< February 24	February 26 >

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: A mix. There's consensus and convention to rename:

• Category:United States military personnel of the Boxer Rebellion to Category:American military personnel of the Boxer Rebellion
• Category:United States military personnel of the War of 1812 to Category:American military personnel of the War of 1812

However the American Revolution and (especially) the American Civil War categories are more problematic because of inconsistent use of the term "American" in the structure. They are best relisted for further discussion. Relisted here Timrollpickering (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Military personnel of the American Civil War to Category:American military personnel of the American Civil War
• Remove Category:Confederate States Army soldiers as a sub-category
• Remove any of the other people listed in the sub-categories who do not fit in this category tree
• Rename Category:United States military personnel of the Boxer Rebellion to Category:American military personnel of the Boxer Rebellion
• Rename Category:United States military personnel of the American Revolution to Category:American military personnel of the American Revolution
• Rename Category:United States military personnel of the War of 1812 to Category:American military personnel of the War of 1812
• Nominator's rationale, the parent category states that people in the American military personnel category and its sub-categories are people who served in the Military of the United States or people who served in the Patriot forces in the American Revolution. Thus Confederate States Army soldiers, who are by definition people fighting against the United States military, do not belong in this category. The question is not the nationality of the military personnel, but the national affiliation of the military body in which said soldier is serving. The Boxer Rebellion, American Revolution and War of 1812 name changes are to bring uniformity of the names within this category and with names in other military personnel categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Request clarification, I'm reading the CSA soldiers request to mean keep the category, while removing it from Category:American military personnel, which I would not have thought required a CFD entry. (The same comment would apply to the "Remove any other people..." item. What does that actually mean in CFD terms?) Fat&Happy (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess it is probably true that removing Category:Confederate Army Soldiers can be done without a category discussion, but putting it through discussion seemed logical to me. I guess I had not considered that it is a simple matter to recategorize categories. I will do that since no one has objected to doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the current name of the ex-parent category exists there is a high likelyhood someone else will return the CSA soldiers category there, and the civil war category is currently named to make the return of CSA soldiers likely. My new plan is actually to remove Category:Military personnel of the American Civil War from this tree and create the category Category:American military personnel of the American Civil War as a subcategory of the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Category:Military personnel of the American Civil War should be at the top of a tree, with primary sub-cats for Confederate military personnel and Union/American/United States (pick one) military personnel. I just browsed around a bit and decided the entire ACW hierarchy is a gigantic cluster-f**k, exacerbated by the ambiguity of the term "American"; in particular, "American Civil War foos" can be taken to mean the all-inclusive "Foos of the American Civil War", or the more ambiguous "American Foos of the Civil War". Check the parent categories of Category:Confederate States Army officers for an example of why I described the situation as I did. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Confederates should not be eliminated from this category structure, any more than the Confederacy is to be eliminated from the History of the United States. There was a rebellion, some Americans joined the rebellion and later they stopped. They were still Americans, regardless. Hmains (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"later they stopped"? No, later they were defeated and surrendered, but during the war they were not part of the "American" (United States) military, any more than during the Revolutionary War, the United States military personnel were a sub-group of Category:British military personnel of the American Revolutionary War, even though they were British, there was a rebellion, and some of the British joined the rebellion. Agree with nominator. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "American military personnel" is being used to mean "people in the military forces of the United States". If an American goes and joins the Taliban forces they may still be an American but they are clearly not "American Military personnel". This is also the case with the CSA forces.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Fat and Happy, I was also getting the sense that there is an unjustified non-distinguishing between sides. We could try to avoid some confusion by calling one side Yankees, but that would probably be a bit much for members of US (Colored) regiments who in many cases never marched north of the Ohio/Potomac. The same could be said for many of the more of less white residents of Louisiana and Arkansas who supported the Union cause.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Various -- Unionist and Confederate personnel of the American Civil War should be kept separate. Care should also be taken that British (and American loyalist) personnel of the American War of Independence do not get merged into an American (seceding states) category. More Generally, WP uses "United States" as an adjective, because Canadians and Mexicans are also Americans. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category:American people by occupation and its myriad subcats would tend to disagree! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As, of course, are Guatemalans, Tierra del Fuegans, and everybody in between. As well as, if we follow the British – European example, Cubans, Haitians and a host of other islanders. But for whatever reason (historical dominance; brashness; the difficulty of pronouncing "Unitedstatesian"?), "American" is understood pretty much worldwide to apply to the U.S.
    
    This part of the discussion, though, makes me support keeping "United States Military" as the prefix for these categories in preference to "American Military", since as a corollary to U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, etc. it is less ambiguous in its reference to the military itself rather than the nationality of individuals.
• Note there are only four wars mentioned. The Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, WOrld War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq Wars and maybe some other conflicts all use "American". Beyond this there is Category:American military chaplains and a whole set of other subcategories of the overall Category:American military personnell. I made a nomination to rename the whole category to use United States instead of American, but it was opposed (by one person, but no one else said anything), and since American was already the majority position in the categories, I just went with the change. The name of the country is "the United States of America" sort of like there was "the United Provinces of the Nethelands". Both assert that they create a union of the identified land. To make things worse in Brazil they are the United States and so insit on calling the country that includes Detroit and Chicago to "United States of the North". In the United States people sing "I love my land America" and "America the Beutiful" and do not intend to include Mexico, let alone Canada, in the purvey of the song. However, as I hope I have made clear, I really do not care what the result of this discussion is, we just have to agree on a univeral set of terms for all the subcategories. The Civil War and the American Revolution are a bit tricky, but the War of 1812 and the Boxer Rebellion should not be. It should also be remembered that a man born in Japan who served in the US military during World War II belong in Category:American military personnel of World War II (or whatever it ends up being named) while a man who graduated from high school in Hawai'i but then went to join the military in Japan which his parents had not been to since they were little children and subsequently was involved in the bombing run on Pearl Harbor (I know there was at least one case that specificly fits this description) belongs in Category:Japanese military personnel of World War II. The question is what military were the people in, not what their "ethnicity", "nationality" or even "citisenship" was. Thus, this is not exactly an analogous sub-category to most Fooian fooers categories. This is technically Fooers of the Fooian Foo. That is people who were x in the Fooian Thing. Thus maybe Personnel of the American military during Conflict X would be a better form. However Category:Personnel of the American military during World War II just seems a bit akward. It might eliminate some of the ambiguity. Thus Category:Personnel of the American military during the American Civil War would be fairly clear that CSA Soldiers do not belong. Some may say "is not the double use of American redundant", I would say "no more than Category:Spanish military personnel of the War of the Spanish Succession or as we would not have to make it Category:Personnel of the SPanish Military during the War of the Spanish Succession.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge, though it appears to have been carried out already. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Arlington, Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:People from Arlington County, Virginia. These two appear to be somewhat confusing duplicate names for the same thing. Both are sub-cats of Category:People by county in Virginia; the article Arlington, Virginia redirects to Arlington County, Virginia, and the verbiage on the category page is "For natives or long-term residents of Arlington County, Virginia." Fat&Happy (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Arlington, Virginia and Arlington County, Virginia are alternate names for the same place. It is technically a county, but due to its small size and due to it not having any politically constituted sub-municipalities it is often talked of as if it were a city. The matter is made more confusing because Virginia has multiple cities that are in no county at all, some of which, such as Virginia Beach, Virginia have both larger populations and areas than Arlington County, are less uniformly built up and less clearly a unified community.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. "Arlington, Virginia" is the postal designation for all addresses in Arlington County, but there is no municipal entity by that name. - choster (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Seems like we could use a separate discussion on "American (occupation) of (ethnicity) descent" categories, as consensus is hard to achieve in these piecemeal nominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American scientists of German descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American scientists of Greek descent

Category:American scientists of Pakistani descent

Category:American scientists of Vietnamese descent

Category:American scientists of Italian descent

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm going to avoid nominating Category:African Americans in science and Category:Jewish American scientists because emotions run high whenever those two ethnicities are reviewed. I'll put both of those up for separate review in the future. However, these of X descent ethnic categories appear to me as very apparent overcategorizations by ethnicity and violations of race/ethnicity categorization guidelines outlined in WP:EGRS and WP:NOT (Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations). Note that a list like List of German rocket scientists in the United States is an example of a "distinct phenomenon or topic supported by external refs." However, a List of American scientists of German descent is arbitrary and not supported by such external sources because the intersection includes any scientist with German heritage... and sometimes German immigrants who aren't actually ethnically German (which is a whole 'nother problem). The same exact argument for deletion can be made for the Greek, Pakistani, Italian, and Vietnamese cats. Bulldog123 12:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GThe argument that people have multiple descents is irrelevant. Just as we're not paper and can have all the necessary articles, we can also have all the necessary categories to organize them. Printed works have a practical limit to the number of indexes that can be provided--we do not. Since some national backgrounds are traditionally regarded as relevant here, there should be way for people to findthem, for school papers and whatever. Supporting such elementary work & general surveys is one of the prime functions of an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge in all cases to the parent categories (eg Category:American scientists and Category:American people of German descent). People who do wish to study the intersection can use catscan but to me it appears to be an intersection of unrelated characteristics, rightly deplored by WP:OCAT. Occuli (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support end to these categories. Many immigrants from Vietnam are actually Chinese who fled Vietnam. Pakistani is an identity that was created whole-cloth in 1947 and then underwent a major truncation in 1972. To describe people who left Pakistan before 1947 as "Pakistani" or "of Pakistani descent" is a false notion. On the other hand if someone was born in 1948 in Pakistan, came to the United States in 1972 to start work on a masters degree in physics and has been here ever since, saying he is "of Pakistani descent" seems odd, because we are applying to him an ethnicity that was not how his parents viewed themselves, and at the same time we are calling an immigrant a "person of x descent", which always strikes me as odd. Lastly is there any defining unity of "American scientists of Greek descent" or "American scientists of Finnish descent"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 23:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Another pointless category intersection. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with DGG. Categories are unlike individual articles. The former rate primarily on "usefulness" in my opinion (i.e. as aids in navigating WP), whereas inclusion of the latter depend strongly upon the notability of the subject itself. That said, I think there are boundaries of breadth, admittedly somewhat subjective, but this one is neither too narrow nor too broad. It is a focused, useful category. Nom's self-admitted pragmatic approach of going for an easier target first is a little distasteful. I think the two above-mentioned cats should have been proposed first – results would have given a more useful sounding board for the appropriateness of such categories in toto. Then it would be easy to get the rest deleted, if that were the conclusion. Hope closer will recognize that one of the above entries is an off-topic argument on category content. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Keep. I actually agree with User:Necrothesp that these are all pointless category intersections, and I'd like to see then eventually removed. But identity politics and appeals to ethnic pride are still widespread, examples of success stories of people from specific ethnic backgrounds can be useful in education, and these categories are useful navigation tools for anyone looking for a report subject. Ideally, a tool will be developed to facilitate searches for articles in multiple categories, so someone interested in African American LGBT women military pilots from Montana who attended Duke University could find all the relevant articles in one easy search, but until then the intersections serve a useful purpose. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the German category which is well-enough populated to be worth having. Upmerge the rest to "American scientists" and "people of Booian origin". The rest are an inadequately widespread intersection to be worth keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• When evaluating a category which intersects nationality, ethnicity and occupation, it is necessary to consider whether "the combination is recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right"—i.e., whether "the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources". In general, each combination should be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is academically or culturally significant, and a combination's significance should be demonstrated, not assumed.
  With this in mind, weak keep Category:American scientists of German descent per the following quote from A nation of peoples: a sourcebook on America's multicultural heritage: "German-trained scientists pioneered the training of American scientists in the new American universities, whose doctoral programs were often modeled on those of the German universities. German- and Austrian-trained medical doctors were also a strong influence in the development of the American medical schools and the training of their physicians." While the nom's argument on this point (about the broad scope of the category versus the narrower scope discussed in sources) is relevant, I think that this category merits more focused discussion.
  Weak upmerge (selectively) Category:American scientists of Italian descent to Category:American scientists and Category:American people of Italian descent, checking for alternate placement within one or both category trees. The quote, from The Italian American experience: an encyclopedia: "[T]here a few Italian American names recorded in the annals of well-known scientists. ... [R]esearch on the subject of Italian Americans in science is near impossible." The text itself seems to argue for the category's deletion, but the fact that the topic was written about in an external source suggests an academic or cultural interest in it.
  Upmerge (selectively) the rest, for which I could not find relevant coverage in reliable sources, to Category:American scientists and Category:American people of Fooian descent, once again checking for alternate placement within one or both category trees. (I think that the upmerging should be handled manually rather than by Cydebot.) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, and upmerge, per WP:OCAT. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American inventors of Ukrainian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American inventors of Russian descent - American inventors of Russian descent (talk)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not sure why "Ukrainian" and "Russian" are the only two that exist, but it shouldn't matter because this is yet another example of overcategorization by ethnicity. There will never be a legitimate head article for these categories as being of "Russian" or "Ukrainian" descent has no widely-documented effect/change/influence on inventing something. Note that there is also an African-American inventors category but I'm not nominating it as there should probably be a separate discussion for that one. Bulldog123 10:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add the others as material warrants. Same reason as above--culturally considered important. The fact that we have only done a few of the possibilities is a singularly improper reason for deletion of anything. If we do not start, howe will we do the others? DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, though I will again note that not every ethnic/occupation intersection is notable/has been studied because the particular ethnic heritage has a causative effect on how that occupation is performed (e.g., the premise that Ukranian Americans invent different things or whatever). Such intersections instead have often been studied because those of a particular heritage had a distinct experience in arriving at the occupation, such as overcoming prejudice, legal restrictions, segregation within the occupation, etc. (Chinese laborers didn't lay railroad tracks any differently, but there's indisputably a distinct history there). I don't think any of that is the case here, however, perhaps in part because "inventor" isn't really a clearly delineated occupation, but rather a hallmark of innovation in specific fields. postdlf (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is one article in the category "American inventors of Ukrainian descent". Some categories may make sense to exist with one person, but intersection of ethnic origin, nationality and occupation does not seem to be a case where a one person category is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyound this in the case of those in the Russian category there are people in that category for whom there is no statement in the article that they are in fact of Russian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the one person in the category "American inventors of Ukrainian descent" is also in the category "American inventors of Russian descent".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Morris S. Kharasch in the category "American inventors of Russian descent" is also in Category:Ukrainian Jews. How a Jew from the modern Ukrain who immigrated to the US in 1908 at the age of 13 is "of Russian descent" baffles my mind. It does point out an inherent problem with descent, as opposed to immigration and nationality categories. On what basis is someone classed as having any given descent? I see little to no evidence that Kharasch would have ever claimed to be of Russian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine was never an independent state until being recognized as a separate republic in the Soviet period (most of it was part of the Russian Empire for centuries), which -- in a strictly technical sense -- makes the people who immigrated to the US before 1917 also people "of Russian descent" as well. Another good reason to delete this category. 24.47.118.12 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Another pointless category intersection. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As argued above in the German scientist cat. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Keep. As explained above under the scientist categories. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Russian category which is reasonably populated. Upmerge the Ukrainian one which has only 1 member. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• When evaluating a category which intersects nationality, ethnicity and occupation, it is necessary to consider whether "the combination is recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right"—i.e., whether "the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources". In general, each combination should be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is academically or culturally significant, and a combination's significance should be demonstrated, not assumed.
  With this in mind, upmerge (selectively) ("delete", in effect) both as I could not find relevant coverage in reliable sources and none has been provided, to Category:American scientists and Category:American people of Fooian descent, checking for alternate placement within one or both category trees. (I think that the upmerging should be handled manually rather than by Cydebot.) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to Wikipedia policy on Categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality, "4.Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity. (For example: a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances.)" Is anybody going to presume that Vladimir Zworykin's Russian ethnicity registers as a factor in his invention of the television? Moreover, the same guideline says that "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." We may have an article on LGBT literature and another article on African American music, but I highly doubt that we will ever have an article about the American inventions of people of Russian or Ukrainian descent. 24.47.118.12 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, per WP:OCAT. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bonnier to Category:Bonnier Group

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match main article Bonnier Group. Bonnier is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. jonkerz♠ 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Codename: Kids Next Door (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, links only six articles per WP:SMALLCAT. JJ98 (Talk) 06:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I could not find additional articles which belong in the category, and the existing content is sufficiently interlinked via ((Codename: Kids Next Door)). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stanford Business School alumni to Category:Stanford Graduate School of Business alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match title of parent article. Stanford Business School redirects to Stanford Graduate School of Business. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match the main article and the school's official website. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename without setting precedent for any wider discussion of the convention of Category:Screenshots of video games. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BBC Micro and Acorn Electron screenshots to Category:Screenshots of BBC Micro and Acorn Electron games

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with the other categories of Category:Screenshots of video games. N. Harmonik (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• While the rationale is correct (most subcategories of Category:Screenshots of video games follow the "Screenshots of Foo games" format), I do not understand teh reason for the convention of Category:Screenshots of video games. Categories for images generally follow the "Foo images" format, which suggests that these categories should use the "Foo game screenshots" format (similar to, e.g., Category:Xbox game covers). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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