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: Relisted as a single group in tomorrow's nomination - tese are all cleaqrly a package deal, along with a previous nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Los Angeles, California crime history[edit]

• Propose merging Category:Los Angeles, California crime history to Category:Crime in Los Angeles, California

Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OVERLAPCAT, basically every event would qualify as history, the subcats should be upmerged accordingly. Brandmeister^talk 23:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York City crime history[edit]

• Propose merging Category:New York City crime history to Category:Crime in New York City

Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OVERLAPCAT, basically every event would qualify as history, the subcat should be upmerged accordingly. Brandmeister^talk 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington (state) crime history[edit]

• Propose merging Category:Washington (state) crime history to Category:Crime in Washington (state)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OVERLAPCAT, basically every event would qualify as history, the subcat should be upmerged accordingly. Brandmeister^talk 23:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Florida crime history[edit]

• Propose merging Category:Florida crime history to Category:Crime in Florida

Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OVERLAPCAT, the subcats should be upmerged accordingly. Brandmeister^talk 23:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California crime history[edit]

• Propose merging Category:California crime history to Category:Crime in California

Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OVERLAPCAT, basically every event would qualify as history, the subcats should be upmerged accordingly. Brandmeister^talk 22:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Texas crime history[edit]

• Propose merging Category:Texas crime history to Category:Crime in Texas

Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OVERLAPCAT, the subcat Criminals from Texas should be upmerged to Crime in Texas accordingly. Brandmeister^talk 22:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York crime history[edit]

• Propose merging Category:New York crime history to Category:Crime in New York

Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OVERLAPCAT, the subcat Criminals from New York‎ should be a subcat of Crime in New York. Brandmeister^talk 22:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I took the liberty of grouping these nominations since I think most editors would be in favor of keeping or merging all of them.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All Any crime that is not happening now could be "history." RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sandbanks of the United Kingdom to Category:Shoals of the United Kingdom
• Propose renaming Category:Sandbanks of England to Category:Shoals of England
• Propose renaming Category:Sandbanks of the North Sea to Category:Shoals of the North Sea

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent category, which was renamed to Category:Shoals to match the main article Shoal. Could be a speedy, but I wanted to bring it here in case anyone was aware of an ENGVAR issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As a UK editor I think the general UK usage is sandbank; shoal generally being used to indicate shallow water. Note that nearly all the article names include the words bank or sands. No objection to having a category redirect. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something. As the category is not meant to contain primarily sandy elements, but any form, such as rocky or gravelly. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The Nort Sea one contains Dogger Bank, which is not a shoal. Others are in the inter-tidal range and only shoals at high tide. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Athletics UK NC champions templates to Category:United Kingdom national athletics champions navigational boxes
• Propose renaming Category:Athletics British NC champions templates to Category:AAA Championships champions navigational boxes
• Propose renaming Category:Athletics US NC champions templates to Category:United States track and field champions navigational boxes
• Propose renaming Category:German Athletics Champions navigational boxes to Category:German national athletics champions navigational boxes
• Propose renaming Category:Athletics Hungarian champions navigational boxes to Category:Hungarian national athletics champions navigational boxes
• Propose renaming Category:Italian Athletics Champions navigational boxes to Category:Italian national athletics champions navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: The meaning of these template categories need to be made clear and should be standardised. Open to any possible variants if any has issue with my choice. All the contents are navigational boxes. To clarify around the British one: the AAA championships had an open, international element for many years so it is not advisable to classify this as the "British Championships". SFB 20:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "AAA Championships champions" sounded less than ideal to me, but there are lists named like that. [1] – Fayenatic London 22:02, 26 December 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wahhabi movement to Category:Wahhabism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As per main article for the topic Wahhabism and as per Talk:Wahhabism#Requested move Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to match main article. I agree with the rationale behind the move. SFB 20:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:24, 3 December 2014 (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: Split, Merge and cleanup per the discussion. Consensus is for changing, but someone with more knowledge in the area will need to do the work. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People of the Buyid Empire to Category:Buyid people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article for Iran during this period is not Buyid Empire (that's a redirect) but Buyid dynasty, and the infobox shows that some predecessors and successors were likewise just "dynasties" rather than "empires". Although Iranica and Britannica make passing mention of "the Buyid empire", this is only with a small e. I am suggesting "Buyid people" rather than "People of the Buyid dynasty", as the latter might misleadingly sound as if it refers to the ruling family. Most of the sub-cats are "Buyid xxx". – Fayenatic London 12:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Fayenatic london: I think the proposed name has the exact same misleading problem as you state the "People of the Buyid dynasty" name has – because "Buyid" refers specifically to the people of a short-lived dynasty, it is not very suitable as a modifier. I actually think the use of "Empire" to distinguish the Buyids from those they ruled is a useful and clear option, even if "Empire" is not used very frequently. If "Empire" should be avoided, perhaps a better choice would be something like Category:People of the Buyid period (see Britannica). SFB 20:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and merge to Category:Government of the Buyid dynasty, Category:10th-century Iranian people and Category:11th-century Iranian people. Occupation categories tied to the Buyid government should be moved to Category:Government of the Buyid dynasty; people of other child categories should be moved to Category:10th-century Iranian people or Category:11th-century Iranian people. Rationale for the latter: there has never been a Buyid nationality or anything like that. The people called themselves the Iranian people and called the country Iran as from ancient times, see Name of Iran. The article Buyid dynasty explicitly mentions that the Buyid dynasty were making efforts to emphasize the Iranian continuity. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC) (further adapted 07:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • I support this reasoning. SFB 21:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm open to dispersing the contents along the lines suggested, but the first 2 that I looked at within Category:Buyid scholars are from Basra and Baghdad, I.e. within the borders of modern Iraq. One is already categorised as 10/11th century Iraqi people, rather than Iranian. – Fayenatic London 00:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Categorizing people by former country in this form is an established practice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree to this as a general principle, but - as mentioned before - this category doesn't concern a former country, it concerns the reestablishment of an ancient country under a new dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many articles have a category like this, so i don't see why should it be removed? --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2015 (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: selective merge to Category:Euthanasia in the United States. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Death with dignity movement to Category:Assisted suicide in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge, as the scope seems to be the same. The only non-US page currently in the category is Friends at the End, which should be moved to the parent Category:Assisted suicide. – Fayenatic London 10:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose My sense is that the death with dignity movement is more complicated than just endorsement of suicide (assisted or otherwise). Indeed, it seems possible that these should be two separate sets of categories which happen to heavily intersect. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – in the absence of the article Death with dignity movement. Oculi (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if the article existed, it would be named Death with Dignity, as it is a name. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt merge to Category:Euthanasia in the United States. The death with dignity movement is poorly categorised as merely assisted suicide. Many elements of the movement also relate to allowing a person to die without undue medical intervention. The concept of euthanasia covers this idea much more broadly than assisted suicide does. Any thoughts @HandsomeFella:?SFB 21:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Other proposal: keep the category name (but with "Dignity" capitalized), and re-categorize in "Assisted sucide in the United States". HandsomeFella (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not happy with the emphasis on the US. In Australia there are various State based organisations called "Dying with Dignity" and they are mentioned in Euthanasia in Australia. There is also Dignity in Dying which is UK based. There is also Category:Euthanasia by country. If "the death with dignity movement is more complicated than just endorsement of suicide (assisted or otherwise)" as suggested above, this category needs to have a more international flavour. So, at least for now, I am for Keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Other proposal rename into Organizations in support of euthanasia, purge the category by removing individual people and add organizations from other countries to the category. This puts emphasis on the right topic (namely euthanasia), while it avoids the nationality problem and thus also avoids being too specific on the name of one particular movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternately I would support a merger into the category "Euthanasia in the United States" (one article needs to be purged as it's British). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merger alternately would support a merger into the category "Euthanasia in the United States". Juno (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Euthanasia tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2014 (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.