< August 11	August 13 >

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. --Xdamr^talk 14:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mountain bike racing in the United Kingdom to Category:Mountain biking races and events in the United Kingdom

Category:Mountain bike racing in the United States to Category:Mountain biking races and events in the United States

Category:Mountain bike racing in Canada to Category:Mountain biking races and events in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Incomplete nomination found doing cleanup. There are more related nominations that will be added over the next few days. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. The proposed name is a little more accurate. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm actually leaning to Keep based on the contents of Category:Cycle racing in the United Kingdom. The event categories there are restricted to racing so that would seem to be appropriate for this category. I have a feeling that this entire area needs a little digging. Mountain bikes are a part of cycling so the category structure should probably match what cycling uses, for the most part anyway. If the name is inaccurate due to the contents, then we need to move some of the contents out to other more accurate categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup if needed. The current name cleanly lines up with the logical parent of Category:Cycle racing in the United Kingdom. Same for the other nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2009 (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 Category:Stalkers to Category:People convicted of stalking. Criminal conviction alone should be the standard for inclusion in this category. Self-proclamation and adjudications by civil tribunals should be categorised elsewhere if at all. --Xdamr^talk 14:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stalkers to Category:People convicted of stalking

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found as an incomplete nomination doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per longstanding practise to add people to such categories only if convicted (or self-proclaimed). And it should preferably be checked if all articles in this category keep this in mind. I suspect they do though, after I looked at a few of them. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment There are problems with this. Firstly, though murder, fraud, rape etc are no doubt offences in every legal system, stalking I suspect is covered, if at all, in different ways in different systems, & may not exist as a distinct or consistent charge. See the lede of stalking; the psychological behaviour is not necessarily illegal of itself. Secondly, at least two of those in the category are self-proclaimed, but apparently never charged or convicted: Blue Tulip Rose Read and Nell Theobald. John Hinckley, Jr. was charged with other things but found insane, and John Yettaw has only been convicted on other charges I think. I would suggest a "convicted of" sub-cat is set up - they are all American, so it could be made a US sub-cat, but the main cat left, perhaps renamed. Blue Tulip Rose Read and Nell Theobald are really only notable for this, which they have respectively made a film & a book about, so this as their primary category should be preserved. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hinckley was never convicted of stalking or anything else. He never faced charges relating to his stalking of Jodie Foster and he was found not guilty by reason of insanity on all counts related to the Reagan assassination attempt. Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, amended above. The point still stands. Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- This will prevent deer stalkers being included. However, those "not guilty by reason on insanity" or "died before convicted" (including suicides) logically belong in the category concept - without risk of libel suits. In UK, stalkers may also be subject to a civil remedy, which is not a conviction. This would require proof, but not to the criminal standard. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (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, nor indeed any clear arguments made for change, --Xdamr^talk 20:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women in Northern Irish politics to Category:Women politicians from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found as incomplete doing cleanup, not sure what the intended name was. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Women politicians in Northern Ireland, although the best name would probably be Category:Women in Norhtern Ireland politics. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Women in Northern Ireland politics, not all will be from Northern Ireland! Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 14:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical romance to Category:Historical romance novels

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Incomplete nomination found doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree This is not only a category of novels, but also about novels. The present name is correct therefore. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I moved one to Category:Writers of historical romances, I'm dubious the novel is "romance" in the Georgette Heyer sense, & it is already in Category:Historical novels. The only other article is the main article. No prejudice to recreation if someone wants to do Category:Historical romances properly, a big job. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2009 (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 Category:ISCID fellows to Category:Fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. "Fellows of XXX" seems, broadly speaking, to be the standard construction. --Xdamr^talk 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ISCID fellows to Category:International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design fellows

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per main article International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per main article and Wikipedia guideline that we should avoid (almost all) abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- abbreviations need expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you are going to rename this category, should it not be Category:Fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design ? Cjc13 (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with parent category Category:Intelligent design advocates. Being a fellow of the society does not seem to have much significance and the fellows are all listed in the parent article. I would oppose the renaming, particularly in the proposed form, as I do not think that expanding the title adds anything to the category. Cjc13 (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't add anything? For me it adds an understanding of what the heck we're even referring to. How many people know what ISCID is? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 20 August 2009 (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 Category:Video games by license to Category:Video games by software license. --Xdamr^talk 00:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games by license to Category:Video games by software license

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found doing cleanup as an incomplete speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a clearer description. No speedy, indeed. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2009 (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 Category:Tyre to Category:Tyre, Lebanon. --Xdamr^talk 00:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tyre to Category:Tyre, Lebanon

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match name of lead article since tyre is ambiguous and this is not the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REname as nom. It is probably the "original" use, though not the modern primary one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree david1955 (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2009 (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 Category:Alumni of LAMDA to Category:Alumni of the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art. --Xdamr^talk 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of LAMDA to Category:Alumni of the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art

Nominator's rationale: Rename - expand the abbreviation. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per guideline to avoid most abbrevations. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand abbreviation as nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The abbreviation is used widely in the related article, on the academy's own website, in wikipedia and on other websites. There is no confusion with other categories. Since the academy is a drama school, the use of the full name might seem misleading. Cjc13 (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this objection. Otto4711 (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply it is a drama school, not an academy of music, hence the use of the full title does not appear particularly helpful. The guidelines do not say you have to use the full name. The academy is known more usually by its initials. For alumni there are plenty of examples of not using the full name, such as Category:Old Etonians, Category:Old Dolphins, Category:Old Dragons etc. The proposed change in name seems neither necessary nor helpful. Cjc13 (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The academy is known more usually by its initials. This assumes that readers are going to be familiar with those initials. Most people outside the UK will have no idea what "LAMDA" stands for. As far as the "Old Fooians" categories, first, WP:WAX. Second, I find them absolutely opaque and Anglo-centric (as I'm sure do others) and would have no objection whatsoever to a wholesale change to all of them, but past proposals to rename even the most obscure and mystifying of them have been shouted down. Otto4711 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the initials mean nothing to them, than the name itself will mean little if anything to them. The term alumni already signifies that it is an educational establishment. Cjc13 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Speaking as someone who has never heard of LAMDA, I find "London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art" way more describing and helpful. The main topic article is already at London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art. Jafeluv (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would Category:Alumni of LAMDA drama school be more describing and helpful ? Cjc13 (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than the current name, but I still think that the proposed title is better. I understand your concern that "Music and Dramatic Art" might be misleading, but I think that if an insitution chooses to be named confusingly, it's not Wikipedia's job to fix it. We don't prescribe usage, we follow established usage. We also have an abbreviation guideline that advocates only using an acronym as a page title if the subject is "almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form" (emphasis original). Furthermore, the category naming conventions advise to "avoid abbreviations" as well. This seems clear-cut to me. Jafeluv (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is still okay to use abbreviations like IBM, EMI ? Cjc13 (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think those fall under "almost exclusively known only by its acronym and widely known and used in that form". Jafeluv (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2009 (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 Category:Letters to Category:Letters (message). --Xdamr^talk 00:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Letters to Category:Letters (message)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The page Letter is a dab page for which Letter (message) is the appropriate choice for this category. Category name should match the article's title (pluralizing as appropriate). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Uncommon Latin letters to Category:SOMETHING ELSE

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category's name (and depending on how that resolves, its contents) has problems. There is no consistent basis for determining what's common and what's not: although some vague criteria are noted; a quick scan shows them not being followed consistently (or at all). Also, there are lots of letters which are not Latin in the classical sense (the thorn and schwa would stump Caesar and Cicero). This category would be clearer if we defined what it was supposed to encompass (letters encoded in certain Unicode extented Latin areas? letters used in languages with Latin-alphabet based orthographies that don't appear in among the canonical 26 in English?) in an objective manner, title it appropriately, and trim the outliers. My personal preference would be Category:Letters in Latin-based alphabets, and have Category:Latin letters and Category:Esperanto letters as children cats, rather than the other way round as now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find it hard to agree with whoever categorised these "letters" as 1. letters 2. in Latin alphabets. I admit, this argument doesn't have much to do with the technicalties of categories, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with calling these things "letters" and these alphabets "Latin". Debresser (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, & Rename to something else, per nom. Carlos, I think you haven't read Latin alphabet. I would suggest maybe Category:Additional letters to the Latin alphabet. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This name would be misleading. Think of all ěščřžýáíé... people would be tempted to add. I disagree with "extension" and "not used in modern English" for the same reason. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Keep-Rename to something else, per Johnbod. I don't think this has to be that hard. While Category:Uncommon Latin letters seems clear to me, a more techinally correct name would be something like Category:Latin alphabet extensions (letters)... or Category:Latin alphabet extension letters, per Latin alphabet... long, but also fine with me. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename perhaps Category:Letters of Latin alphabets not used in modern English. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2009 (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 Category:Rogaining competitor to Category:Rogaining competitors. --Xdamr^talk 00:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rogaining competitor to Category:Rogaining competitors

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Was an incomplete speedy. Bringing it here as a single entry category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy agree. This is a real speedy. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge or rename, not per nom - small category with unclear growth potential, given that not even the founders of the sport have articles so this can be upmerged to Category:Orienteers. If kept, rename to Category:Rogainers. The few meagre references use the term "rogainer" versus "rogaining competitor" which yields no Google news hits. Otto4711 (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to reflect that a category can have multiple articles. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2009 (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 Category:Pakistani ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:Permanent Representatives of Pakistan to the United Nations. --Xdamr^talk 23:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pakistani ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:Permanent Representatives of Pakistan to the United Nations

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Apparently missed in this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Was my mistake; somehow missed listing that one in the nomination (though I had tagged it). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy agree. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2009 (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 Category:Lua-scripted games to Category:Lua-scripted video games. --Xdamr^talk 00:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lua-scripted games to Category:Lua-scripted video games

Nominator's rationale: Technical nominations. Found doing cleanup as an incomplete speedy rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with this one. But it is not a speedy, indeed. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using Lua as internal script is not always defining characteristics of a game (how about this or that rendering engine or AI library). Futhermore developers may switch from/to another language and who's going to maintain it here. I suggest delete. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: a game may use several different scripting languages (cumbersome but may happen when it is assembled from bought components). Note 2: switching between scripting languages is easy when one uses Swig (or similar tools). Existing scripts could be translated automatically. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 00:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Overcategorisation. There isn't even a Category:Music redirects, if it'd be useful, they could be moved there. There's no need for a category just about Opera redirects. Additionally, could be confused with the browser. Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 00:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the category is capturing articles about trans-people based on how their Wikipedia article is named. Not a defining characteristic of the person at all. If kept it needs to be renamed to clarify that it is identifying people by their article names and not by how they personally identified. Otto4711 (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, not a very defining characteristic of a person. Jafeluv (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2009 (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 Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1969-1972 to Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1969-1973. --Xdamr^talk 00:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1969-1972 to Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1969-1973

Nominator's rationale: While the Senate was prorogued in 1972, it was not abolished until 1973, and members continued to be members until abolition. Mooretwin (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical. BTW, why are there no other "Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland" categories? Debresser (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are. There's one for each elected period, plus a supercat. Mooretwin (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 00:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion Category:Summers family tree

Nominator's rationale: Delete - There is standing consensus against "superteams" ([1], [2], [3]) and this seems in the same vein, as fictional super-powered individuals affiliated by some bond. The "Summers family tree" as it is denoted as a family tree, fails to make a strong enough distinction between reality and fiction. Finally, there should be an apostrophe in Summers'. -Sharp962 (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - while not directly comparable to superteam categories it is similar. A glance at the family list in Hyperstorm gives an indication of the problems with this category. Hyperstorm's listed relatives include a "paternal alternate-reality half-grandaunt", "maternal half-uncle's clone from deleted future timeline" and "adopted son of half-uncle's clone from deleted future timeline". It's madness, and no one looking at a bare list of names will have any clue as to the relationships between the characters. Otto4711 (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some other fictional families CFDs showing a decent consensus to delete them. Otto4711 (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the articles categorised should probably be merged back to the comic article(s), which will render the category almost empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 14:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sailing films to Category:Competitive sailing films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose moving Category:Sailing films → Category:Competitive sailing films — So the films about sailing as a sport can be listed in "Category:Competitive sailing films". "Category:Competitive sailing films" can in turn be listed in both Category:Sports films by sport as well as in Category:Sailing films. --Bensin (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{Note: Request has been moved from the article's talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

I don't see the need to do this. There are only two items (currently) listed here, and even if there are more I'm not convinced that "Competitive" would be an appropriate disambiguator. You're asking to have an empty category containing one sub-category with two articles. That just doesn't make much sense, to me.
— Ω (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is that there are a lot of films dealing with sailing, but only a subset of the sailing films are about competitive sailing and thus fit under the category "sports films by sport". Suggestions for a better name is most welcome! Another alternative would be to re-categorize Wind (film) and Morning Light into Category:Boat racing films. --Bensin (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that "that there are a lot of films dealing with sailing", why isn't this category filled with entries? I'm not trying to be a smart-alec or anything, it's just that this is part of policy. We don't do things in anticipation on possible problems. Wait until there's an actual issue, and it'll take care of itself. Incidentally, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories, which normally takes care of this sort of thing. Movereq's aren't typically used to take care of categorization issues, since they have their own mechanism's to deal with how categories are maintained.
— Ω (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – it's not particularly difficult to find some (non-competitive) sailing films; I found 2 within a minute. There is also Category:Seafaring films with a host of pirate films. I don't myself see any problem with creating "Category:Competitive sailing films", subcat of Category:Sports films by sport. Occuli (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there must be films about non-competitive sailing, but there is not reason why we should not have Category:Competitive sailing films with Category:Sports films by sport and the preent category as parents. Boat racing can also refer to oared boats and is this a distinct subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I want there to be two categories: One for competitive sailing films, and that "competitive sailing films" is a subcategory to a category "'general' sailing films" AND "Sports films by sport". Sorry for the confusion. --Bensin (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that be solved by just creating a new category for the competitive sailing films, making it a subcategory of Category:Sailing films, as Peterkingiron suggests above? No need to rename the existing category. Jafeluv (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'll do that. Thanks! --Bensin (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting or renaming Category:Horses who died from heart attacks to Category:Horses that died from heart attack

Nominator's rationale: Delete; or at a minimum rename. Horses by cause of death? Is this an unusual way for a horse to die? I'm not sure on the delete/keep issues this raises, but I want to hear what others think. If kept, we need to change the "who" to "that" and make "heart attacks" singular, unless this is categorizing horses that died from multiple heart attacks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; or at a minimum rename per nom. A category for horses which died during a race would be a more obvious one. 'Murdered horses' perhaps. Occuli (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After looking at the pages in the category, it seems that the cause of death is a piece of trivia rather than anything else. Dying of heart attack isn't why these horses are notable, and I think it's pretty unlikely a reader would be looking for horses by cause of death. There are plenty of useful subcategories for horses, anyway. Jafeluv (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while for humans how they die is notable and something one would expect to read in a biography, not so for horses. I suppose, horses who died while racing (or as a result of racing) may be useful and defining, those who die by heart attacks, cancer, euthanasia (probably the most common for notable racehorses), or such is not defining and one would not expect to read it in an article about the horse in question. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If renamed, I agree with "heart attack" singular, but would keep "who" instead of "that". According to Dutch grammar, horses are equal to humans. The same might be the case in English. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's the case in English. According to Chicago Manual of Style, at least: "Who refers only to a person. Which refers only to an animal or a thing. What refers only to a non-living thing. That refers to a person, animal, or thing." (section 5.58). So I suppose we could used "that" or "which". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above, non-defining. If kept rename to Category:Horse deaths from myocardial infarction since we use MI in category names, not "heart attack" and this solves the who vs that question. But don't keep it. Otto4711 (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is probably a better renaming option (if kept). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Otto4711 if kept. No view on merits of keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2009 (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 Category:Court TV shows to Category:TruTV shows. --Xdamr^talk 00:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Court TV shows to Category:TruTV shows

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Court TV is now TruTV, and category should be renamed to fit the network's name, which was adopted in 2008. azumanga (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match new title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2009 (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.

August 12

Category:Mountain bike racing in the United Kingdom

Category:Stalkers

Category:Women in Northern Irish politics

Category:Historical romance

Category:ISCID fellows

Category:Video games by license

Category:Tyre

Category:Alumni of LAMDA

Category:Letters

Category:Uncommon Latin letters

Category:Rogaining competitor

Category:Pakistani ambassadors to the United Nations

Category:Lua-scripted games

Category:Opera redirects

Category:Trans persons under original name

Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1969-1972

Category:Summers family tree

Category:Sailing films

Category:Horses who died from heart attacks

Category:Court TV shows