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:Delete. Elderly is really ambiguous. Our article is old age which says in part, 'consists of ages nearing or surpassing the average life span of human beings'. So even our own article leaves the inclusion criteria here vague. Perhaps a rename could help, but the contents show the difficulties. Almshouses and nursing homes are not exclusively for old people, just for people in need of their services. Age-restricted communitiess, which is included, fails to meet the definition provided above since 55 is far from nearing the average life span. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In what sense is "elderly" ambiguous? It may not be precisely defined, but that does not prevent us having categories for Category:Elderly care or Category:Elder law. The definition of old age is unsourced and open to challenge, and is inconsistent with that for senior citizen - which is said in old age to be equivalent to an old person. Almshouses are mainly for old people (that is what Almshouse says) and certainly not mainly for sick people, which was indicated by the previous exclusive categorization in Category:Hospitals. I agree that Nursing home is a problem. The article (and categories) deal with both residential homes which do not provide nursing (which are almost always for the elderly) and residential homes which also provide nursing - redirects to Nursing home include Old peoples home, Senior living and care home. You could split the article (and categories), but until you do it is just as legitimate to categorize them in Housing for the elderly (which most are) as in Category:Nursing, which many are not. I am open to suggestions for renaming, but I believe we need a category for homes for older people. Putting them in a vague category like Category:Elderly care does not really help. --Mhockey (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such housing exists as a distinct type of housing. We may need some reorganization, but not deletion DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep a viable category to collect the current subcats and articles together for navigation, the prime purpose of categories. Hmains (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Different countries will use different terms, but elderly people have particular needs, which need to be met by specialised housing provision. Mhockey's comments seem to relate to problems with particular articles within the category, rather than to the category itself. In England, there is a distinction between Care Homes and Nursing Homes; the latter have a nurse on duty at all times. The former will have trained staff, but not medically trained. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (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.
Rename - my first thought when seeing the cat name was that it would be about clothing worn in England in the 18th century, so the name needs to be made less confusing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:19, 23 February 2011 (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. I'll leave a disambiguation template in the space. Individual categories can be added to Category:National churches on a case by case basis if they fit. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is no such denomination called the "Church of Ukriane". This category appears to be used as a holding category for all churches in Ukraine that claim a "national" provenance, so that Ukraine can have a single entry in Category:National churches. That is not a defining characteristic, which is what categories are supposed to highlight. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 12:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or make it a dab-category for the three categories currently in it. The two articles currently in it should become articles (probably main articles) for these categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2011 (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:Rename. The bay is officially named as such here; the current name of the category is derived from a common, but erroneous, misnomer Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No argument at all about the official name (and it is also the name of the article - Port Phillip) but is there a argument under WP:COMMONNAME for the article and the category to be at 'Port Phillip Bay"? I doubt one person in 10 in Melbourne would realise that the official name is simply "Port Phillip" without the "Bay". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2011 (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:Male authors who wrote under female or gender-neutral pseudonyms[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:Rename. While male authors using a clearly female name (and vice versa) is often a notable or at least remarkable aspect of their career, and a deliberate choice, male authors using a gender-neutral pseudonym usually isn't. To take some examples currently included in the list: Hergé used his initials, Peyo a nickname he got from a younger family member. There is no evidence whatsoever that gender-neutrality played any role in this, and as far as I am aware it hasn't been discussed as such either. Carlos Eugenio Restrepo wrote one book as "W. Ll. de Ch.". This is a very minor aspect of his life in itself, and the fact that the pseudonym is gender-neutral is of no importance. The same goes for e.g. O. Henry: the pseudonym is important, the gender of it isn't. For Benjamin Franklin, I can't even find what the supposed female or gender neutral pseudonym is supposed to have been. On the other hand L. Frank Baum wrote seventeen novels as "Edith Van Dyne". This is a clearly female pseudonym, and a major aspect of his career. This seems to be a relevant categorisation. So my proposal is to rename the category, and to remove everyone who hasn't written under a clearly female pseudonym. Fram (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename along with its converse This is clearly set up to be the converse of Category:Female authors who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms, but the situation is not symmetrical. P. D. James wrote in Time to Be in Earnest: A Fragment of Autobiography that she had not chosen initials to conceal her gender, but simply because she decided it looked better to her; and while most reviewers of her first book assumed it was written by a man, at least one reviewer guessed otherwise. I think it makes more sense to limit both categories to pseudonyms which are clearly of the opposite sex from that of the authors and leave the initializations and other ambiguities elsewhere. Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Many one-name pseudonyms are gender-neutral in fact if not in purpose, as is using a pseudonym with initials, and I agree that this category should be categorizing instances where purpose played a role, not just the objective fact. I'm a little more hesitant about the females category, since often gender neutrality did play a role in a female's choice of pseudonym, but I'm not really aware of any examples where a male writer purposefully chose a pseudonym so that it would be gender neutral. (Though I'm sure there are some examples.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, but do not rename the opposite category. (My preference would be simply to remove the authors for which the desire for gender-neutrality, or the impression of being male, did not apply, erring on the side of keeping pages in the category.) For the edification of the nominator, Franklin wrote under the persona of Silence Dogood, a middle-aged widow. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did not notice it in the article at first glance, but I mainly looked at the "Success as an author" section, not the "early life" section, where it is indeed mentioned. 07:56, 24 February 2011 (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.
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 per nom. Let's stick to "Works" as the next level up. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2011 (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: I was just working on the only article in this category, Columbus Fountain, and there is no reason to categorize artworks and sculptures separately. His artwork is sculptures.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Let's stick to "Works" as the next level up. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2011 (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:Rename to match the name of the club's article: Kedah FA. This is the convention used for every sports team category. (Should I have nominated this for speedy renaming?) Pichpich (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, usage in the general category is a bit more mixed than it seemed at first glance; however, Foo players does dominate in the category for Malaysia. I have initiated a discussion about this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. -- Black Falcon(talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (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 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:Burials at Saint Michael's Cathedral (Toronto)[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 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.
