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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:New Jersey Rangers players to Category:NJ-LUSO Rangers FC players

Nominator's rationale: Merge. per NJ-LUSO Rangers FC. Same Franchise. – Michael (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom - one team which changed its name, no need for seperate categories. GiantSnowman 13:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. These are the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - no need for two categories for one club. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2013 (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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:AEGON Classic to Category:Aegon Classic

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Correct capitalisation, in line with articles in the category. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:02, 31 May 2013 (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: upmerge without prejudice to re-creation if future content justifies doing so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Engineering Informatics to Category:Engineering disciplines and Category:Information science

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Upmerge single article to both parents per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Seems reasonable right now, but if there's room to grow, no prejudice against recreation. Note: If kept, it needs to be renamed in conformity with style manual to Category:Engineering informatics (lowercase "i"); I already moved the Engineering informatics page to lowercase "i". --Lquilter (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge There is no point in having categories only for the article with the same name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2013 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Products and Brands to Category:Brands

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate, possibly created without realizing a well-established structure exists Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy merge clearly a duplicate --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2013 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People called pejorative terms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A very odd new category that is very POV, contravenes WP:BLP, potentially libelous and has weirdly been conflated with the subject of narcissism.--Penbat (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not defining to the individual. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overbroad (has anyone not been called a pejorative term?) and non-defining. --Lquilter (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete what the what? I have no idea that this cat is supposed to contain (all of us, I suppose?), can the admin gods please wipe it from our collective memory? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Verging on WP:POINT, I'd say. I see that it had been added by the creator to Generation Y, as well. It would seem that anytime there's a term that she or he objects to, it gets this tag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as above. Neutrality^talk
• Delete Can we avoid putting any US president ever in this, because I am sure we can find someone who has labeled them with terms that are pejorative at some point. That said, it gets even trickier because what is now considered a pejorative may not have been in the past, and the reverse might also be true. This is just a nightmare, and I see no way it will avoid being inclusive of all people involved in controversies and a lot more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2013 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Jurong Bird Park Panorail to Category:Jurong Bird Park

Nominator's rationale: Small category with little chance of expansion. Tim! (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Overcategorization; there is no need for an eponymous category for a monorail in a park. --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. --Kleinzach 08:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The category on Commons has a number of images with a signpost to this category on the en Wiki, so what about changing it to a category redirect to Jurong Bird Park? Snowman (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2013 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Haredi sex abuse cases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: While I'm a strong advocate for keeping the article on this topic, which is currently nominated for deletion, I don't see that this category is necessary. The very small number of articles it contains can adequately be handled in the prose or see-also section of the main article. Unlike with Category:Catholic sex abuse cases, we do not have enough articles to make a category useful to the reader, making this WP:OCAT. (If in future we do - because the WP community finds some individual incidents notable enough to create articles, new things happen, geographical spread, whatever - it could be re-created, but no use now.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 08:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• i agree with nom, delete -- Y not? 12:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see anything gained by deleting it. We're not running out of space or anything. Some might find it useful. We don't want all of those things in a See Also section for all four articles. Dream Focus 19:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fact that we lack Category:Jewish sex abuse cases makes me highly suspicious of the motives and reasons behind this overly specificly named category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the absence of a parent category is a problem; Haredi sex abuse is what there's coverage of, and thus what we have articles on; evidently not Conservative and Reform sex abuse. The problem is that the category is not necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete small cat with an apparent POV; we don't have Category:Franciscan sex abuse etc., to divvy up the Roman Catholic priests who are members of various orders. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do have to point out that if anything Roman Catholic is more specific than Haredi, since it refers to members of a specific Church, while Haredi speaks of a groups of Jewis without a centralized leadership over all Haredi. I guess it is true that there are way more Roman Catholics than all Jews of any type, but still, Haredi is not at all like Franciscans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. GiantSnowman 13:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

• Category:2004 in association football by country
• Category:2006 in association football by country
• Category:2007 in association football by country

Nominator's rationale: These are orphan categories created in 2011 but which have not been continued into the present decade. Most countries are already included in the appropriate categories by year/season for Europe, Asia, Africa, or South America. However America, Canada and Mexico are included in the “CONCACAF” category by year eg Category:2004 in CONCACAF football. Australia was in the “OFC” Oceania Football Confederation category by year eg Category: 2004–05 in OFC football but in 2006 joined the Asian Football Confederation for the Asian Cup. Norway (eg Category:2004 in Norwegian football) should be in the category for Europe; which does include some other European countries like Sweden which have “by year” seasons eg Category:2004 in Swedish football. Hence each article should be checked individually, though most (except for the Norwegian categories) are already in the correct continent category eg Category:2004 in Asian football for Hong Kong; similarly for CONCACAF/OFC categories eg for Mexico. Hugo999 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Since most football is played in trhe northern winter, the appropriate system is a 2004-5 season; etc. There will be exceptions. However, I do not see the objection to placing countries directly in the general category, without an intervening continental cateogory; most football is played in national (or even local) competitions; only the elite clubs play at a European level, and this is additional to playing in national competitions. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the similar category-trees Category:Association football club seasons by year‎, Category:Domestic association football league seasons by year and Category:Domestic association football cup seasons by year includes subcategories for both seasons played in the northern winter (e.g. Category:2012–13 domestic association football leagues) and seasons played in the northern summer (e.g. Category:2013 domestic association football leagues). I don't see any reason why this (incomplete) category tree should be any different. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I propose to add Norwegian football to the “European football by season” category because it is the only European football country not in the European category. Swedish football is the only other country in the overall category (though not always, eg not in 2009, and also appears in the European category. Duplication? NB: The categories above are “by country”, nothing to do with northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere seasons. The European football categories include some countries by year (Republic of Ireland, Russia, Sweden). Argentina, although in the Southern hemisphere, changed in 1985-86 to the European seasons; see Category:Seasons in Argentine football. Hugo999 (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Category:2004 in European football by country (even though it is a unprecise name) doesn't exist. Categorizing 2004 in Norwegian football in Category:2003–04 in European football by country or Category:2004–05 in European football by country(still a weird name for a category) is not right. Mentoz86 (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I note that Category: 2005–06 in European football by country includes Category: 2005 in Republic of Ireland football & Category: 2006 in Republic of Ireland football, Category: 2005 in Russian football & Category: 2006 in Russian football and Category: 2005 in Swedish football & Category: 2006 in Swedish football. So I do not see why it should not also include Category: 2005 in Norwegian football & Category: 2006 in Norwegian football (Norway being a European country). The three categories I proposed for deletion have only about 4, 5 & 1 country in them at present. As there are by 2012 about 48 countries with football by season/year, will they all be in Category:2012 in association football by country (or all except European countries?), and who is going to fill up these new categories. The 48 countries: Europe 27, Asia 10 & Africa 7 plus 3 CONCACAF and 1 OFC. Hugo999 (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you don't see that categorized 2005 in Foo football under categories for 2004–05 and 2005–06 makes that page become a member of both Category:2004 in association football and Category:2006 in association football, which I don't think makes any sense. And that these articles are wrong categorized doesn't mean we should continue doing that mistake. And to your last question: yes, I don't see any point in splitting this up by continental sub-categorizes, so Category:2012 in association football by country and Category:2012–13 in association football by country would be sufficient in my opinion. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2013 (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 to Category:Buildings and structures in Wrexham county borough and Category:Hunting lodges in Wales. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hunting lodges in Wrexham County Borough to Category:Wrexham County Borough and Category:Hunting lodges in Wales

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. No need to further sub-categorize the small Category:Hunting lodges by country scheme. Tassedethe (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge -- This is a relatively rare speces of building, so that split by county is unnecessary. The one article is in fact only a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge -- although it could be upmerged to Category:Buildings and structures in Wrexham county borough (note the lower-case county borough, although it is part of a name) Hugo999 (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2013 (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.