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) 12:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Lists of flags to Category:Lists and galleries of flags

While I suppose images can also be listed, we actually can create galleries through a specific mediawiki tool: mw:Help:Images#Rendering_a_gallery_of_images.

So I propose we set a new standard for naming of image pages, to title them "Lists and galleries of X". I would also be fine with: "Galleries and lists of X".

So starting this as a test nom.

(Selected due to research I did concerning Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_10#Category:Flag_image_galleries.)

- jc37 00:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. - jc37 00:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wouldn't a gallery also be a form of list? -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No. A list on Wikipedia is a listing of items related in some way.

  A gallery is a technical way to display images.

  Compare to the difference between looking at a listing of offices in a building directory and going to view paintings at the local art gallery. - jc37 20:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But if you're at the real estate office, you can get a pictoral list of offices, where a prominent photo of the office is shown, and a description next to it, so would still be a list. And the way our galleryview works, it's just like iconview list for files in a directory. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Icon view could be considered a gallery, as opposed to list view. The concepts are different. - jc37 04:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Buddhism stubs and Category:Religious building and structure stubs. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/February/20

• Category:Buddhist temple stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: While trying to fill this category, I ran across Category:Buddhist monastery stubs, which defines itself as being for monasteries, temples and nunneries. And the monastery category is not overflowing. Is it worth differentiating between monasteries / nunneries and temples? Propose deleting the temple category for now. I could see keeping the temple tag if its worth distinguishing, but upmerge until the tag is used on more than 60 articles. My fear here is that many of the buildings will serve as both a temple and monastery. Not sure its worth the resulting amount of double-tagging. Dawynn (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to delete Category:Buddhist templates stubs, and to keep, but upmerge ((Buddhist-temple-stub)). I propose upmerging the template to both of these categories:

• Category:Buddhism stubs
• Category:Religious building and structure stubs

I am not a Buddhist, nor informed as to customs for that religion. My original comments may be way off-base. Would it be appropriate to also upmerge to Category:Buddhist monastery stubs? (Stubs may be upmerged to, at most, 3 different categories)

Dawynn (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as Dawynn suggests for now. The category is currently too small. If we get a lot more stubs in the future recreation may be worthwhile.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2012 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Projects by Van Oord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise performances by performer, which is, in fact, essentially what this is, just with 'buildings by builder' as the terms in question. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• SupportWhen I saw this in another category up for renaming I had questions about the logic behind it. I find your reason for deletion to be sound and a good fit. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2012 (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 as part of multiple hierarchies. Although a rename was also suggested to include "-style", this is not followed in other sub-cats of Category:American architectural styles except where necessary for clarity/disambiguation. – Fayenatic London 17:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Jacobean architecture in Virginia to Category:Jacobean architecture in the United States
• Propose deleting Category:Jacobean architecture in the United States by state

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - at the moment, there is no need to diffuse American Jacobean architecture at the by-state level. Possibly also needing a double-upmerge to Category:Architecture in Virginia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed on both counts. Pichpich (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - ...I just noticed the Category:American architectural styles by state tree. This may pass the WP:SMALLCAT exemption (and would require the recreation of the just-deleted "...in Pennsylvania" category...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess the question there is how many articles do you need in the parent to start creating subcategories? Right now in the tree we have a total of 10 articles. That for me is not screaming to split this out. Yet. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- but Rename target to Category:Jacobean-style architecture in the United States, because all examples will be reproductions. I do not believe there are likely to be any pre-1625 buildings suriving in USA. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SMALLCAT. Category:American architectural styles by state and Category:Architecture in Virginia both implement subdivision by architectural style. Although the American Jacobean architecture category tree is populated rather lightly, it seems unlikely that it "will never have more than a few members". I agree that there is no need to diffuse Category:Jacobean architecture in the United States but these categories serve a function other than diffusion: they establish useful connections between the various category trees. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree and I'm willing to withdraw (or oppose, I suppose) - note to self, caffinate better! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 23 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pro-Iranism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category presents the same problems as Category:Antagonists of the United States which is being debated here. It is excessively broad, imprecise in its definition and simplistic. There's no clear objective criterion to decide if an individual (or a newspaper or a country) is pro-Iran. Take David Duke for example. His antisemitism gets him invitations to give speeches in Syria and Iran but I don't think it's reasonable to classify him (and every other prominent antisemite) as pro-Iran. Another concern is that the scope is presumably unlimited in time: alliances change, governments change. Pichpich (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Categories like this need to be based on criteria using WP:RS. The implication that there is something remarkable about support for a particular sovereign state is POV, unless it is proposed to have similar categories for every country. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• remark As noted below, there ARE sold categories, in particular for and against Jews and Israel, as well as other ethnic groups, religions and nations, like zionist, Islamist, muslim, islamophobic, etc. Many press outlets go to considerable effort to identify persons and organizations which support Israel and identify them as enemies of the United States and the world, yet there are very few resources in wikipedia that would aid in identifying similar groups and persons who are supporting the interests of Iran. For a neutral POV in the conflict between Israel and Iran, entries corresponding to Iran for which there exist entries for Jews and Israel should not be deleted, and calls to delete Iran-related categories, but not zionism / jewish categories would be enforces a one-sided POV. Redhanker (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There are similar categories for anti-semitism and anti-zionism and racism which are considered to be worth noting, as David Duke has already been noted. For some reason, alliances towards Iran may or are being suppressed to hide these associations. Iran is quite vocal about pointing out being for or against Jews, Zionists or Israel, but far less attention is paid to whether persons or groups are for or against Iran. There are also categories for anti-Iran. If this category is to be deleted, then all categories against nations or ethnic / religious groups must also be deleted, and phenomena such as anti-semitism and racism are not valid either. There is currently no category that would be useful in establishing whether a person or nations is favorable towards Iran, and given international security concerns about Iran, such associations are important to note. Nobody has problems associating Duke with neo-nazis or white nationalist groups, why not his support for Palestine and muslim and Iran rights? Redhanker (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this has nothing to do with anit-semitism or anti-Zionism. Zionism is the ideology of forming a homeland for the Jews out of some or all of Palestine. Iran is not an ideology, it is a country. Supporting Iran has meant many things at many times. The United States was an ally of Iran from 1955-1975 at the same time as being the staunchest worldwide supporter of Israel. Your plan indicates a desire to make wikipedia hopelessly presentist in nature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good explanation of the issue, JPL. Will !vote below. -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Far too problematic (and simplistic) for the reaons he outlines. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this category conflates alliance with a country for some sort of political ideaology. Since the United States was one of the staunchest allies of Iran from 1955-1975 until the United States is put in this category it will be incomplete. One problem with these categories is if properly filled they will include most world-powers. If we allow categories like this to proliferate soon we will have a situation where the United States is in 50 such categories based on its strong association with various allies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indeed, as JPL explained above, tagging an article "pro-Iran" is fuzzyness. And OR. -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2012 (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 the common name Category:Archerfish. One rename or the other is required to remove ambiguity. There are many precedents against scientific names. The case for using the scientific name for the genus is particularly weak here as the head category for the family Category:Toxotidae contains only this genus and no other species. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Toxotes to Category:Archerfish

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Toxotes is ambiguous. The main article for this genus is Archerfish. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Toxotes (genus). IIRC categorisation by genus is done using the scientific name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all biological categorization in WP is by genus. I oppose categorizing by genus when the genus itself redirects to an article that uses the common name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (replying re: all) But that leads to the categories having a mish-mash of common and scientific names, which doesn't help the readers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nor is it helpful to readers to have category names that are different than article names. In any case, we already do have a mish-mash of both—quite an extensive mish-mash, if you have a look. There are entire trees for taxonomic name and entire trees for common names. Genera that have common names usually have categories named after the common name, as do the articles. That's a straightfoward application of WP:COMMONNAME as far as I am concerned. A huge proportion of these genera categories were created in 2007 by a bot that was using names from wikicommons and thus clearly didn't really know what it was doing in the WP context. Using the common name seems to conform with the guidelines of WP:FAUNA. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The trouble is, what happens when you come across some that don't have common names? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The guideline says "Use the most common name when possible". If it has no common name, then it's not possible to use a common name. How is this a problem? It establishes a default to use if it is possible to do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem is that that creates a scenario where some categories are using one naming format (the common (or English, to avoid confusion) name), and others are using another naming format (the scientfic (or Latin) name), when it's entirely possible to have them all on a single format instead. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes! I see what you mean now. And there are already two separate trees for fauna—one by classification and one by common name. It's not like my suggestion is creating a new scheme—this is a pre-existing issue. I agree that it is a bit of a problem, but I don't think at this stage it is an easy one to solve. It does back to the fact that there was a bot in 2007 that created most of the taxonomic categories (masses of them), and it was done without consultation or much foresight. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • A trout to the botter to be sure, but there is an easy way to solve - rename all to the scientific classification, which is consistent across all languages, used worldwide even within languages (for instance, American and Europeans have very different birds in mind when they speak of "buzzards"!), and creates uniform, encyclopedic, professional category trees instead of "mix-and-match specials". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. There is no good reason to not use the article name here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the fact that having mixed English and Latin names for categories in the same tree is potentially confusing and somewhat unprofessional in appearance? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Bushranger. The names of categories ought to be consistently named within the same tree, i.e keep the name scientific. This rename doesn't improve anything. WP:COMMONNAME only applies to articles. Brad7777 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not convinced that common name rules only apply to article names. What is clear is that in general, categories should have the same name as the articles on the same subject, although there are exceptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2012 (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:Coris (genus) This would be the only category in its hierarchy to have a non-scientific name, so the rationale for changing seems weaker than some others. A discussion on when it is appropriate to use the common name would be helpful.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Coris to Category:Rainbow wrasses

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Coris is ambiguous. The main article is Rainbow wrasses, which is where Coris (fish) redirects to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Coris (genus). IIRC categorisation by genus is done using the scientific name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all biological categorization in WP is by genus. I oppose categorizing by genus when the genus itself redirects to an article that uses the common name. This seems to be in line with the guidelines of WP:FAUNA. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. There is no reason to not use the article name here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comments under Toxotes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The names of categories ought to be consistently named within the same tree, i.e keep the name scientific. This rename doesn't improve anything. WP:COMMONNAME only applies to articles. Brad7777 (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Kiunga to Category:Kiunga (genus)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Kiunga is ambiguous. There is no article about the genus Kiunga, which this category is about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2012 (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: reverse merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hatnote templates for names to Category:Surname clarification templates

Nominator's rationale: Mostly redundant. Though Category:Surname clarification templates says it includes non-hatnote templates, the only such member is Template:Patronymic which is actually a cleanup template and probably should be removed anyway. (Note that there is no consensus whether or not this is a proper use of hatnotes.) Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They are hatnotes by WP:HATNOTE. The category name "Hatnotes ..." is the only association that lists them as hatnotes. So they are nicely and correctly in the big hatnote listing. How otherwise could one find a hatnote? The fact that they are in a different category too is irrelevant for the hatnote grouping (it is just another independent property). Maybe the Category:Surname clarification templates could be merged. I note that the discussed usage of these as a hatnote is not related to this proposal. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / reverse merge. The membership of the two categories, with the exception of ((Patronymic)), is identical. This is a clear indication, in my opinion, that they need to be merged. Personally, I think that we ought to retain the title of Category:Hatnote templates for names and the category description from Category:Surname clarification templates. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / reverse merge per above. - jc37 02:29, 31 July 2012 (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. In the carnivore categories, there are some that are English and some Latin. It's not clear that the other definition of genet could cause confusion, but since the parenthetical is in the article title, there's no reason it shouldn't be in the category name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Genets to Category:Genets (animals)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Genets is ambiguous. The applicable main article is Genet (animal). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Should the target be Category:Genets (animal)? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that if the main part of the article name (the part not in parentheses) is pluralized, so too must the disambiguating term be pluralized if it refers to the entire main part of the name. I suppose it doesn't really matter and could go either way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Genetta. IIRC categorisation by genus, which is what this is, is done using the scientific name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all biological categorization in WP is by genus. I oppose categorizing by genus when the genus itself redirects to an article that uses the common name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAUNA, WP:FLORA, & WP:BIRDS give the varying naming conventions. In this case, WP:FAUNA applies and the convention is name after the common name, if possible. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:FAUNA needs to be modified, as it is creating extremely unprofessional mish-mashes of Latin and English category names. It should apply to articles as "common name preferred" to be sure, but categories? No. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominated. – Fayenatic London 20:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This is the English wikipedia, not the Latin one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • However this is also an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias should be professional. Mixing and matching scientific and common names in the same category tree is neither encyclopedic or professional-looking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 16 July 2012 (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:Harriers (birds). – Fayenatic London 18:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Harriers to Category:Harriers (birds)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Harriers is ambiguous. The applicable main article is at Harrier (bird). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge and rename to Category:Geranospiza. The category currently duplicates the list at Harrier (bird); while categories and lists can coexist, in this case I believe "being a harrier" to be insufficently defining to categorise as such. However, there is currently no category for Geranospiza; it would fit the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of the established family>subfamily>genus scheme, despite being, after purging, a single-article category (Crane Hawk). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most harriers are genus Circus, not Geranospiza. The Crane Hawk is the only species of Geranospiza. There are two species of harrier in Polyboroides. That's why is preferable to have a category for harriers in general, so it can contain members of all three genera. (You are right that that simply reproduces the list at Harrier (bird), but that's pretty much what every category does that is named after a genus—it categories the species that are listed on the article about the genera. There are thousands of such categories right now, most originally created by a bot.) In this case, there is also Category:Polyboroides, so if it's really needed, we could have other subcategories named Category:Geranospiza and Category:Circus (genus). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The categorization works, the naming is inprecise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:A-League derbies to Category:A-League rivalries

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains articles that refer to rivalries in general, not just derbies. Hack (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per sensible nomination. Also makes it consistent with the parent cat, Category:Association football rivalries. Jenks24 (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Does not the category need some more description as to what it is about. This this Australasian competition really the only thing that uses the title "A-league"?. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at A-League (disambiguation), it's the only active group using the name and a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

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

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge and listify. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:English List A limited-overs cricketers into Category:Lists of English cricketers and transferring the list of names in the category into a List titled List of English List A limited-overs cricketers.

Nominator's rationale: The category has only one article in it, List of Middlesex CCC List A cricketers, and no names of individual cricketers. Hence the names of English List A limited-overs cricketers should be transferred to a list, as a more suitable format for them. Only c48 names in the list of c160 names have an article about them. Hugo999 (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom The contents are a list, not a category. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Books about parenting to Category:Parenting books

Nominator's rationale: 'Parenting book' is, if I'm not mistaken, the common name of this type of non-fiction book. Further, within Category:Non-fiction books, the Foo books format dominates. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the category. I am neutral on the move proposal; either way is fine with me. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2012 (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.