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 to Category:Jehovah's Witnesses legal cases. No consensus exists on the legal cases vs. case law discussion, so I'm just renaming it to match the structure of the subcategories of Category:Case law by party.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Legal cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses to Category:Jehovah's Witness rights case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to bring in line with parent and sibling category names. Also reduces ambiguity as the name could currently mean any case to which a JW was a party. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Jehovah's Witnesses case law. No special rights were given to the Witnesses (always pluralized); the rights are available for anyone who wants to use them. Hmains (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Either keep as is or delete. Hmains is right in pointing out that these cases are not about rights or laws specific to Jehovah's Witnesses, which is what the nom's rename would imply. But that also means that they don't comprise "Jehovah's Witness case law" either; there is no body of law specific to Jehovah's Witnesses, which is what the rename of "[topic] case law" would imply. They were simply cases in which a JW was a party, though (hopefully) cases at least in which their involvement was tied to their religion. I don't think that we should maintain such categories at all based on some characteristic of a litigant involved, which may not be defining of the case, and which could proliferate for either classes of litigants (Category:Legal cases involving atheists, Category:Legal cases involving Scientologists, etc.). So my top preference would be to simply delete this category. But if no one else agrees with me on that, I think keeping as is would be better than either of the proposed renames. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't care if it gets deleted (although then the subcat should also go). My nom was based purely on matching the name format. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your confusion was based on its improper parenting in Category:Case law by topic, because it's not analogous to those other groupings (which are about particular case law topics); I've moved it to Category:Case law by party. postdlf (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I have no doubt that this is about issues where the Witnesses' beliefs and practices conflict with the law of countries in which they are. Examples would be that they claim they are all ministers and hence exempt from the draft, and they refuse blood transfusions. Category:Case law concerning Jehovah's Witnesses might be an appropriate rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per PKI to Category:Case law concerning Jehovah's Witnesses, a subtle but important modification which I believe addresses the issue that prompted this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think this rename proposal is wrongly implying that the case law is of special or exclusive concern to Jehovah's Witnesses. Category:Case law involving Jehovah's Witnesses would be more accurate. postdlf (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're misreading it, postdlf -- that's not at all what it says. JW's are the object -- not the subject, which is case law. Cgingold (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Case law affecting student rights to Category:Student rights case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to bring the category name in line with its parent and siblings. Current name is ambiguous since many cases that are not specifically about student rights "affect" them in some fashion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No objections to the rename based on pure form, but this category is problematic at present. Its name is not limited to any country, yet it only contains American case law, and it is presently parented by U.S.-specific categories, such as Category:United States education case law. I wonder also if it may be too fine a division of the education category to be justified at present. If kept though, it should be reparented and/or a U.S.-specific subcategory created. postdlf (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:United States student rights case law is fine if the contents are all American cases. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Postdlf. As the original cat creator I intended it to be US-specific and didn't know the naming convention. • Freechild'sup? 00:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename per Cow Of Pain. This is definitely a noteworthy and important area of case law. Cgingold (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tobacco legal cases to Category:Tobacco case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to bring the name in line with its parent and sibling categories. Or it could simply be deleted and the US subcat be placed in this category's legal parents. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biofuel production (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. OC small that adds an additional level of navigation. The one category and one article have other parents. The question I have is should any of the parent categories be added to the subcategory. I'm not convinced that we need to, but if we need to we should. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I was meaning to nominate this as well. As for your question, the only parent that needs adding to the subcat, imo, is Category:Biofuels. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Case law concerning same-sex marriage to Category:Same-sex union case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename - because not every case that involves recognition of same-sex unions is about recognition of same-sex marriage. Baker v. Vermont for instance resulted in civil unions, not marriage. Wisconsin had a case challenging its domestic partnership ordinance. There's a case in Montana that's seeking the state-offered benefits of marriage but not marriage. The proposed name is more accurate and also brings the category name in line with other case law categories. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States LGBT rights cases to Category:United States LGBT rights case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to bring the category name in line with its parents and siblings. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. bd2412 T 23:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I am closing this early per WP:SNOW and will leave a message for the nominator. If the matter was already being discussed elsewhere, those "admittedly limited" discussions should have been given more time before going to the "nuclear option". Jehochman ^Talk 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It's time for the nuclear option. Following an admittedly limited discussion at the village pump and the start of a new one at WPT:SOCK, I think this whole system of suspected sockpuppets should be eliminated. Confirmed sockpuppets has a purpose; this is subject to so much gamesmanship that I honestly think it's more detrimental than beneficial to the project now. To summarize some of my points:

• Some of these categories have (and should have) been deleted per WP:DENY so it's not totally out there as an idea.
• WP:SPI, I was told, uses tags only for those who are blocked.
• Consider this: if an individual editor were to go around claiming that a bunch of accounts were all sockpuppets without evidence, we'd tell them to knock it off, filed proper SPI reports and eventually blocked them for harassment if they kept going. However, we don't have a standard for when we can tag a bunch of people as suspected sockpuppets.
• Recently (and more than once), people have demanded that the people tagged (or others) prove they weren't the socks that others suggested (see the history at User:VLB Pocketspup and at User talk:70.181.189.126). I think a "file an SPI or shut up" requirement is valid and should be kept regardless of a tag or otherwise.
• Given the number of IP addresses tagged here, is anyone concerned IP addresses rotating and thus innocent new editors seeing tags that suspect them of being one of a hundred IP addresses used for a few edits years ago? That's not a new message warning that's needed.
• What really does Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 117.192.172.25 gain? The IP address in question was blocked for 24 hours. The other addresses listed were similar. Chasing ghosts doesn't accomplish much.
• There are numerous wanted categories of suspected socks for editors currently editing (and who have been been blocked). Is it really appropriate to allow that kind of conduct? It doesn't encourage a collegial attitude.
• I've heard two opposing theories for keeping this whole thing.
  • One argument is it's ok because nobody really cares about suspected sockpuppets but only confirmed ones. That's really a terrible reason to allow people to willy-nilly tag others as socks without any way for new editors to figure out "we don't really mean it."
  • In the most recent ARBCOM discussion (you can guess which one), people brought up the fact of the suspected sockpuppets as substantive evidence of the fact that those banned users were in fact socking. If being merely tagged is substantive evidence, we need a higher standard. However, since there isn't a technical way to only let admins tag (and even admins can be a concern), I think it's more productive to dump the whole thing.
    • In particular, while evidence of recent socks can be relevant (to determine whether or not the standard offer should be given), what is gained by evidence of old, old, possible socks? Checkuser is long past relevant at that stage and other than a counting game, I don't see what's gained.

In this end, my main point is this. This isn't 2003 where naming people based on suspicion alone is ok, because we didn't really technical means to confirm. Calling people sockpuppets should be a more serious offense and should require SPI or further evidence. As for the WP:DUCK test, in my mind, admins should be allowed to tag people as confirmed (as they have confirmed it). If questioned, they should be ready to explain themselves. Saying "a user expressed concern" is not acceptable. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Keep - I agree with the last bit, requiring an SPI and serious evidence. I think the cat should stay, and instead there should be a policy change to limit the use of the suspected tag, requiring the existence of an SPI, or really good evidence. Socks who are obviously socks are not always blocked when found, as admins or users familiar with the cases are not always online, so in the light of keeping track of banned editors sanction evading, who have yet to be blocked, I think it should stay.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are actually three types of sockpuppets, not two: Suspected, Suspected and blocked, and Confirmed. Many of the more active puppetmasters have extensive lists in the "Suspected" category, and many of these have been blocked by an admin based on behavioral evidence without a formal SPI. Deleting the "Suspected" categories en masse would destroy that data, which would be very difficult to recerate. Either those suspected and blocked puppets need to be moved into the "Confirmed" categories (the confirmation being the admin blocking them rather than an SPI), or a new category needs to be created to contain them, or the "Suspected" category needs to be used only for those socks blocked by an admin but not confirmed by an SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But is that data really that important? It's really only needed for a very small number of long-term large sockmasters from what I can tell. There are almost 4,000 different sockmasters tagged, the vast vast majority of which haven't edited under any account in months if not years. Meanwhile, for the biggest, worst sockmasters, we have the counterargument of WP:DENY. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you underestimate the number of sockmasters it applies to. Even run-of-the-mill sockers can go on a tear and create numerous socks in a single connected episode, most of whom are blocked without a CU ever being run. That information, once lost, cannot be used to bolster behavioral evidence for future SPI reports. The suspected category is part of the project's institutional memory, and I don't see that abuse of it (which assuredly does occur) warrants losing that memory, especially when the abuse can be dealt with in other ways. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Both WP:SOCK and WP:SPI were notified of this discussion [1] [2]. — ξ^xplicit 05:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It might not be a bad idea to only categorize pages tagged with ((sock|master|blocked)) (i.e. the "suspected and blocked" socks) into this category; a simple ((sock)) tag is indeed rather pointless from SPI's point of view. However, this category is useful, as we need a way to track those sockpuppets for future checkuser queries and behavioral analysis in many cases, yet be clear that the evidence used to block might not be as solid as an unambiguous  Confirmed. T. Canens (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that some strengthening and clarification of the rules about when a user may be tagged as a suspected sockpuppet is probably necessary. However, deleting this entire category and routing all cases through WP:SPI is not the answer. There are lots of situations where accounts get blocked for block-evading sockpuppetry on clear-cut behavioral evidence and without a formal SPI report (and certainly without CU). I think it is perfectly appropriate to have such users tagged as suspected sockpuppets and listed in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. As noted above, keeping track of such cases is useful for the institutional memory and in case a formal SPI report becomes necessary later. There is already a significant backlog and staffing shortage at WP:SPI and at WP:CHK and it would be a bad idea to force an additional flood of obvious and non-controversial cases to be routed there. Nsk92 (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anyone who deals with users who repeatedly use sockpuppets finds these categories and templates essential. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Keep, can only support nom has little experience dealing with socks. Many well knowned socks have "Suspected" purely because they are easy to spot and CHK is unnecessary. And yes, that data is really needed as it relates to abuse reports, community bans, doing username/edit filters, and often helps categorize known ranges and what not. The only pages that should be tags are socks that are suspected enough for blocking, not just "oh well, I feel like calling you a sock today." If it is later shown said user was not a sock, the tag is removed. There is no massive abuse, and trying to remove the category only creates massive headaches and attempts to solve a problem that just doesn't existed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep no policy based rationale for deletion given, and no policy should change as a result of discussion here. Verbal chat 21:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - That said, I agree the scope needs to be narrowed a bit. There is no need to tag every dynamic IP that some sockmaster has used as a suspected sock. Tiptoety ^talk 21:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The cat is a useful tool for puppet hunters. --GabeMc (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2010 (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. We have no other categories by birthplace, and none of the target categories have been deemed acceptable in this discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Americans born in the Philippines to Category:American expatriates in the Philippines

Nominator's rationale: Former category duplicates the latter, the latter of which falls into naming conventions. — ξ^xplicit 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not merge. These two categories are not duplicates; they are virtually opposites. Category:Americans born in the Philippines should be people who started their lives in the Philippines and went to the U.S. (or were U.S. citizens by birth). Category:American expatriates in the Philippines should be people who started their lives in the USA and went to the Philippines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Filipino expatriates in the United States? I never figured out how this expatriate stuff works. — ξ^xplicit 06:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely Do not merge. The first time I glanced at this one it made my head hurt. I thought I must have read it wrong or something -- so I decided to come back later for another look. Here's the verdict: Met90 is on the right track. After looking at the two articles and the (non-existent) parent cat, it's clear that this category is intended for people who were born to American parents in the Philippines while they were an American territory (prior to July 1946), and therefore had US citizenship at birth. It's definitely an oddball category, but I suppose it's perfectly valid. It does need parent cats, though. Cgingold (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Upmerge to Category:American people of Filipino descent, based on User:Cgingold's description of the contents. The parent cat of 'cat:Amers of Fil. descent' is Category:People of Filipino descent or origin, incorporating both those of Filipino ethnic lineage as well as those of Filipino 'national origin', and these people are Americans (ie. U.S. citizens) of Filipino national origin. Mayumashu (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely Not - These individuals are NOT of Filipino descent in any way, shape or form. Good grief -- how you got that from what I wrote is beyond my comprehension. These are people whose US Citizen parents happened to be living in the Philippines at the time of their birth -- prior to the Philippines gaining their independence from the United States in 1946. Cgingold (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I m saying they are of Filipino origin, and the category for this, the subcat of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin, is Category:American people of Filipino descent. But it is true, isn t it, that 'of Filipino descent' strongly suggests of Filipino ethnic lineage, so given its name (more than its intended purpose), my suggested upmerge is a rather poor idea. Instead, I say upmerge to a newly created Category:Citizens of the United States born abroad (and add Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States as a subcat). The nominated cat has just two links and there may be one or two other places like the Philippines, former U.S. colonies or protectorates. Also consular or military employees, as well as expats, have children born U.S. citizens but not in the U.S., so I can see such a cat being well-populated. Mayumashu (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both upmerge proposals. An American born in the Philippines is not necessarily of Filipino ethnic descent. Nor need an American born there have ever lived there as is necessary for expatriate status. On the flip side, an American born there who did live there wasn't necessarily an American at the time if they were naturalized citizens, so they would not have been an expatriate when they did live there. postdlf (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, this is confusing. Is the current red-linked category the proper way to go, or should it be recategorized? I should also point out the nominated category should at least be renamed to Category:American people born in the Philippines per naming conventions. — ξ^xplicit 20:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for nominator — I have a white American acquaintance who was born to US Air Force parents in the Philippines; they moved back to the USA soon afterward, where he's lived since. What would you suggest doing with this person if he became notable tomorrow? Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was under the impression that it was decided a long time ago that place of birth was not a proper basis for categorization, which is why we have the Category:People from Foo structure as opposed to Category:People born in Foo. I'm not seeing why this one isolated instance should be treated differently. Otto4711 (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with just deleting the category too, as it appears it's one of a kind. The objections above all seem to be based on the ill fit of the merger targets, not necessarily any inherent merit of the category. postdlf (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Place of birth is not defining. They should be categorized as American people and their articles can mention their birthplace and how that resulted in their American citizenship. In the past we've already deleted Irish-born Americans as well as the broad foreign-born Americans. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge. However, Category:Americans born in the Philippines should be merged into Category:Filipino immigrants to the United States. JackJud (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and we now have a third inapplicable merger target. Those categories are not synonymous. People who were American citizens at the time of their birth, which the present category includes, could never be characterized as immigrants to the U.S. Category:Filipino immigrants to the United States is for people who were citizens of the Philippines. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The two concepts are different. Since the Philippines was an American colony, there will be people of natural-born American descent who were born in the Philippines. This is different from Philippines residents of American descent and Filipino immigrants to America who ought to be in Category:American people of Filipino descent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2010 (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, but allow subcategorization. If someone wants to create the subcategory Category:Online video rental services, go ahead.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video rental services to be split?

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was tagged for splitting two years ago but never nominated. So I'm bring this here to see what others think. The suggestion is to split this into retail and online services. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see the point - splitting has the function of turning a small category into two even smaller categories and would necessitate splitting the Canadian subcat into two miniscule categories. If there were hundreds of articles then maybe a split might make more sense but for fewer than 40? No. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fluxbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. OC small. I don't believe that we have tended to categorize software that uses other software. In the area of windows managers, this is the only product with a category. Better served by a list in the article if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Another pointless tech splinter cat by banned user Mac. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2010 (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 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Speech-to-text to Category:Speech recognition software

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think the proposed name better describes the contents of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (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. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Low cost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Low-cost

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Low cost is subjective. I think the fact that we have so little in here after over a year says that the community does not see a need for this category. Exactly what criteria do we use for inclusion? I have included Category:Low-cost since if the first is deleted, there is no need for the category redirect. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2010 (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, expanding the acronym OECD. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People related to the OECD to Category:OECD officials Category:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development officials

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Shorter and defines better who belongs into this category. Beagel (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming related category Category:OECD to Category:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Updated my nomination per Otto4711. Beagel (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development officials. The other associated categories should also be renamed to expand the initialism. Otto4711 (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to what Otto said. FYI, I checked to see that the hyphen in Co-operation is indeed there.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OECD spells Co-operation with hyphen as also Organisation with 's'. Beagel (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:OECD officials ; OECD is a well-known organization and the initialism is not ambiguous, comparable to Category:UNESCO or Category:OPEC. As with those orgs and others such as UNICEF or CERN, the full name is likely to be less recognizable and less well-understood. - choster (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to expanded initialisms, and with 'officials' , per nom. OPEC and UNESCO should be expanded too. Mayumashu (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to full name, per nomination. JackJud (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2010 (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 to Category:Western Interconnection.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Power Transmission in the Western United States to Category:Electric power transmission systems in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The current name of the category is not good. There is also no other subcategories for the other parts of the United States. The category is populated but it will be still manageable after merging. In case of merging, the articles about converter stations should be recategorized. If kept, the article needs renaming at least due capitalization. Beagel (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Western Interconnection. This is the proper name for this network. It would also make sense to create a category for the other major interconnect, Category:Eastern Interconnection. These interconnections are not restricted to the US but include Canada so a name that does not include the country is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vegaswikian or to Category:Electric power transmission systems in North America - which would include more then just the interconnects. Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • I guess the question in this entire area is the intent of the categories. Category:Electric power transmission systems includes Category:Converter stations and Category:Powerline river crossings so clearly the application is more then just systems. Those items are really parts of the transmission system. I don't believe that the current category restricts us to interconnects as shown by the contents. If we renamed to Category:Electric power transmission systems in North America then we would still need to create Category:Western Interconnection and a bunch of other subcategories in the future. Category:Eastern Interconnection probably has enough material to justify its creation now. A North America parent does make sense since some of the US interconnects are to Mexico but I'm not sure that we have articles in that area. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Sons of Lee Marvin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As a secret society, membership can not be confirmed. In addition, since sole entry requirement for the club is that one must have a physical resemblance to plausibly look like a son of Marvin membership is totally subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Creator's rationale: Keep. If you read the article, you will see that the assignations of membership have been verified by reliable sources. Any article added to the category that is not associated with TSOLM by a reliable source can and should be removed, just like any other category works. Recommend a speedy close of this discussion. Skomorokh 19:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you can not list verification in a category and your case is based on this, a category is not the appropriate vehicle. A list in the article including the source used is the better solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All "member of..." categories operate like this: a citation in the article of the organisation or individual verifies the relation. There already is a list in the article including the source at The_Sons_of_Lee_Marvin#Members, and categories and lists are complementary, not mutually exclusive. I'm really not sure you understand categorisation of this sort. Best, Skomorokh 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. Most of the people currently categorized are "said to be" or "rumored to be" members, according to the article. Otto4711 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Membership in this admittedly "tongue-in-cheek" society is not a defining characteristic of said members. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green energy design (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After dropping two manufacturing companies where the articles don't even mention green or energy we are left with two articles and two subcategories. What this is, is a subjective collective that does not appear to be need and probably is a POV fork from many other better used categories and trees. I see no need to retain any of the odd set of parent categories for the included material (Category:Design, Category:Sustainable technologies, Category:Technology by type, Category:Environmental design). The other categories in the articles should suffice. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No need for this category, at least at the moment. Beagel (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2010 (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 and merge all. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All of these categories for provinces of Ecuador do not require the ", Ecuador" disambiguation to match the corresponding main articles for the provinces. They are all unambiguous names. Many of the targets are presently category redirects. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Debresser (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom, no need for country dab. --Soman (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• REname/Merge as nom. The Country is only needed to prevent ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pioneer to Category:Pioneer, Singapore

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose renaming to match main article Pioneer, Singapore. Pioneer is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, to avoid ambiguity Mayumashu (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Western Islands to Category:Western Islands Planning Area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose renaming to match main article Western Islands Planning Area. Western Islands is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, to avoid ambiguity Mayumashu (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but Category:Western Islands, Singapore is an alternative. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Woodlands to Category:Woodlands, Singapore

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose rename to match main article Woodlands, Singapore. Woodlands is ambiguous, and ideally this should be a DAB category for this and Category:Woodlands, Manitoba. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to avoid ambiguity Mayumashu (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Outram to Category:Outram, Singapore

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Outram, Singapore. Outram is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, to avoid ambiguity Mayumashu (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Newton to Category:Newton, Singapore

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest rename to match main article Newton, Singapore. Newton is ambiguous, and ideally this category should be a DAB category for this and Category:Newton, Massachusetts. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2010 (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. Ruslik_Zero 11:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sportspeople from Paris to Category:People from Paris

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Whole set of categories created recently. A recent discussion agreed that subdividing by city was inappropriate. This is a mass category for the rest of the created categories.TM 08:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think holding up the dam on so to speak these now requires too vigilance, as one or two seem to be created here and there every other week or so. (There are more for major Japanese and Australian cities, at least.) I m in favour of maintaining (eventually) a Category:Sportspeople by city that does not get further sub-divided. If it s primarily the work of one editor and if we also include upmerging actor ones too then I ll revert to my prior support for upmerging. They should all also be upmerged to 'Cat:Sportspeople from (state/province/U.K. county/etc.)' Mayumashu (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to "People from (City)" and "Sportspeople from (State or Country)." This appears to be the list of these categories created by User talk:Fixer88:

I'm in favor of deleting all of them. We already categorize sportspeople by country and state, and we've deleted categories like this in the past. I'm not inclined to see "Category:Sportspeople from French Lick, Indiana".--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is also Category:Sportspeople from Melbourne, I noticed, but it looks to be one-off for Australia. Mayumashu (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge 'Sportspeople from X' into 'People from X' for all the above. Occuli (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have actors by city, so sportspeople seems a fair category tree too. That recent conversation had all of three people contributing! Lugnuts (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Actors by city was deleted in this cfd. It's a trivial intersection. Occuli (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 years ago! There are loads of them now. Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly by state. It is true that people create these endless intersections more quickly than cfd can urge restraint, but it remains a trivial intersection. Occuli (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As much as I think going by city is idiotic (and Category:People by city district or neighborhood is particularly inane), we have Category:People from Los Angeles, California by occupation and probably a host of other city ones. I would suggest someone create Category:People by city by occupation and organize it all and then list the whole thing for deletion, upmerging the whole thing. Otherwise, this piecemeal approach is never going to work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So we create all these things just so we can delete them? After you. Occuli (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Create the one category then. Otherwise, it will be a hunt and peck game. I agree with you, frankly, so let me start with one at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• merge all into appropriate "people from XXX" categories. I think categorizing people by city and occupation is definitely overcategorization, it being of the triple intersection type. Combining the city where a person is from with their occupation creates a pretty insignificant factoid. Large cities have a lot of people who are "from" them—this is not a surprise. There's nothing wrong with a large category—the fact that a city has a large population does not mean we need to figure out various ways to slice and dice the residents into smaller and smaller groups. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There are enough sportpeople from many large cites to make this a worthwhile category tree. Furthermore, it prevents "people from boo" being cluttered up with sports stars. This solution should however only be adopted for large cities where the people category is already large. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peterkingiron. Cjc13 (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into "People from ___", overcat, triple intersection. --CutOffTies (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and expand. "Sportspeople by city" categories keep getting created, by multiple unrelated editors, and I think some people in CfDs are underestimating how substantial a "sportspeople by city" really is if it's actually populated, and how much it relieves the parent people-by-city category of its article load; they are not mere trivia intersections, and I believe not having them actually discourages Wikipedians (including editors) browsing local biographies. There are a lot of sports "biographies" on Wikipedia. Just on this nomination, we have 19 more categories, even for large cities— and even New York City split into boroughs because there will be so many names— and yet here's another batch of comments saying the categories are trivial and were "created recently" and are rare and that it will create a slippery slope of every one-horse town having a sportspeople category with one person, etc., etc. But these categories are only "rare" at any given time because people keep upmerging them, and the reason you don't see how big these categories really are is for the same reason. For someone who browses (and edits) biographical articles, I cannot emphasize how annoying it is to keep tripping over these "assumed notable" sports statistics pages masquerading as biographies even though most of them can never go beyond stub level. (Yes, I know many sports biographies manage to get beyond stubs. People will still know where to find them. For every Shaquille O'Neal and Babe Ruth, there is some baseball player from the 1800s who played one game for the predecessor of some MLB team, and whose name isn't even certain, yet is "assumed notable" and is just sitting there fossilzed.) And that's from an editor with experience. Can you imagine the typical anonymous Wikipedia reader who isn't interested in sports, trying to browse a typical "people by city" category in their local area? I'll give an example: a couple years ago I created Category:Sportspeople from Peoria, Illinois and diffused it by hand — I wasn't as familiar with CatScan at the time. Now, from my view, maintaining biographies there became much easier as soon as I did it. Nevertheless, in April 2009, it was upmerged in one of these (repeated) sweeps: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16#Category:Sportspeople by city. At the time, 21% of the biographies were sportspeople; I'm pretty sure that, after that, the proportion climbed for a bit. (I've seen a lot of business biographies in 2010 for some reason, so maybe the sports proportion has gone back down.) It doesn't take long at all before 21% of all biographies in a city becomes a substantial block, despite the comment in that CfD to the effect that Las Vegas wouldn't have 21%. (I suspect that says more about Las Vegas than about the typical results. By the way, Las Vegas has 27.6% on the intersection below.) In 2009, it seemed like new biography articles were being created at a rate of more like 80% sports, but that is just my perception. French Lick, Indiana may not need a sportspeople category; but Peoria, Tokyo, Sydney, and New York City certainly do.

Here are some sample runs from CatScan2, drilling down 4 levels from each category, to show you what kind of so-called "trivial" intersection we're dealing with here. (To be fair, these may be a little high. A lot are in "American sportspeople" are because they played college sports or something, but are known for something else, and the cities may have people who moved there after their sports career. Those people probably wouldn't end up in portspeople for that city. On the other hand, this also skips people whose city is different than their categorized nationality.)

• Category:American sportspeople
  • ∩ Category:People from Los Angeles, California = 1502 out of 4891 (30.7%), of which only 52 are now in Category:Sportspeople from Los Angeles, California
  • ∩ Category:People from Chicago, Illinois = 4057 out of 8209 (49.4%), yet no category for it. Just in case something odd is happening there, I ran Category:Sportspeople from Illinois ∩ Category:People from Chicago, Illinois and still got 524 (6.4% of 8209).
  • ∩ Category:People from Peoria, Illinois = 35 out of 128 (27.3%), yet no category for it
  • ∩ Category:People from the Las Vegas metropolitan area = 91 out of 330 (27.6%), yet no category for it. (Note that it's the metro because Las Vegas is "weird" — most of what you think of as "Las Vegas" isn't Las Vegas.)
  • ∩ Category:People from New York City = 1276 articles of 15,748 (8.1%), of which only 147 are in Category:Sportspeople from New York City and its subcategories
  • Boroughs of New York City — and remember that many New Yorkers aren't properly diffused into their borough, so the people-by-borough categories are deceptively small:
    • ∩ Category:People from the Bronx = 120 out of 863 (13.9%), of which only 17 are now Category:Sportspeople from the Bronx
    • ∩ Category:People from Brooklyn = 407 out of 2472 (16.5%), of which only 23 are now in Category:Sportspeople from Brooklyn
    • ∩ Category:People from Manhattan = 946 out of 6011 (15.7%), of which only 24 are now in Category:Sportspeople from Manhattan
    • ∩ Category:People from Queens = 140 out of 811 (17.3%), of which only 28 are now in Category:Sportspeople from Queens
    • ∩ Category:People from Staten Island = 67 out of 320 (20.9%), of which 45 are now in Category:Sportspeople from Staten Island
• Category:Australian sportspeople
  • ∩ Category:People from Melbourne = 371 out of 1629 (22.8%), of which 328 are in Category:Sportspeople from Melbourne, large enough that editors have started diffusing it further
  • ∩ Category:People from Sydney = 493 out of 1313 (37.6%), yet no category for it
• Category:British sportspeople ∩ Category:People from London = 2285 out of 18273 (12.5%), yet Category:Sportspeople from London isn't used because it has been redirected with no appearance in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 2 where the category history claims it should be
• Category:Japanese sportspeople
  • ∩ Category:People from Tokyo = 231 out of 1282 (18.0%), of which only 54 are now Category:Sportspeople from Tokyo
  • ∩ Category:People from Yokohama = 69 out of 235 (29.3%), of which 34 are now in Category:Sportspeople from Yokohama

And by the way: I believe Tokyo is actually a prefecture, with its own cities inside it. --Closeapple (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Teachers of computer science to Category:Computer science teachers

Nominator's rationale: To match every other category at Category:Educators by discipline (other than Category:Teachers of singing listed below). Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Teachers of singing to Category:Voice teachers

Nominator's rationale: To follow the naming of Category:Vocal music. Also note that in Category:Educators by discipline, this is the only category titled "Teachers of ....", other than Category:Teachers of computer science. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While these two categories are being discussed, the distinction to the category Singing teachers, unclear to me, might also be considered. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I agree that we need to consider Category:Singing teachers, but that should be a follow on nomination if this one happens. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2010 (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 to Category:Qingdao Jonoon F.C. players. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Qingdao Zhongneng players to Category:Qingdao Jonoon players

Nominator's rationale: Current name of the team Qingdao Jonoon F.C., perhaps move to Category:Qingdao Jonoon F.C. players to be the most accurate. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Qingdao Jonoon F.C. players. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2010 (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: Nomination withdrawn. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Portuguese infantas to Category:Portuguese princesses

Nominator's rationale: To follow Category:Princesses and generally I guess we should follow the English terminology instead of infante. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese princesses were women who held the title of Princess of Portugal; i.e. women who were at some point of their life heiress to the Portuguese crown or spouse of the heir. Portuguese infantas were (grand)daughters of Portuguese monarchs who were not first in the line of succession. That is a difference between "infanta" and "princess". Calling them all princesses might not be accurate. Besides, reliable English language sources use infanta where appropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So putting Category:Portuguese infantes inside Category:Princes is also incorrect? If so, I'll withdraw this suggestion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it is incorrect; the Prince of Portugal was the eldest son only. The other sons were Infantes of Portugal. I guess we should aim for precision. Surtsicna (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, withdrawn. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Italian antifascists to Category:Italian anti-fascists

Nominator's rationale: To follow Category:German anti-fascists Ricky81682 (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, for consistency. (Are both spellings differences U.K. vs. U.S.?, btw.) Mayumashu (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American Armenian people to Category:American people of Armenian descent

Nominator's rationale: To follow the structure of most ethnic group at Category:American people by ethnic or national origin Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. For most listed, a determination of whether they are ethnically Armenian or are not (but do have Armenian ancestry/lineage) cannot be determined. The nominated cat could be recreated with a few of those who are obviously the former type (not be me anytime soon however, for one). I still feel strongly that unless the whole structure is renamed to Category:American people of Armenian ethnicity or ancestry, Category:Russian people of Tatar ethnicity or ancestry, etc., we do need to maintain separate ethnic descent(=ancestry) and ethnicity trees. Mayumashu (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mayumashu, and let's do this for all the other categories of FOOian Armenian people. Maintaining the relatively fine distinction is not appropriate for categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom -- The target is the standard format. A person qualifies with at least one appropriate ancestor, so that ethnic purity is not concerned. Russian ethnicities (internal nationalities) is a special case, since these people are of Russian nationality (internationally). I had to pull up Mayumashu on some sensitive cases (perhaps including sister categories to this one). It should not be done in Middle Eastern countries because Armenian there is a religious denomination more than a nationality, covering people who never came from the country now called Armenia. However whether they are Armenian due to natioanl origin or religion the category will do well in America. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Research and field projects (meteorology) to Category:Meteorology research and field projects

Nominator's rationale: Rename, less confusing word order, no need for parenthetical explanation. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 06:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ōmuta, Fukuoka to Category:Ōmuta

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguation not needed as there is but one WP notable place named Ōmuta. Mayumashu (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep to match the name of the main article which has no problems as named Hmains (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Article is now at Ōmuta. The move was held up because it required administrative action. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment ok, then rename to match the name of the main article. Hmains (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2010 (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 to resolve ambiguity. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fukuoka to Category:Fukuoka (city)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate, as there is also Fukuoka Prefecture. Mayumashu (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ambiguous categories are a very bad idea. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep to match the name of the main article, which has no problems with its name. Hmains (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

categories appear (listed at the bottom of articles) without the benefit of hatnotes, unlike articles - their names required an extra layer of 'self-evident semantics' Mayumashu (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per noms since the name is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2010 (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 to resolve ambiguity. — ξ^xplicit 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hiroshima to Category:Hiroshima (city)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate, as there is also Hiroshima Prefecture. Mayumashu (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ambiguous categories are a very bad idea. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep to match the name of the article which appears to be just fine as it is Hmains (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

categories appear (listed at the bottom of articles) without the benefit of hatnotes, unlike articles - their names required an extra layer of 'self-evident semantics' Mayumashu (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom since the name is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from South West Queensland to Category:People from Queensland

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No apparent reason for an extra level of navigation. While one could argue that this is apart of a series, the series is small with several other entries having single categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination but I would consider adding Category:People from Central Queensland, Category:People from Darling Downs, Category:People from South Burnett, Category:People from the Gulf Country and Category:People from South East Queensland as well. I would keep Category:People from Far North Queensland and Category:People from North Queensland as each has its own supporting supercategory for the region. Is it possible to create a category called Category:People from Queensland by city and Category:People from Queensland by region to tidy up the Category:People from Queensland tree? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Category:People from Queensland by city and Category:People from Queensland by region could be created if that makes sense. Is that the right way to clean this up? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and create the cats mentioned by User:Mattinbgn to clean up. Catting people by region by Australian state is equivalent to catting people by county within states/provinces in the U.S./Canada, which is done, in a full schema. Mayumashu (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be nice if we had an article on South West Queensland so we know what it is before the category is created. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of Queensland, lists the regions - half have articles and half don t. Mayumashu (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you click on South West, you wind up where? Bottom line is a few more stubs would really help. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – there are more 'supporting supercategories' in Category:Regions of Queensland that have not been used as parents. At a brief glance it seems to me that this needs some attention from interested parties, to see whether the cats could be better populated. (There are a lot of towns if not nec cities in Category:Towns in the Darling Downs say, and perhaps others than Roma have a 'People from' category.) Occuli (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A request at WP:AWNB may find some interested parties willing to help. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note on one nomination somewhat related. Category:People by city in New South Wales is up for speedy deletion as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a fundamentally destructive nomination. If the regions of Queenland are properly defined, the category is a legitimate one. I take regions to be the equivalent of American or English Counties. The question is whether the city categories should be directly in the Queensland one. In view of the very low population of some parts of Australia, sub-cats by city only probably will not do. Mind you I am the other side of the world. What we need is a Queenland resident who is willing to make a rational tree out of all this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2010 (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.