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 and purge. Anything in the original category that an editor believes doesn't belong in the new one can be deleted from that category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this long-standing but relatively neglected category all seem to be movements and would benefit, I believe, from a merge into the much better populated target category, so that all such moves or behaviour could be found in one place. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge - I'm not convinced that all of these are "dance moves". Sign of the horns isn't a dance move for instance. Rather than dump everything into the moves category it would be better to review the contents and manually relocate the articles. "Dance behavior" is a pretty silly turn of phrase and if the category ends up emptied out by finding better homes for the articles then go ahead and delete it. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:46, 24 May 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:Academy Award Best Foreign Language Film 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.
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:Books which discuss the Children of God[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 the bottom three, delete the "about" category. Courcelles 21:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "which discuss" category. Books generally "discuss" a variety of subjects and categorizing books on the basis of whether they "discuss" a particular topic or subject is subjective and probably trivial. The rest seem like legitimate renames so go ahead. Harley Hudson (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom but delete Category:Books which discuss the Children of God. All but one of the books in this category would not not be categorized as being "about" the Family International. Most are more general works about "cults" or new religious movements in general. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:31, 28 May 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. Should be renamed because this is for the productions of the studio rather than the studio itself. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:14, 22 May 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.
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. Courcelles 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Because there are multiple TV series called "The Incredible Hulk" and this should be disambiguated by year. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:57, 22 May 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:Iron Man television series episodes[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. Courcelles 21:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. There will likely never be more than two pages in this category so there's no need to sub-categorize them away from the rest of the material about the two series. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:43, 22 May 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:merge. Courcelles 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. There are likely never going to be more than three articles in this category and the parent is also likely to remain small so there's little sense in splitting off these three articles into their own category. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if for some reason this is kept it should be renamed to Category:Iron Man (TV series) to match the lead article which is not disambiguated by year. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may be one where the main article might need moving because there's a potential second "Iron Man (TV series)". Iron Man had solo adventures in the 1960s The Marvel Super Heroes and these were released on DVD under the title "Iron Man", and similarly the other segments went out under their own titles rather than the umbrella one. I have recollections of the TMSH segments being shown in the UK many years ago under their individual hero titles. The 1994 Iron Man series was similar in that it also initially went out as part of a larger package, The Marvel Action Hour. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to disagree since it's doubtful that an article on the individual segments within the 1960s series would stand, but if this ends up merged it's largely academic since the category won't exist. Regardless IMHO the category isn't needed so discussion of the article name can take place on its talk page. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:44, 22 May 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: A category that is not a container category that doesn't have any pages in it. It has one subcategory, Seed Producers of India, but if this category (Paddy Seed Producers of India) actually had pages in it, it should be a subcategory of Seed Producers of India, not the other way 'round — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 May 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:Wikipedia requested photographs of people in Japan[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. to be consistent with other similar categories. Traveler100 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 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:Wikipedia requested photographs of New Zealanders[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: to be consistent with other similar categories.--Traveler100 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 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:rename. The ambiguity is the dominant concern. If the page moves later, we can consider changing back.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Chaoyang is ambiguous; preferably match article title to Chaoyang, Liaoning. –HXL's RoundtableandRecord 16:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose. I understand HXL49's rationale, but the prefectural city in Liaoning is the only second-order division in the whole list and therefore should be considered the primary meaning. In fact, when I have time, I think one of the things I would do if there is no opposition (and anyone else is welcome to discuss/implement this) is to move Chaoyang, Liaoning to Chaoyang as the primary article and move the current disambiguation page to Chaoyang (disambiguation). (For an analogous example where I did it which seemed to be considered noncontroversial, see Yuncheng.) --Nlu (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well Chaoyang District, Beijing could put Chaoyang City in a hard position, eh? It's the location of the CBD as well as a large part of both the urban and suburban population, and Capital Airport. And besides, any division of a PRC municipality effectively becomes 2nd-order. Please do not make this move unilaterally. –HXL's RoundtableandRecord 16:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second point is well taken (that Chaoyang District is in effect a second-order division). I disagree about the first (for example, the fact that many things are located in Taipei's Datong District and the fact that it's technically a second-order division order doesn't make the Shanxi city not, in effect, the primary meaning), but it is rendered moot by the second point. --Nlu (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still would rather you not bypass the RM process for Chaoyang City then. Hopefully you would be understanding of this, especially considering my full support for the moves of Yuncheng and Jining. –HXL's RoundtableandRecord 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article. Arguments about the primary meaning of Chaoyang should be made at Talk:Chaoyang, not here, and if the article is moved then this category can be renamed accordingly. Jafeluv (talk) 09:17, 3 June 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.
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. 'Southern Gospel' is an established music genre name. So in my opinion the capitalization needs to be fixed.- E-Kartoffel (talk) 10:23, 22 May 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:keep. Enough concerns have been shown that the disambiguation seems necessary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Common name. There is sufficient context here to not misidentify this as the air guard of any other nation. There aren't any other air national guards to disambiguate. MarcusQwertyus 07:10, 22 May 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:rename. Courcelles 21:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Chaoyang is ambiguous and the category should usually match the article title. –HXL's RoundtableandRecord 05:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree,and the Category:People from Chaoyang shoulu rename to Category:People from Chaoyang, Liaoning。In China People from chaoyang mostly means 廣東潮陽人。Polar1 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 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:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:do not rename. However, the target category can be created as a parent to this one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Administrators can grant a number of different permissions, and the current category could be confused with simply using the rollback feature, which is what would be expected from its sister categories. It doesn't seem likely that admins in this group would not also be willing to consider reasonable requests for (say) confirmed status, although if this becomes an issue, we can add subcategories as appropriate. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 05:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think this was originally meant to be only for rollback (hence the image of the cat rolling on its back), and these admins who signed on probably had their reasons for only wanting to grant rollback requests. Now if all these admins in this category suddenly start getting personal requests for other permissions that they were not willing to grant, then it may adversely affect the users doing the requesting, or cause other sorts of uncomfortable situations. To avoid confusion about the category name, maybe renaming to "Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant requests for rollback permissions" would be better? -- Ϫ 21:04, 24 May 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:keep, and rename all subcategories. The two nominations created a circular reinforcement of the divided status quo, which probably would satisfy no one. The most compelling arguments were provided not just by the mention that the Miss Universe website used "contestants," but by the websites of the Miss USA, Miss World, Miss Tourism International, and Miss America websites, all of which use "contestant" rather than "delegate." (Miss Earth is the only one that begs to differ.) I can conclude that at one point "delegates" was in wide use, but in this current Trump-centered era, a simpler term has prevailed. I recommend the rest of the pageants should be standardized to that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Category:Beauty pageant contestants uses a mixture of contestants and delegates, so either would be consistent. The main article Beauty pageant uses the term delegate only once but regularly uses the term contestant. The website for Miss Universe[1] uses the term contestants. The use of delegates suggests some form of conference, but it clearly is a contest as a winner is declared so contestants is more appropriate. Cjc13 (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point about the Miss Universe page using "contestants," but I feel the name of either the parent category or subcategories should be changed. The whole reason I'm bringing this up is that I went to specify the year in an article from Category: Miss World contestants to Category: Miss World 2003 contestants only to find it didn't exist, which would seemingly indicate that yearly specifications for this category were never made. Obviously that's not true, but it's a tad misleading under the current name and I would hate for it to stay that way. Changing the name of this category would solve the problem. Mbinebritalk ← 13:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would change the delegate subcategories, as contestants seems the more accurate description. Cjc13 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; surely we can use standardized terminology for these categories. Either seems to be fine, but right now "delegates" predominates. A future nomination could propose that they all be changed to "contestants" if its thought to be superior. Good Ol’factory(talk)
Delegates vmay be used in the subcategories but "contestants" dominates in Category:Beauty pageant contestants and changing this category is not going to alter that. Cjc13 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to standardization of the ones that refer to particular events. From the discussion, it sounds to me like "delegates" is appropriate for particular events and "contestants" is appropriate for by-nationality categories. It seems slightly strange to me to have a difference between the two, but I think we should get the terminology for all the events standardized and then we could consider if there is a good reason to have them match the by-nationality ones as well. We can't solve the entire tree in this one nomination but to me it looks like a step in the right direction. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for standardization. Regarding which is "better", I would say that while all of these people are contestants in the Miss Universe Pageant, which takes 1-2 weeks, they are all delegates of their countries for a whole year. For example, Miss USA, the USA representative to the Miss Universe makes appearances all around the US and World on behalf of the Miss USA organization, such as USO tours, etc. --After Midnight0001 20:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like an ambassador or representative rather than a delegate and relates to Miss USA rather than Miss Universe. Cjc13 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is much of a difference between an "ambassador", a "representative", and a "delegate"—in other contexts, the terms are used pretty interchangeably. For example, the official name of "ambassadors" to the UN is "permanent representative", and the official name of "ambassadors" to UNESCO are "permanent delegates", but typically both are referred to by any of the three terms interchangeably. Surely beauty pageants are not more complex or technical than the international UN system. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is partly because those terms are so vague and interchangeable that contestants seems the most accurate and appropriate term. It seems when the subcategories were created in 2007, delegates was being used as a heading in the articles. Since then those headings have been changed to contestants. So contestants is now the term used in the articles and on the Miss Universe website,[2] Miss USA website,[3] and Miss Teen USA website.[4]Cjc13 (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that any of the terms are more or less appropriate for those who participate in these. In any case, it makes sense to work towards standardization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind the standard term is clearly contestant, as supported by the website and parent category, and this rename goes against standardization. Cjc13 (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and support "contestant" and the standard term. This is regardless of the term used within the competitions. They are spectacle competitions, and the use of "delegate" is no more than an allusion to their shallow pretense of being an intellectual activity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since part of the basis for the nomination was that the subctaegories used "delegates", I opened a cfd on May 25, so that standardisation could be achieved by changing the subcategories rather than this category. Two contributors from this debate objected on the grounds that the new cfd was in conflict with this cfd. Since the other cfd is likely to be decided later, I do not think it should cause a problem and it provides an alternative option to the current debate. Cjc13 (talk) 22:22, 1 June 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:Articles that do not say time zones[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedily deleted. I don't think anyone is going to miss these. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 11:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recommended for deletion. Empty category; only member is one subcategory that is also empty and that should also be deleted. The purpose of this category is unclear given the poorly-worded title and almost nonexistent description. Also recommended for deletion is Category:All articles that do not say time zones, which is similarly empty and unclear in scope. Kinut/c 00:33, 22 May 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:rename. Which way, is, from an administrative position, a crapshoot. I'll go with the rename as nominated, and suggest a fresh CFD for another rename if desired. Courcelles 22:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Books in X" is awkward and there is already a scheme at Category:Books by topic with a few dozen "Books about X" and no "Books in X" categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename differently; the rationale for the entry below applies somewhat. Category:Literary theory books is better, but the suggested name is better than the current one. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or rename differently as per Johnbod. "Books in {topic}" is, as the nominator says, awkward. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:36, 22 May 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:rename, using the "of" format. Courcelles 22:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Books in X" is awkward and there is already a scheme at Category:Books by topic with a few dozen "Books about X" and no "Books in X" categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename differently; For the most part, these are not "Books about literary criticism"; they contain literary criticism and so are "Books of literary criticism" or "Literary criticism books", which are better names. We don't have Category:Movies about horror. Things like Category:Texts on poetry should be renamed to match too. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or rename differently as per Johnbod. "Books in {topic}" is, as the nominator says, awkward. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:36, 22 May 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.
