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: Perhaps the use of Liner rather than Line for the Nippori-Toneri Liner was an accident; all the other people movers in Japan are called just “line”. But for the country change to category to “systems” as the categories for all other countries and types are called “systems”. Hugo999 (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article Nippori-Toneri Liner refers to the Nippori-Toneri "line". There is a photo of the rolling stock labelled "Nippori-Toneri Liner 300 series train" in the article but the article is about the line/system not the rolling stock used on it Hugo999 (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2012 (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:speedy rename as 48 hours have elapsed since the original listing at WP:CFD/S and I withdraw my objection following the offered clarification. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy. The category covers both the 'classic' ASA National Tour, which is the best known American Speed Association racing series, which went defunct in 2004, and its spiritual successor, the ASA Midwest Tour, which started in 2007, not just the latter, however the objection was that the latter is the main article. Explanation of why it isn't is here. The BushrangerOne ping only 18:53, 17 July 2012 (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: Although Putinism has an article, you can see from that page it's highly contentious and there's much dispute over what it means, or if it even exists as a coherent ideology. As such, it's too poorly defined to serve as a useful category. Robofish (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's fashionable to apply an -ism to the politics of every contemporary political figure, v. Blairism, et al, but not every such -ism is a lasting political movement like Gaullism or Nasserism. I think a category for Putinism is premature at best. Besides, because these are "personal" politics (as opposed to ideological systems), wherever a topic is so closely associated with the -ism as to merit inclusion in the category, it could arguably be placed directly in the category for the political figure. In other words, we have not seen a need for Category:Thatcherism because those topics can slot elsewhere under Category:Margaret Thatcher; Clintonist articles likewise fit into Category:Presidency of Bill Clinton or Category:Bill Clinton itself. - choster (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly rename or merge to something more related to Putin. This is a small category and unlikely to expand, whereas one on Putin could accomodoate more subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2012 (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:Organisations based in Russia by federal subject[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.
rename per nom to match the parent and also most of its siblings. Hmains (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2012 (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:Campaigns in the United States presidential election, 1988[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. The larger nomination can determine which format is better, but everyone is agreed there should be one category for each year.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge as duplicative. —GoldRingChip 14:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge, maybe Most members of the parent category Category:United States presidential campaigns follow the "Campaigns in the United States presidential election, YYYY" formula; the proposed target is one of three exceptions. I would not object to preferring the shorter title, but there needs to be consistency. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think these should all be renamed to the shorter titles, 'United States presidential campaigns, XXXX'. Robofish (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per Mangoe. It's true that the shorter format is probably preferable, but that will require a seperate, much larger CfD. In the meantime, those that aren't at the longer form should be renamed for consistency; having a few that stand out like sore thumbs is unprofessional (and avoids just having to rename them later if renaming them all doesn't pass). - The BushrangerOne ping only 20:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close. As there seems to be support, even among those advocating a reverse merge, for the shorter title, I've drafted a group nomination of all Campaigns in ... categories which I would be glad to post just as soon as this discussion closes. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:51, 26 July 2012 (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 -- This is ambiguous as in Maharastra it refers to a caste and elsewhere it refers to Marathi speakers or people from Mahasrastra. I presume that Marathi is an adfjerctival form of Maratha (See Marathi people). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2012 (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:Delete. None of the articles that used to be listed in the category only mentions the supposed Bahrani descent of the respective persons, not to mention verification with reliable sources. Every categorization in this category seems to be original research. Articles formerly included in this category are Sinan Al Shabibi, Mohammed Ridha Al-Shabibi, Badr Shakir al-Sayyab, Allaedin Ghoraifi, Zainab Bahrani, Nouri al-Maliki. RJFF (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if sources can't be provided for these claims. I note that Allaedin Ghoraifi does state that he is of Bahraini descent, but no source is given. Robofish (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have removed so many of these categorizations with no in-text evidence, sourced or not sourced, that I wonder if there is any point in having any of these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2012 (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.
