an apparent incomplete nomination. Probably does not meet speedy criteria, so bring it here for discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 14 July 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:200 Greatest Pop Culture Icons[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:200 Greatest Pop Culture Icons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete — Highly subjective, ill-defined category, the author of which has been indef blocked. Favonian (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 24 hours, not indef'd. TFOWR 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! My bad Favonian (talk) 21:13, 14 July 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.

Canceled military operations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all to match the tree Category:Cancelled projects and events. Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canceled military operations to Category:Cancelled military operations
Propose renaming Category:Canceled military operations by country to Category:Cancelled military operations by country
Propose renaming Category:Canceled military operations involving France to Category:Cancelled military operations involving France
Propose renaming Category:Canceled military operations involving Germany to Category:Cancelled military operations involving Germany
Propose renaming Category:Canceled military operations involving the Irish Republican Army to Category:Cancelled military operations involving the Irish Republican Army
Propose renaming Category:Canceled military operations involving Israel to Category:Cancelled military operations involving Israel
Propose renaming Category:Canceled military operations involving Spain to Category:Cancelled military operations involving Spain
Propose renaming Category:Canceled military operations involving the United Kingdom to Category:Cancelled military operations involving the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:Canceled military operations involving the United States to Category:Cancelled military operations involving the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The entire Category:Cancelled projects and events tree, as well as almost all of the English speaking world, uses the double-L "cancelled". Since the double-L version is acceptable (though not dominant) in the US, I suggest applying it globally.Mike Selinker (talk) 19:52, 14 July 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:Dagger Records releases[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dagger Records releases to Category:Dagger Records albums
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Albums by record label. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:39, 14 July 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:Converts to atheism[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:Atheists. It became quite evident that both the current name and the proposed name were both unacceptable, the latter of which appeared to be a neologism. That said, consensus appears to be in favor of merging this category instead of renaming it to any of the alternatives suggested as the best solution. — ξxplicit 05:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Converts to atheism to Category:Deconverts to atheism
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe the title of this category is in need of change. In my opinion, the word "convert" is generally used for religion, so to use it as above implies that atheism is a religion, which it is not. The Religious conversion article on Wikipedia begins: "Religious conversion is the adoption of new religious beliefs that differ from the convert's previous beliefs. It involves a new religious identity, or a change from one religious identity to another. Conversion requires internalization of the new belief system."
Even if we remove the word "religion" from the above there are many problems."Conversion is the adoption of new beliefs that differ from the convert's previous beliefs.[This implies that this happens all at once, as opposed the slow reasoning away from faith most atheists experience.] It involves a new religious identity, or a change from one religious identity to another [Most people only become self-described atheists after losing any religious identity, and no new one is required]. Conversion requires internalization of the new belief system.[Atheism has no belief system.]"
Wiktionary defines deconversion as "the loss of faith in a given religion and embarrassing of a previously held religion or non-religion (typically atheism, agnosticism, or rationalism)."
Therefore I believe the category be renamed Deconverts to atheism, with subcategorys renamed appropriately. May Cause Dizziness (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The meaning of the current title is clearly understood. "Deconversion" sounds weird, and sounds to imply a previous conversion, contrary to the definition offered. That said, I don't think much of categorising biographies by religion (or atheism), and much less by categorising according to the method of adoption of the religion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are "deconversion" and "deconvert" even real words? They don't appear in OED; are they some sort of specialists' terminology, or are they just made up? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – deconversion does sound weird and 'X is a deconvert to atheism' sounds even weirder. Occuli (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree (mostly) - I agree that convert is the wrong term, and would like to see it removed from all the "...to atheism..." and "...to agnositicism..." category names, but deconvert seems such an ugly word... HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposals. What makes self-invented "deconverts" better than defectors, deserters, apostates etc. ? Oh yes they don't marry with "to atheism" ... East of Borschov 11:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Atheists. The current name is is problematic, and the proposed replacement is not just a neologism, it's the ugliest neologism since the ugliest-neologism-ever. However, this is a pointless category, whose only purpose is to serve as a container for two other poorly-named categories, so we can safely upmerge it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Category:Formerly religious atheists? I don't like it either, just throwing it out there. Second choice merge to the atheists category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Convert literally means "turn with". Accordingly a person who turns to athiesm turns with others taking that stance. There is no reason why being a "convert" should imply joining a theistic religion. Deconvert is a Neologism and is not useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Atheists. One does indeed not convert to atheism. One averts from religion. See for instance [1] with Bacon's example: "When atheists and profane persons do hear of so many discordant and contrary opinions in religion, it doth avert them from the church." Deconvert is definitely bad, but something should be done about this category. Second choice: move to Category:Formerly religious atheists, but without subcategories. - DVdm (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cgingold (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This has been relisted in order to allow for discussion of an alternative proposal (below).
  • Rename, but... Neither the current name nor the (original) proposed name are acceptable, for reasons that have already been well delineated. However, I've been mulling over the other possibilities that have been suggested, and I think I rather like Category:Formerly-religious atheists. (Note the insertion of a hyphen for added clarity.) Admittedly, it's a bit subtle, but it does say what we want very concisely -- and it sure doesn't look like we're going to come up with anything better. (The only thing I could even think of was "Former religious believers turned atheists" -- not terribly elegant.) Cgingold (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or keep There is nothing to convert to in atheism, so the idea of conversion is really nonsense. There appears to be some kind of misapprehension that someone cannot be an atheist and be religious; this is not true. Consequently, names like "Formerly-religious atheists" are even more inaccurate and misleading than the current title. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah, hah -- I take your point... almost! While it is undoubtedly true that one can reject belief in a Supreme Being and still be "religious" in some sense, in the real world very few if any atheists retain the religious convictions they formerly held. Moreover, the mere existence of this category would not carry the necessary implication that you suggest. In fact, we could even have a category for "Religious atheists" if the need arises. PS - How can you possibly be equally okay with either Keep or Delete? Cgingold (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I am not equally okay with keep or delete--although that is my fault for being so ambiguous--I prefer deletion, but otherwise, it should be kept as-is (rather than renamed, listified, or merged.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Atheists. Just put them in that category. Their previous religious beliefs, if any, can be mentioned in their article. There is no real purpose in this category. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Atheists. Conversion and atheism seem antithetical, as the nominator notes, but there's no counter-process call "deconversion" that I'm aware of. I'm not sure the distinction of former religiosity is important enough to keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems to me that losing/dropping one's religious convictions entirely and becoming an Atheist is every bit as noteworthy as converting from one religion to another. Do you also think that the whole category tree covering religious conversions should be eliminated? Cgingold (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truth be told, I've never liked it much. But I especially don't think it's appropriate for atheism, and the suggestions that attempt to put it in this structure by using slightly different words don't make sense to me. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
probably becasue Jewish is also an ethnicity. Persons so categorised might be merely of Jewish descent. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being part of a religion is more than just believing its teaching. To be a convert to Mormonism one has to be formally baptized and then confirmed a member. This is true of several other religions with various processes, rules and systems. Conversion to Judaism varies between Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed groups, but in all cases there is a formal process. Atheism lacks the formal structures of a religion that make it possible to convert to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Formerly-religious atheists, a perfectly sensible resolution, as suggested by others. While "deconvert" is a silly neologism, merging to Category:Atheists is also nearly as pointless and silly and redundant at this point, since most of these people are already included in some other atheist subcategory anyway. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Atheists. I do not think the disticntion between those brought up to athiesm and converts to it is significnat. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 27 July 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:Puerto Rican live 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: merge. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Puerto Rican live albums to Category:Live albums by Puerto Rican artists
Nominator's rationale: Per parent cats. and earlier CfD precedent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 14 July 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:Aware Records[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aware Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Too small. Most of the articles were recategorized into Category:Aware Records albums (by me.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the time I created it, it was appropriate, but given the re-location of all of the articles, it's now obsolete. --rm 'w avu 08:42, 15 July 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.

Future elections in Europe[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. Courcelles (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename all for simplicity, clarity, and accuracy.
These categories and (several others) were renamed in a group CFD on June 14. Part of that decision has been reviewed at DRV July 8, and two other categories from that group nomination are already being discussed at CFD: Australia at CFD July 8 and Canada at Cfd July 11.
The reason for the renaming is simply that in some countries, elections are not actually scheduled: they are required by law to happen no later than a date defined by a legal formula (e.g. no less than 7 years since the last election), but they may happen long before that, if a government falls or voluntarily calls an early election.
Other discussions in the last week have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to find an alternative to the word "future", and in the hope of avoiding that I include below (a slightly amended) version of the somewhat-rant-like comment I posted in the discussion on Australia:
Extended comment on the search for alternatives to the word "future"

Several suggestions have been made so far alternatives to the word "future", but all of them lack the clarity and simplicity of "future".

  1. Coming has other meanings, including a sexual one
  2. Upcoming is a slangy neologism, at least in the UK and Ireland (it may be longer-established in use in the USA)
  3. Forthcoming is completely inappropriate, because its normal usage is to mean "candid and willing to cooperate". Category:Forthcoming elections would need to be balanced by a Category:Unforthcoming elections, for elections where candidates were not open about their intentions. (Imagine that, eh? Politicians not telling the whole truth??)
  4. Anticipated and Expected don't work either, because those words comment on the degree of interest of the observer. (I neither anticipate nor expect next year's election in Ruritania, even though the date is firmly scheduled, because it is a matter of complete indifference to me whether they elect a troupe of circus monkeys to run their country, or stick with the usual mendacious and avaricious humans)

All this word-juggling seems to have arisen because somebody somewhere decided that the word "future" contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. That's a bizarre reading of WP:CRYSTAL, and as Frickeg pointed out, it's the big unanswered question in these discussions. WP:CRYSTAL explicitly allow for future events, subject to certain conditions, e.g. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place". So what's the problem?

Are some editors afraid that a category containing the word "future" will be a license to create articles about, say, German federal elections in the 22nd century, or Seychellois elections when the islands are underwater due to global warming? If so, that's a non-issue, because WP:CRYSTAL quite clearly rules out that sort of speculative article. Categories exist to categorise existing articles, not as a license to create any article which would fit into the category. For example, we have Category:Butchers and Category:Hairdressers, but that's not a license to populate either category with articles on topics which don't meet our inclusion criteria, such as the hairdresser and butcher in my village.

Please, folks, let's warp this up before more such categories end up at DRV to provoke rants about CFD decisions being a few pork pies short of a picnic. "Future" does not contravene WP:CRYSTAL, and its meaning is clear. Just use it.

Note that this nomination covers the United Kingdom, where general elections are not currently scheduled, although there is a proposal to change that. It also includes the parent category Category:Scheduled elections in Europe, which directly contains the article Next Irish general election, also unscheduled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - why do we need these pesky categories at all? I note that Next Irish general election is categorised adequately into Category:Elections in the Republic of Ireland and that Ireland manages without a category for forthcoming elections. Occuli (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was nothing at all pesky about these categories until somebody got a bee-in-the-bonnet about eliminating the word "future".
    As to Next Irish general election, it is in Category:Scheduled elections in Europe. We could create a Category:Future elections in Ireland if that's not specific enough, but it would have only one entry for now, since by-elections due may not happen and there do not yet seem to be any articles on European Parliament election, 2014 (Ireland) or Irish local elections, 2014. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for having these categories is so that these future elections can be categorised by date, like any others. {{cl|Future elections} allow readers and editors to identify elections coming up soon, anywhere in the world. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or use one of the other measures that has been suggested, as per my comments on the other three nominations on this subject.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. As discussed above, "scheduled" is simply inaccurate. For example the next Irish general election may take place in 2010, 2011, or 2012. That's simply not "scheduled", and it's bizarre to claim that "scheduled" is an appropriate word for that sort of uncertainty.
    As to "one of the other measures that has been suggested", it's all very well saying "something else" ... but the problem is that neither you nor anyone else has come up with a viable alternative (see my long comment above in the collapsed box). That's how we got into this mess in the first place: a desire to avoid "future" led to the adoption of an inappropriate alternative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you are wrong about pretty much all of your word interpretations. "Expected," "forthcoming," and "upcoming" all have perfectly reasonable definitions that mean "having not yet taken place." I like some of those better than others, but it is simply not true that one definition of a word makes all other definitions invalid. So while it is true that no one has proposed a term that meets your definition of viability, it is not true that no one has come up with one that meets mine.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you look at the discussions re Australia, you'll see that there is widespread disagreement with every one of your suggestions, and nothing remotely approaching consensus for any of them. All this thesaurus-hunting is simply due to a misplaced determination to eliminate the word "future" for category names.
    And are you seriously claiming that "scheduled" is an accurate and appropriate description of the Next Irish general election?????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's reasonable. It is scheduled that it will occur. Some events are scheduled by things that trigger them. For example, the 2020 Summer Olympics is scheduled to occur. We don't know when it will in 2010, so by the most literal-minded definition of scheduled, we can't call it that. But I think we can. That said, I didn't close the events discussion, and I didn't start with the term "scheduled." I started with "planned," and later "proposed." I'd be fine with "planned" or "proposed" or any number of other things. I have stated the one thing I'm not fine with ("Future"), and you disagree. That's okay with me. And if it reverts to "Future," I won't be upset about that either. But everybody has a right to their opinion, without it being characterized as "misplaced," "silly," "bizarre," or any other negative term.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike, you have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to take the view that it is bizarre and silly.
    The next next Irish general election will take place on one day, which could be any time in the next two years; that's one day out of about 700. You are happy for it to classified as "scheduled", so if you have some definition of "scheduled" which allows that to happen without being bizarre and silly, it'd be a good idea to explain it.
    For myself, I'm thinking of someone asking for a flight to a less frequent destination, and being told "yes there is a scheduled flight". So, when? "Well, some day in some months over the next two years". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've explained my position enough.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rename as nominated to match close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_8#Category:Scheduled_elections_in_Australia. I've nominated the rest to switch back at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_25#Scheduled_elections.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to future per nom. "Scheduled" is simply wrong - factually incorrect - and none of the others are as appropriate as "future". Frickeg (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename as suggested. The more inclusive term DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to future per nom - like Frickeg and BHG, I'm honestly not sure why future is unacceptable. Orderinchaos 14:36, 20 July 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:Scheduled elections[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. Once more around the carousel, dear friends. Courcelles (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Scheduled elections to Category:Future elections
Nominator's rationale: Rename for simplicity, clarity, and accuracy. Some of the sub-categories may be accurately named "scheduled", but in addition to the existing sub-cats, this category currently includes 31 articles on other elections due some time in the future. I don't know whether any or all of these are actually scheduled, rather than being due before a particular date ... but even if all of them are indeed scheduled, there are a number of jurisdictions around the world which do not set a fixed date, so articles on future elections in those countries cannot be accurately described as "scheduled".
For an explanation of how e got here, and for extended reasons on why "future" is the best term, see the "Future elections in Europe" nomination above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or use a different word than "Future," per my comments on the other nominations. A slightly different take on how we got here, posted by me from nomination one: "This process started because there were many articles in the Category:Future infrastructure that were in various states of theoretical build: some nearly done, some in planning phases, some merely proposed. Some of them would never see completion, and thus the statement that they would exist in the future was suspect, (in my opinion) violating WP:CRYSTAL. I proposed the elimination of that term, and the subsequent discussion showed that several editors thought the word "future" is not clear at all. (That's why they call it the future.) All of the discussions passed without much disagreement until after the "events" tree was renamed. Now we are having a legitimate discussion about whether "future" is okay for those. For some kinds of events (concerts, for example), proposition does not equate to likelihood. For elections, expectation is almost identical to reality. So some word-juggling is merited, though we could certainly decide "future" is the right word for elections. I don't like the term much, but I assume everyone has a good-faith and well-reasoned argument for one naming convention or another."--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. It's all very well saying "use a different word than 'Future'" ... but the problem is that neither you nor anyone else has come up with a viable alternative. That's how we got into this mess in the first place: a desire to avoid "future" led to the adoption of an inappropriate alternative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rename as nominated to match close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_8#Category:Scheduled_elections_in_Australia. I've nominated the rest to switch back at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_25#Scheduled_elections.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and the various arguments on the other CFDs. There is nothing wrong with "future", and it cannot stay at "scheduled". Frickeg (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Frickeg. Elections like New Zealand and Fiji, which fall within this category, are not in any sense "scheduled". Orderinchaos 14:34, 20 July 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:Articles with intentional disambig links[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles with intentional disambig links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This was originally used to help my Toolserver scripts identify pages with intentional disambiguation links, but is no longer necessary due to changes at the Disambiguation project (namely the WP:INTDABLINK policy). As a result, my scripts no longer use this category, so it can be deleted. JaGatalk 12:51, 14 July 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:Wikipedia essays articles by importance[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. If the bots need it one way and the project needs it another, a little overlap is a reasonable price to pay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Wikipedia essays articles by importance to Category:Wikipedia essays by impact
Nominator's rationale: These categories cover exactly the same thing. Fences&Windows 11:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I believe both are needed by the bot. CBM will be able to confirm. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that the WP 1.0 bot does not work with the "by impact" category name. The "articles by importance" category should be viewed as a technical measure to integrate the essays project into the larger WP 1.0 bot system, so that the WP 1.0 bot can generate summary tables for them as they have explicitly requested. The essays project is somewhat one-of-a-kind in its naming, so the extra category is needed by the bot. The "by impact" category is not needed by the bot; you should ask the essays project if they have other uses for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:56, 14 July 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.

College athletic teams[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. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:College athletic teams in the United States by sport to Category:College sports teams in the United States by sport
Propose renaming Category:College athletic team seasons in the United States by sport to Category:College sports team seasons in the United States by sport
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match this nomination I just closed, I'm suggesting a compatible shift from "athletics" to "sports". Mike Selinker (talk) 09:32, 14 July 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:Turbine Installation Vessels[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Turbine Installation Vessels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Under populated category which does not needed for categorization tree. Therefore propose to delete or upmerge into Category:Crane vessels. If kept, it should be renamed Category:Turbine installation vessels. Beagel (talk) 09:26, 14 July 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:Business process outsourcing companies[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Business process outsourcing companies to Category:Outsourcing companies
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Some way confusing and overlapping categories. There are no clear guidelines which companies should be include in which category. I have some doubts if these categories are needed at all but as a first step merger could be a move on the right direction. Also parent categories needs some refining and cleanup. Beagel (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • no merge. Business process outsourcing (BPO) is a reasonably well-defined area, I see no pressing need to combine with general outsourcing. Granted, there would be some degree of overlap—probably not a few of those companies listed provide other kinds of outsourcing services as well as BPO. But equally there are companies where BPO is the core, or sole, service offering, while there are outsourcing companies that are not BPO's. Agreed the whole category scheme here needs an overhaul, though. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:08, 20 July 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:Native settlements of ancient Gaul[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 as nominated. No prejudice at all against a nomination to remove "ancient" at any time- immediately, even. But, in the face of doubt, I'll take the most conservative approach. Courcelles (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Native settlements of ancient Gaul to Category:Native populated places in ancient Gaul
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category appears to not have been included in the June 12 close of various settlements. Bringing it here for discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Populated places in Gaul. I don't see any evidence this region was called "Gaul" after the "ancient" period. I don't think it's necessary to distinguish between places settled by natives and those conquered by Romans.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to a use of populated places. I am not sure if "Ancient" is needed. Populated places has become the prefered use, so unless you are using settlements in a specific way that excludes some populated places, use populated places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 16 July 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:Hybrid auto parts suppliers[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. Courcelles (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hybrid auto parts suppliers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Maybe if we had companies that only supplied parts for this application, it might be noatble. I did remove some articles since they did not support inclusion in this category. This category is basically being used to list companies that are in Category:auto parts suppliers that also supply hybrid vehicle parts. I don't think that is a needed distinction. To correctly implement, we would need to restrict it to parts that were exclusive hybrid parts. Otherwise every thing from light bulbs to sheet metal would be includeable. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 14 July 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:Organic photovoltaics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Organic photovoltaics to Category:Organic solar cells
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is probably a better name and we have a main article. The category focus seems to be solar cells and not photovoltaics. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all the articles -- with the exception of the usual smattering of companies -- are indeed for "solar cells" of one type or another. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 22 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_14&oldid=1142606171"