< May 11	May 13 >

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Yoga Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. Only 1 article, which is not about a Studio#Yoga_and_martial_arts_studios, and a search for articles with "yoga studio" in the title finds nothing relevant. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I found one chain, YogaWorks that could potentially fit, the other venues for yoga are more like institutes or non-profits that promote yoga more generally, we seem to have very few articles on orgs that are just studios.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:34, 13 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Argenteuil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. I found this uncategorised eponymous category for a suburb of Paris and tried to populate it, but found only 2 articles: Argenteuil and Gare d'Argenteuil. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment according to Argenteuil (disambiguation), there are more Argenteuil uses in Quebec than in France that could be categorized under such a name. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:56, 19 May 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) 23:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional people with bipolar disorder to Category:Fictional characters with bipolar disorder
  
• Category:Fictional people with neurological or psychological disorders to Category:Fictional characters with neurological or psychological disorders

Nominator's rationale: In the "fiction" categories (like Category:Fictional characters with disabilities or Category:Fictional characters by status),it is more appropriate and precise to identify individuals in fiction as characters rather than "fictional people". Right now, there is a mix and so if this proposal wins approval, there might be more nominations to come in order to get consistency. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. The tree is Category:Fictional characters, the main of the tree is Character (arts), character is the standard here. Furthermore it makes more sense generally to discuss fictional characters than fictional people. The principal exception in the tree would be Category:Nonexistent people, which were purported to be real and "created as part of a practical joke, a hoax, a fraud, or even a copyright trap," and thus have a slightly different status than straightforward characters. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename it should use "characters" since not all fictional characters are people or could be construed as people -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:36, 18 May 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: Delete. Consensus seems to be towards a list solution similar to Timeline of the Lewis and Clark Expedition which would be a spin-off from Portola_expedition#Expedition. - Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Places of the Portola expedition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I found this uncategorised category, and am not sure whether this category should be renamed, or repurposed or deleted or what, so I am listing it here to start a discussion. I am neutral for now, but may take a firm view as the discussion develops.
The 1769-70 Portola expedition was a defining point in the history of the European colonisation of California, but I am less persuaded that it is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of every place that the expedition passed through. It is probably defining for some of them, such as the Spanish missions established as a direct and planned goal of the expedition ... but for the rest, this has the feel of a performers by performance category, in the shape of places-by-people who explored them them.
Note that there is a parallel in Category:Lewis and Clark Expedition, which includes both people and places, but we do not have a broader Category:Places by expedition.
My instinct is that this sort of information is generally better captured in a list, which can include a map and some indication of the expedition's significance, without prejudging its definingness. The Age of Discovery saw a lot of voyages of "discovery" by Europeans who mapped the globe and claimed large chunks of it, but I problematise the word "discovery" with scare quotes because the places were well-known to other civilisations. It doesn't feel entirely NPOV to categorise places by their visits in these expeditions, when we don't generally categorise places by other great historical events. Wikipedia doesn't even categorise Ypres as a battlefield, despite have been the site of 3 major battles of WWI and completely flattened by them. Same with Grozny and Stalingrad. I am sure that this category was created in good faith, but isn't this form of categorisation a form of systemic bias in favour of the explorer's worldview? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Geography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I confess that I am mystified by this objection. I created the category merely as a place to find links to all of these articles on one page. As with all categories, it's just a shared attribute. It has nothing to do with any "explorer's worldview". Does anyone suppose that Portola chose where he was going based on a "worldview"? "Systemic bias"? Really? WCCasey (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not categorize places by who visited them, regardless whether it was first Spaniard or first Foolander. If these places are important to the Portola Expedition, surely the one page where they ought to be found is Portola Expedition. Imagine if we had similar categories for every war, every processional route, every expedition, every competition (Category:Places of the Tour de France?), etc. Cat clutter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand on "we do not categorize places by who visited them". Is that in a guideline somewhere that I haven't seen? I didn't find it in WP:CAT. My view is that if an editor wants to take the time to create a category, then more power to her - unless there's a clear violation of a WP policy. There are plenty of categories I don't personally find useful, but that's no reason to delete them. As for creating a list: I may also do that at some point, but it's not an either/or proposition. WCCasey (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete. WCCasey's objectives can be achieved by making a list, and this can be a great deal more informative than a category, e.g. by arranging the places in order or splitting according to various common features. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would be in favour of deleting the category. At its core, it just represents a view that is overly "centric" with respect to one particular event. For that reason, I would oppose having a category for it (see WP:DEFINING) but would not object to a list article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 20 May 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: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Members of the Free Software Foundation board of directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Few people are defined by membership of a company or organisation's board of management. In this case, people such as Eben Moglen are defined by their activism in support of FOSS, not by their time on a board of directors.
A list already exists at Open Source Initiative#Board_members, but I have not checked whether it includes all members of this category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose for now. Both of these organizations are rather key organizations in the FOSS movement, and election to the board is a statement by itself. More broadly, however, we do have a whole tree of board members, so I suggest a broader discussion about when such directorships are defining and when they aren't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per my comments below relating to the equivalent OSI category -- ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:44, 12 May 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: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Members of the Open Source Initiative board of directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Few people are defined by membership of a company or organisation's board of management. In this case, people such as Mike Godwin are defined by their broad contribution to FOSS, not by their time on this board.
No need to listify; a list already exists at Open Source Initiative#Board_members. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose per above --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose -- The organisational affiliation for various notable individuals in the world of free & open source software is not always obvious, and a category ensures those researching the topic have a consistent representation of this affiliation during their research. Thus, while I'd support more concise wording, the category itself (and the one for the FSF Board) is valuable. (Note: I created the OSI category as a reflection of the value I found in the FSF one during my research). ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose -- Add more, delete less. RussNelson (talk) 04:29, 13 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Millennium Technology Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#AWARD. This award has been issued to people who are already notable for their actual achievements, rather than for receiving this prize. The winners include Tim Berners-Lee and Linus Torvalds who have each received enough awards to sink a navy; their articles may sink too, if cluttered with this sort of category.
No need to listify, because a fine list already exists at Millennium Technology Prize#Winners. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 12 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Andrea England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: 2-item eponymous category for the singer Andrea England. There doesn't appear to be anything else to add to the category, so it fails WP:SMALLCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 12 May 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; without prejudice to a new nomination to merge it to Category:Populated places in Yemen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Villages of Yemen to Category:Villages in Yemen

Nominator's rationale: Not sure whether this should be renamed per convention of such categories, or merged to Category:Populated places in Yemen. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Populated places in Yemen, which seems to be the convention everywhere (with cities getting a special cat in those jurisdictions where cities have official status. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename following the pattern in Category:Villages by country, which I have just added as a head category. – Fayenatic London 21:55, 14 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gabriel Allon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for the character Gabriel Allon created by Israeli writer Daniel Silva. Largely duplicates Category:Novels by Daniel Silva, and I haven't found other eponymous categories for fictional characters. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Creator, feel free to delete I can see the value in it distinct from the author's novels since the character isn't in all novels, but I don't have strong feelings. I'd tag it for G7, but seems no point as it's already here. StarM 01:49, 15 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bibliographies of The New Yorker contributors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Blanked by the creator, but still contains 6 pages. Categorising bibliographies by publication for which the author has written seems like a bad idea to me (potential for lots of category clutter), but it doesn't seem quite right to speedy delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete it quickly before it spreads It's bad enough to categorize people by publications in which they've appeared. The only reason why this is at all manageable is that so far there aren't many such members, and because the instigator hasn't dealt with other publications. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Listify This could be an interesting list but it is not definable enough to categorise with --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as excessive categorization, relevant only to articles that are themselves excessive. This is an orphan category (although it is closely related in scope to Category:The New Yorker people) and the articles in it should not have been split from the biographical articles for the associated people. In addition to deleting the category, merge the articles it contains into the biographical articles for these people. --Orlady (talk) 14:22, 19 May 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:  Relisted at 2014 MAY 28 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indian male presenters to Category:Indian television presenters

Nominator's rationale: I am sure that a similarly gendered category for TV presenters was deleted at CFD, but I can't find the discussion. I am neutral on this one for now, because I think that there is a case to be made that gender is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of this occupation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 12 May 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: merge per C2C. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Banks founded in 1986 to Category:Banks established in 1986

Nominator's rationale: per convention of Category:Banks by year of establishment. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was meant to be a WP:C2C speedy, but I pressed the wrong buttons :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 12 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hannah Peel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: small eponymous categories for musicians are usually deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, so feel free to delete any categories I created that break the guidelines. I assume it won't mess up anything template wise? If so I don't mind doing cleanup to fix things, though I'm not very experienced with category redirects. Earflaps (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete By using wikilinks in the relevant articles, there is no need for such a category.Pete unseth (talk) 20:34, 14 May 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) 00:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:War Resisters League members to Category:War Resisters League activists

Nominator's rationale: Mere membership of an organisation is not WP:DEFINING, but activism is. Other similar categories are called "Foo activists". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 12 May 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) 00:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bashkir rebellion to Category:History of Bashkortostan

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles, so fails WP:SMALLCAT. Renaming would broaden the scope. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 12 May 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Trams to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Streetcars

Nominator's rationale: Shouldn't the name of this match the parent project, WP:WikiProject Streetcars?
Note: I found this as an uncategorised category, and tried to complete it. Not sure if I got it right. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Streetcars has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article is at Tram, and Streetcar redirects there. Maybe it's the Wikiproject that needs to be renamed. In the meantime, I have no objection to a rename for this category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Good Ol’factory, that rather the WikiProject should be renamed. As the subject of the requested photographs is named tram in most parts of the world, I think is least confusing to retain it. The category is addressed to all editors, not only those of a particular WikiProject. --ELEKHH^T 13:46, 30 May 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) 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Palm Springs to Category:Restaurants in Riverside County, California

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article, so fails WP:SMALLCAT. Renaming to broaden scope might allow immediate exapansion to 3 articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 12 May 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 as proposed. The preference here seems to be to pluralize the disambiguator as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: The title is clearly unsuitable per category naming conventions, but my speedy nomination for renaming to Category:Chats (birds) was opposed on the basis that the qualifier shouldn't be pluralized. I tend to disagree, as these chats are birds, not bird. I noted that other categories in this tree follow this model, such as Category:Harriers (birds) and Category:Kites (birds). I couldn't find similar examples from other categories offhand. Let's standardize these either way. BDD (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong rename chat is a disambiguation page, so this is highly ambiguous -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Chats (bird). It doesn't make sense to pluralize the disambiguation, and it would be double pluralisation. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Matching pluralisation of the qualifier makes more sense to me. – Fayenatic London 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per London. Steam5 (talk) 02:53, 17 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Korean Industrial Standards(KS) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only the head article Korean Standards Association, which doesn't appear to link to any other topics which might populate this category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 12 May 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 to Category:Athletic directors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:College athletic directors to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: This category existed previously, but was renamed at CFD 2009 October 27 to Category:College athletic directors in the United States, because its scope was US-only.
The edit summary in re-creating it notes that there is now a non-US article to place in it, which is true: 1 Canadian. However, this seems to be trying to globalise the USAnian terminology for a role which may differently labelled or structured elsewhere, if it exists. If it is to be kept, it should have a more inclusive title. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Matches Athletic director more or less; I suppose Category:Athletic director might be too vague. But if there are other articles that should go here under a different title, that could be discussed. If it's just a hypothetical, I see no reason to take action now. Even if that were to happen, I'm not sure a rename would be appropriate per WP:RETAIN. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: The article Athletic director notes that that it is a specifically American term, and this is a specifically not-American category. A more generic title would have a more global scope. WP:RETAIN is rarely applied to categories, because they relate to so many articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what would we call a globalized version of such a position? "Sport(s) director" might be seen as more inclusive, but we can't just make things up. Is it used in sources? How many other articles out there do we need to accommodate? --BDD (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: Yes we can make up a title. Per WP:NDESC, we can use a descriptive title, and the vast majority of categories are named in that way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Athletic directors Oppose renaming, keep this category as is. I set up the category. Seems like the term is used in Canada and Mexico, too: Quoting the wikipedia article on National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics: "[NACDA] is a professional organization for college and university athletic directors in the United States. NACDA boasts a membership of more than 6,100 individuals and more than 1,600 institutions throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico [emphasis added]". Premature to discuss what any similar role might be named elsewhere, but seems enough to suggest it goes outside the U.S. alone. Previous CFD was wrong to narrow it, i guess. --doncram 21:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, ((Infobox Canadian college athletics)) has a field which displays as "Athletics director", e.g. see Brock Badgers where the field entered as "director = Robert Hilson" has infobox deliberately displaying it as "Athletics director". The infobox is used in about 53 articles, with either redlinks for the a.d. person, or no link, but it seems to document the usage again, anyhow. I think we can disregard the difference of "s" added at the end of word "Athletic" in the category usage. --doncram 22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be misunderstanding the issue here — the problem is not "athletic", but "college". "College" and "university" are not interchangeable terms in Canada the way they are in the United States — they're two very different types of institution. While both types can and do have athletic directors, there's exactly no context in which the athletic director of Brock University could or would ever be referred to as a college athletic director — because the institution that he's the athletic director of is not a "college". He might be referred to as a university athletic director, or just as an athletic director — but "college" doesn't work. The category does need to be renamed to something more inclusive and less imposing of USian terminology, but your comment above singles out the wrong word as the issue. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments/Replies

1. There is no alternate proposal for wording, provided by anyone.

2. No offense, but i simply don't believe that there is significantly different usage in Canada vs. in the U.S. for "college" vs. "university". They are technically different terms in both places; "College" works fine for the purpose of differentiating between collegiate/university athletic director big shots vs. nobody directors of recreation on any athletic playground anywhere. It is not important, but does someone have a source on usage difference in Canada vs. U.S. for the terms? Note it is a Canadian template, ((Infobox Canadian college athletics)), that uses "Canadian college athletics" term and which is applied on the Brock University page. If someone wants to go to WikiProject Canada and make some case about how Wikipedia oughta not use "College" in any way associated with a Canadian university, go ahead....

I struck my uninformed statement above. Comparison of American and British English#General terms and College articles cover differences, including that in Canada and the UK a "college" may refer many secondary schools including high schools while in the U.S. it would not include high schools, and that it would not be used in Canada or UK for what is covered in our Collegiate university article. It is noted in the comparison that "In both the US and UK college can refer to some division within a university that comprises related academic departments such as the 'college of business and economics' though in the UK 'faculty' is more often used." But, there are exceptions, including usage in practice by Canadian wikipedians using infoboxes, as I noted above. --doncram 15:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Obviously there is at least one notable Canadian athletics director. And the larger category holds it plus Category:College athletic directors in the United States. If someone comes up with a better name, suggest it, now or later in some future CFD. However, there is no issue for Wikipedia raised by this CFD that needs to be considered. Deleting the category would have harm of de-classifying one article so far and interrupting sensible development of the category structure. (Why on earth was the general term narrowed to U.S. only, before, I don't fathom. More general terms should be created first and kept.) Please let's just end this discussion, Keeping the category, obviously. --doncram 00:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Rename. The current name is problematic because of both the words "college" and "athletic[s]", both of which have different meanings in the U.S. than they have globally. Accordingly, a proper global category should have a name like "University sports directors". Since the category is essentially empty except for Category:College athletic directors in the United States, deleting it for now does no harm; if it is recreated later it needs a better name. --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Followup and rename proposal. The one Canadian athletic director's article, which brought me to create this category, was up for AFD here, and has closed with "Keep" decision. Again, note the CFD is a proposal to rename category from Category:College athletic directors to [[:Category:]], i.e. there was no explicit proposed rename, and i did not observe consensus building to any alternative. It is commented that "since the category is essentially empty" (besides the Canadian one and the U.S. ones), that the category should be deleted and re-created later when someone has a better wording. I disagree with that approach as undermining the fundamental process of building categorization in Wikipedia; a questioned category should be kept and revised later if/when better knowledge of this topic is unearthed and there is a good argument for an actually better wording.

However, I come to think that renaming to Category:Athletic directors, avoiding any college/university distinction, and consistent with our main article Athletic director, would be fine. Revisiting a distinction I drew above, that it was worthwhile to differentiate "between collegiate/university athletic director big shots vs. nobody directors of recreation on any athletic playground anywhere", I don't think that is important. Nobodies simply won't get articles in Wikipedia. In the U.S. only significant athletic directors, usually at collegiate universities but perhaps also at elite prep schools or other secondary schools, will be Wikipedia-notable and correctly classified. Googling quickly yields this newspaper article covering that U.S. high school athletic directors have average salary of U.S.$90k], by the way, so it is a significant position and there could well be Wikipedia-notable ones. This North Carolina athletic education association site names "athletic director of the year" awards for high schools and for middle schools in the state. And this avoids the issue of different meaning for "college" for Canada and the U.K. "Athletic directors" is more general so I prefer it. In fact, even if Category:College athletic directors is kept, I tend to think that Category:Athletic directors should be created and just hold the one subcategory, but I gather that some here would not, as they have views on principles and practices in categorization that I don't quite understand yet. --doncram 15:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good reasoning. I support this. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 24 May 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: withdrawn by nominator. The nom was based on a misunderstanding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Albums produced by The Worlds Freshest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There don't appear to be any other categories of albums by producer. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Category:Albums by producer contains over 2000 subcategories. This one only has a single article in it but it otherwise seems to be a legitimate category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 20 May 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 to delete; rename to Category:Jewish translators of the Bible to resolve ambiguity/scope issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Jewish Bible translators to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: The name makes it unclear whether this is for Jewish people who translate the bible, or for anyone who translates the Hebrew Bible. (If the latter, it is redundant to Category:Bible translators). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The category has been applied only to Jews who translated Scripture. It includes people who have translated into a number of languages, including French, English, Yiddish, and Chinese. The label for the category might potentially be ambiguous, but I had thought it clear enough. It is simpler that "Bible translators who were Jews", but that would be a less ambiguous way to label it. I would like to keep the category as a concept, but I'm very open to renaming it.Pete unseth (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pete unseth: How about Category:Jewish translators of the Bible? That seems to me to reflect your intended scope, without ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we don't even have nationality categories of this, so why are we creating ethnic ones?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Obiwankenobi: There are suggestions that Jewish people have a particular relationship with this book. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume catholics, protestants, muslims, and hindus would also have a special relationship as translators of this book. I just don't see the intersection as particularly defining - especially given we don't even split these people by nationality.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete needn't break this up by religion - presumably Jewish translators work could be used in a Bible used in Christian churches, so we cannot assume that the religion of the translator matters. However, the intended audience (or imprimatur) of the translations themselves might be categorized by religion (as no doubt the Catholic Bible - and the versions listed therein - differs from the LDS edition of the Bible, and from the Modern English Bible translations - and the versions listed therein not adopted by the Roman Catholic Church) - but that's for another day. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename The concept of Jewish translators is different in some ways than "Catholic translators". It can represent a convergence of ethnic and religious identity. It is a much smaller group than such potential categories as "Catholic Bible translators" or "Protestant Bible translators". Pete unseth (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Jewish translators of the Bible. Being a Jewish translator of the Bible is a defining characteristic deserving of a category, and the new name resolves BHG's concern about ambiguity. --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename I just noticed there is a category "Jewish biblical scholars". That does not seem to have generated objections. I am NOT trying to have that category removed. I think both that one and this one (however named) are useful, capturing a relevant groups of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth (talk • contribs)

---

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:List of studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SHAREDNAME. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with BrownHairedGirl. --Orlady (talk) 14:31, 19 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Dartmouth, Nova Scotia Aticles to Category:Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

Nominator's rationale: "Aticles" appears to be a mis-spelling of "articles", which in any case is a redundant term in a category title. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While I believe it could be populated, just a note that it does seem to have been created as a WP:COATRACK for the WP:SOAP article Dartmouth Liberation Front, nominated for deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not an appropriate article for the reasons above. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sasso. Steam5 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others, and also noting now that the HRM is at Halifax, Nova Scotia and its cat at Category:Halifax, Nova Scotia that Dartmouth is now should be at, per CANSTYLE, Dartmouth, Halifax.Skookum1 (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Just delete. While the nominator is correct in principle that the proposed format (not the existing one) is the one that categories of this type should be following if they're warranted, I'd argue that in most cases we don't need separate categories for each individual neighbourhood within a single municipality — Dartmouth doesn't even have borough status, which would be the bare minimum for justifying a Dartmouth-specific category. As noted above, it appears to have been created as a coatrack for a non-notable campaign of Dartmouth separatism, and thus it's a POV violation as things stand (as well as an empty category that could technically be speedied). No prejudice against future recreation if there's ever actually a good reason to warrant a separate eponymous category for Dartmouth (e.g. it actually does someday separate from the HRM to become its own independent municipality again), but it isn't warranted at all as things currently stand. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 19 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Photos of New R. S. J. Public School to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need a specific category for 2 photos of one school? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One is flagged for moving to commons and the other is amply categorized in Category:Vector images of trademarks. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The creator is fairly new to WP and I guess got confused with what goes in commons and what goes here. Same category also exists at Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vegaswikian. Steam5 (talk) 20:10, 15 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Firearms importers in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Found this as an uncategorised category, but I can't find any similar categories, or anywhere to parent this apart from Category:Companies of the United States. It seems a little narrow ... so should it be kept, or merged or renamed? Neutral for now. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There are quite a few more companies and individuals to be added to it. It is similar to Category:Firearms manufacturers in the United States but speaks to the importers of arms made in other countries.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But is that a defining characteristic for the companies or individuals? In effect, isn't this simply having a permit to do something? Licensed dealers do not need to have the special paperwork to import limited numbers of firearms.[1] 17:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The ones included in this category import firearms by the thousands and more. It's more than just a permit and we're not talking about Joe filing out a form to bring his grandfather's old musket in from Canada. You have to deal with more than just ATF, theres State Dept, ITAR plus marking variances, etc. All imports need to be marked and identified by the importer. Some importers like Cimarron have firearms built to their specs, others like HK-USA import existing models made by the parent company in Germany. So some of these companies are defined by their importing, notably Navy Arms, Century Arms, Interarms, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But all this is, is a license to import in the end. And if only a few are defined by this, then it needs to be deleted or renamed so that the scope is clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i think you are missing. mr. searson's rationale. he is clearly talking about more than just a form 8 or 6 . John Walker166.170.40.80 (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm questioning the definingness of this and that question is not being addressed. And your point supports me in that it also raises the question is what should be included. The name currently lets us down! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a WP:DEFINING characteristic, and the category is nebulous as mentioned: anyone who 'brings his grandfather's old musket in from Canada' is a 'Firearms importer in the United States'. Now Category:Firearms importation companies in the United States might be a valid categorisation... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a defining characteristic; also, it looks like it might be intended to serve as a business directory. --Orlady (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as simply not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 19 May 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: speedy deleted per WP:G4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Transhumanist films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Does this fit anywhere in the category structure? I seem to recall discussion of some similar category in the past, but may be imagining that. I remain neutral for now. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nope, you didn't imagine it! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Lugnuts! I should have checked the page's history. I think this is one for WP:G4 speedy deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree and I've tagged it as such. I don't see the merit in having another discussion about this, so soon. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 12 May 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) 00:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:People educated at Grimsby Institute of Further & Higher Education to Category:Alumni of Grimsby Institute of Further & Higher Education
• Category:People educated at Grantham College to Category:Alumni of Grantham College

Nominator's rationale: In the UK, school alumni are categorised as "People educated by Foo" (see Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom) and higher education alumni as "Alumni of Foo" (see Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom). However, there does not appear to be any coherent system for alumni of Further education colleges, which straddle secondary and higher education (see Category:Further education colleges in the United Kingdom).

I found two other categs of UK FE college alumni (Category:Alumni of Feltham Community College and Category:Alumni of Croydon College), so I suggest that these two should follow the same format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 12 May 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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Schools in Jhusi to Category:Schools in Allahabad

Nominator's rationale: 1-article category, fails WP:SMALLCAT. So far we have only one article on a school in Jhusi, the New R. S. J. Public School, and no others are listed in the article Jhusi. Category:Schools in Allahabad contains only 11 pages, and has no subcats, so it doesn't need to be split. There is no Category:Jhusi, and no sign so far that there would anything to populate it with apart from the school and head article on the town. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Jhusi has only 13,000 people, so there probably won't be too many schools there. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 15:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--prathamprakash29 08:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs) ----

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Newham Mayoral elections to Category:Elections in Newham and Category:Mayoral elections in London

Nominator's rationale: single article category, fails WP:SMALLCAT, so propose upmerging to both parents. The head article Directly elected mayor of Newham shows that so far there have been only 3 such elections, with another one due this year. Even if we had standalone articles on all of them, the 4 articles wouldn't need their own category ... and so far the only such article is Newham mayoral election, 2010, which adds nothing to what is already in Directly elected mayor of Newham, apart from an infobox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 12 May 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: Speedy rename - original author expressed lack of opposition, no one else opposed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Long Island, New York Registered Historic Place stubs to Category:Long Island Registered Historic Place stubs

Nominator's rationale: Per the fact that this island in other titles is "Long Island", not "Long Island, New York. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I see no issues with a rename. Dawynn (talk) 13:00, 12 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT people of Peruvian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per past discussions, Wikipedia is not interested in the intersection of LGBTness with a person's ethnic descent. The sole person filed here is not personally from Peru, and therefore her Peruvian heritage is not a defining characteristic in conjunction with her sexuality. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete plus the sibling, Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent should also be deleted. Have you seen the descent tree? Can you imagine if we start intersecting that with the LGBT tree? shudder.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Puerto Rican one has, for the record, always been stuck in a special limbo of its own — while the consensus has been clearly against every other ethnic ancestry for which this has been tried in the past, the Puerto Rican one has been nominated for deletion a couple of times now and has been closed as "no consensus" both times (primarily because of User:Lawrlafo, who argued that Puerto Rico's status as a territory of the US made it some sort of special case where we need to make special provision for people who were ethnically Puerto Rican but were born and raised and lived and died on the US mainland instead of on the island of Puerto Rico, and thus couldn't be categorized as being "from Puerto Rico" per se.) I don't agree that that's an important enough consideration to actually warrant "LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent" — in part because other editors now repeatedly come along and think that it justifies new categories for "LGBT people of Peruvian descent" — but after the first attempt to delete it landed at no consensus, I tried proposing an alternative which would accomodate Lawrlafo's concerns while taking away the "descent" issue, which also landed at no consensus. So for the time being, even there's otherwise no consensus to permit "LGBT people by ethnic descent" as a comprehensive category scheme, we're also stuck with the Puerto Rican category as the one isolated example where we haven't been able to secure a consensus to actually treat it like any other LGBT/ethnicity intersection. If you're willing to initiate a third attempt to get rid of it, though, then by all means be my guest. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, now I remember. Ok, nevermind, I'm not going to nominate it, it's not worth the drama...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Obiwankenobi. The intersection of LGBT with ethnicity seems to be a big stretch in terms of WP:DEFININGness, and could spawn a forest of similar categories if this one was taken as a precedent.
  Bearcat mentions some past discussions; any chance of some links? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, see Category_talk:LGBT_people_of_Puerto_Rican_descent for two links. I note that we do have LGBT African Americans and a few other ethnic groups in the US but 'of X descent' is usually not used to denote ethnicity but rather ancestry. The whole 'of x descent' tree is pretty bad in general, full of X of Y descent that is never spoken of in reliable sources - I think if we're to keep this tree we should prune it down to groups actually defined and discussed in literature somewhere - not 'this is an x, his mother was from Y and grandfather was from Z, therefore create a new category-of-one to hold him'.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unmaintainable "descent" category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 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 for now, without prejudice to a nomination for deletion/merging per User:The Bushranger's comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Albemarle County stubs to Category:Albemarle County, Virginia stubs

Nominator's rationale: All mother county-related stub categories (including its subcat, Category:Albemarle County, Virginia geography stubs), as far as I have seen, include the state name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Virginia stubs. Non-geography stubs aren't enoough to merit its own stub and category. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there are plenty once you include the 171 articles in the subcat, Category:Albemarle County, Virginia geography stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:11, 15 May 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.