< October 22	October 24 >

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. OC small with only two members. While part of a series, it is not clear if we need to have a category for each and every MPS since inclusion is not necessary defining since the buildings are notable on their own. Listify is also an option. If kept, rename to Category:Towards a Greater Des Moines Multiple Property Submission. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Although it only has two members currently, it will eventually contain more as the articles are created. A multiple property submission by the National Register of Historic Places denotes that these properties have been listed on the register because they are all intrinsically related to one another at a basic level. They were submitted together as a batch group for listing on the National Register, as opposed to the usual process of an individual property having to meet the rigorous criteria on its own merits. The nomination form for this set of MPS properties can be found here at the National Park Service. Altairisfar (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete. After doing a little more research and reading a few dozen of the more than one hundred MPS/TR nomination forms, I don't think that creating a hodgepodge of categories that most likely will never form a cohesive category structure is going to be the way go. Creating lists and/or navigation templates for ones that are particularly noteworthy will probably work better. Altairisfar (talk) 15:47, 26 October 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. OC small with only two members. While part of a series, it is not clear if we need to have a category for each and every MPS since inclusion is not necessary defining since the buildings are notable on their own. Listify is also an option. If kept, rename to Category:Architecture of Jackson County Multiple Property Submission. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Same as the preceding entry. The nomination form for this set of MPS properties can be found here at the National Park Service. Altairisfar (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete. Altairisfar (talk) 15:47, 26 October 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. OC small as a single entry category. While part of a series, it is not clear if we need to have a category for each and every MPS since inclusion is not necessary defining since the buildings are notable on their own. Listify is also an option. If kept, rename to Category:Maquoketa Multiple Property Submission. Individual nominations for a bunch of these since the outcomes are likely to be different. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ~~without prejudice - Could contain more members, but only one article currently. The nomination form for this set of MPS properties can be found here at the National Park Service.~~ Altairisfar (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike previous comment. Altairisfar (talk) 15:47, 26 October 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: do not rename. This is a subcategory in a scheme with a different format. The whole scheme can be renominated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States nationality law to Category:American nationality law

Nominator's rationale: Per other subcats of Category:Nationality law. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The parent category is Category:United States law, so that one should probably be resolved before or at the same time as this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to match its siblings. Do the Law cat also when nominated. Hmains (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment above. All of the subcategories of Category:United States law use this form. No need to change one in isolation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 8 November 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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnic controversy to Category:Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, unless there are better alternatives for either. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:35, 23 October 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per this Afghanistan nomination, this category describes a war for which no military aircraft were specifically invented, and which is hard to define in any event.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hugo999 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossible to define and as nomCurb Chain (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absurd category. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:16, 26 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Don Simpson films to Category:Films produced by Don Simpson

Nominator's rationale: To match the naming convention in the parent category. Lugnuts (talk) 17:14, 23 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Being named to a minor league all-star game is a non-defining characteristic. TM 13:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Established league with 25 years of history with affiliation(s) to the National Hockey League. Might be different if this were a league with minimal history and no affiliations such as the SPHL or the recent recreation of the Federal Hockey League Jasonstru (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)jasonstru[reply]
Delete per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor or major league, atheletes should not be categorised by participation in All-Star games. (Yes, that means I don't think the subcats of Category:Pro Bowl should exist either...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:51, 28 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Russian ice hockey centres to Category:ice hockey centres

Category:American ice hockey centres, Category:Canadian ice hockey centres

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Categorizing by trivial intersection. Nationalities do not play a hockey position differently than any other nationality. TM 12:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is how we subcategorize team sports athletes, by nationality and position. Although I do think there's a strong case for renaming Category:American ice hockey centres to Category:American ice hockey centers.
Comment There is no assumption in the scheme (e.g.) Category:Vegetarians that Americans are somehow different at being vegetarians than Russians--this is simply a method of diffusing two larger categories (Category:Vegetarians and Category:American people/Category:Russian people.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯

There is no Category:American baseball outfielders or Category:English football goalkeepers. We don't sort by position and nationality, nor should we.--TM 22:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. Changing my vote to merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In looking at this nomination and seeing the spelling, my immediate thought was that this was about the buildings that they play in and not the position played. Don't know if this is an issue, but it should be considered if anything is renamed/moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are all subcategories of Category:Canadian ice hockey players (or the various other nationalities). It would make a very very big mess if you merged them into Category:Ice hockey centres for example. This is just diffusion of the overly large "X ice hockey players" categories. If it going to be merged anywhere it will need to be to the ice hockey players categories. And then also added to the categories you indicate causing the need for two separate categories on the page instead of one. I don't really see the logic in that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the better way to diffuse a large, location/profession intersection is to narrow it down by location, not position. This is why we have Category:Ice hockey people by U.S. state and Category:Ice hockey people by Canadian province or territory. Perhaps instead of merging, we should just delete the categories, especially for Canada?--TM 01:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those categories are actually different in that they include more than just players. Though I suppose they could be sub categorized themselves. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DJSasso. Also, nationalities do play a role in determining which national team a particular player is eligible for, and the position becomes important within the nationality to the extent that it represents the players eligible (or who were eligible) for particular spots on the national team. That is in addition, of course, to keeping the size of the categories manageable. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Used to diffuse a large, and and consistently growing, category. Reso lute 14:08, 15 November 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American ice hockey defencemen to Category:ice hockey defencemen

Category:Canadian ice hockey defencemen, Category:Russian ice hockey defencemen

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Categorizing by trivial intersection. Nationalities do not play a hockey position differently than any other nationality. TM 12:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is how we subcategorize team sports athletes, by nationality and position. Although I do think there's a strong case for renaming Category:American ice hockey defencemen to Category:American ice hockey defensemen.
- Based on the comment in the above nomination, I'm changing my vote to merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no assumption in the scheme (e.g.) Category:Vegetarians that Americans are somehow different at being vegetarians than Russians--this is simply a method of diffusing two larger categories (Category:Vegetarians and Category:American people/Category:Russian people.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯
Keep These are all subcategories of Category:Canadian ice hockey players (or the various other nationalities). It would make a very very big mess if you merged them into Category:Ice hockey defencemen for example. This is just diffusion of the overly large "X ice hockey players" categories. If it going to be merged anywhere it will need to be to the ice hockey players categories. And then also added to the categories you indicate causing the need for two separate categories on the page instead of one. I don't really see the logic in that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DJSasso. Also, nationalities do play a role in determining which national team a particular player is eligible for, and the position becomes important within the nationality to the extent that it represents the players eligible (or who were eligible) for particular spots on the national team. That is in addition, of course, to keeping the size of the categories manageable. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Used to diffuse a large, and and consistently growing, category. Reso lute 14:09, 15 November 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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Boxer Rebellion Indemnity Scholarship recipients should be changed to Boxer Indemnity Scholarship recipients

Nominator's rationale:' I corrected the article from Boxer ~~'Rebellion~~ Indemnity Scholarship Program to Boxer Indemnity Scholarship Program because the name of the program is Boxer Indemnity Scholarship. The category should reflect that. ch (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - not a technical C2D, but should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename This is very straight-forward. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:08, 23 October 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian Football League captains to Category:Lists of Australian Football League captains

Nominator's rationale: More descriptive, as the category includes only lists and also removes ambiguity – when I saw this cat I thought I would see articles like Chris Judd and Nick Maxwell in it because they are captains of Australian Football League sides, but that is obviously not the intention of this cat. Jenks24 (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Response Perhaps the word 'Lists' will result in this category being buried. A better description might be 'AFL Captains' or 'Australian Football League List of Captains'. 07:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorbyron (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comment, Victor. One question: how would renaming this category result in it being "buried"? Regarding your two alternatives, we cannot use simply AFL because AFL is ambiguous and your second alternative looks to be the same as mine, expect it is less grammatically correct (sorry to be harsh). Jenks24 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think my intention with this cat was to group things like Category:Brisbane Lions captains and Category:Melbourne Football Club captains together. However, most clubs don't have this yet, so this seems reasonable until I or someone else can be bothered doing that for every club, when it can become a subcat of Australian Football League captains. Ignorant Armies 08:58, 1 November 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 to Category:CBS Television Network. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CBS television network to Category:CBS Broadcasting

Nominator's rationale: Per CBS Broadcasting Inc., to disambiguate from other CBSes without using the uncommon "television network" suffix. (We normally do not include the "Inc." in categories like this.) See also this NBC discussion I recently closed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. While I was the first to suggest this at the NBC move, having done further research, it seems both are used by the network itself. see here, where the "Television Network" label is used (note the caps, as a proper noun), while the copyright notice on the bottom uses "CBS Broadcasting". So it seems not so clear cut. And as "broadcasting" is a very broad term that can also describe the radio operations, so it may not be precise enough. So I'm still not sure what the best name for this category is. oknazevad (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also fine with simply capitalizing Category:CBS Television Network.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:09, 1 November 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.

October 23

Category:Towards a Greater Des Moines MPS

Category:Limestone Architecture of Jackson County MPS

Category:Maquoketa MPS

Category:United States nationality law

Category:Moldovan linguistic and ethnic controversy

Category:Aircraft of the Global War on Terror

Category:Don Simpson films

Category:ECHL All-Star Team

Ice hockey centres

Ice hockey defencemen

Category:Boxer Rebellion Indemnity Scholarship recipients

Category:Australian Football League captains

Category:CBS television network