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, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Libyans rabbis to Category:Libyan rabbis

Nominator's rationale: Grammar. (Original creator used machine translation.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename - obvious error. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it seems to be a very exclusive subset and I'd be inclined to delete it. But I guess that should be raised in a separate CfD. Sionk (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I would agree on upmerging, but I guess there's little chance to reach positive consensus about it because this category is part of the established tree Category:Rabbis by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been many more notable Libyan rabbis, so there is potential for expansion. The corresponding category at the Hebrew Wikipedia contains eleven pages. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per nom. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, category name is valid in correct English of course. Note to closing admin: The creator of this category needs to be advised NOT to proceed with creating categories or articles with such a poor command of the English language on the English WP yet! Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:14, 26 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: delete. (For the time being, I've placed The Dukes of the Bourbon castle in Montluçon in Category:History of France.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This category contains one article and has no parents. I suspect the category creator doesn't understand wp categorization. DexDor (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a useful categogry or one part of a tree. SFB 22:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- The one article ought to be called Montluçon castle, but needs work to make an acceptable article (wikifying, grammar, etc). This needs to be categorised in Castles in Foo or Buildings and structures in Foo, Foo being the area where it is; and I am not clear on that. At present it is an orphan. We certainly do not need the category. The article reads like history, and I assume it is; if not, a different solution will be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: meaningless. "Story" seems to be, in this context, a mistranslation of French histoire. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:40, 20 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: rename as proposed; don't keep redirects. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Citation formats to Category:Wikipedia citation administration

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for wikipedia administration pages, but (unlike most/all other categories below Category:Wikipedia administration) it doesn't have the word "Wikipedia" in its name - which makes it look like a content category. I'm open to other suggestions for what the name of this category should be. DexDor (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All internal content categories should be marked as such. SFB 22:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is not about real world citation formats (IEEE, Harvard, MLA, etc) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin comment. @DexDor: @Sillyfolkboy: @65.94.40.137: I was about to close this discussion as "rename", but while this discussion was ongoing it looks like User:Hyacinth renamed both the nominated category and its proposed target to Category:Wikipedia administration citation formats. Are you happy with that change or no? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm OK with that title, but (unlike with articles) I'm not sure that it's a good idea to leave category redirects. DexDor (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really sure why Hyacinth bulldozed what was clearly an ongoing conversation, but I'm still happy with the above proposed title – both shorter and a better fit for things like Wikipedia:Citing sources. Also agree on deleting non-real-world category redirects. SFB 18:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, since there is a stated preference from at least one user for the proposal above, we'll rename it to that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 27 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: keep (do not delete). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Charter schools in Delaware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The page List of charter schools in Delaware allows for more precise organization of schools and the addition of schools without articles. In my opinion, the list renders the category superfluous. Piboy51 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on the basis that list articles aren't a substitute for categories. Though as the nominator points out, list articles allow us to go into greater detail. There is a complete category tree of Charter schools by state and it would be strange indeed to delete one of them. Sionk (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Sionk and WP:CLN.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Being a charter school is usually defining to the subject of the article. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:35, 21 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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary alumni to Category:Southern Baptist Theological Seminary alumni

Nominator's rationale: Per article name, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suport as per WP:THEUNI, "The" should not be used in this circumstance. Piboy51 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per main article (merge?) SFB 22:40, 19 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: rename, without prejudice to a future nomination to propose deleting any of them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Activities by jihadist organization to Category:Activities by jihadist groups
• Propose renaming Category:Members of jihadist organizations to Category:Members of jihadist groups
• Propose renaming Category:Organizations affiliated with al-Qaeda to Category:Groups affiliated with al-Qaeda
• Propose renaming Category:Salafi organizations to Category:Salafi groups

Nominator's rationale: Rename.

This request follows the recent move as at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 31#Category:Jihadist organizations where the option largely on the basis of consistency of a move to Category:Jihadist groups was chosen over a move of Category:Islamist groups to Category:Islamist organizations. Groups also covers a wider range of definitions than organisations and there are already a number of group titled categories. Geopolitical organisations are typically defined as "Rebel groups that control territory." There is also overlap between existing groups and organizations entitled categories and I think that a consistent use of one term will help in regard to comparison and organisation. GregKaye 08:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with exception of Category:Organizations affiliated with al-Qaeda, which ought to be deleted. replace organizations with groups because it's not possible to show how organized or unorganized any of these are. The affiliated with al-Qaeda seems to be afoul of WP:OCASSOC as X's associated with Y. If they are jihadist there are cats for that already. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all per previous comments around the benefits of group over organisation (e.g. the decentralised and fragmented nature of such groups, multiple heads). Support keeping the Al-Qaeda category as this is affiliation not association (i.e. officially attached). These are the groups which de-facto make up what Al-Qaeda is, so not categorising them together would be a bad outcome for users. SFB 22:44, 19 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: merge Category:Gargoyles in television, Category:Gargoyles in popular culture, Category:Gargoyles in film, and Category:Fictional gargoyles into a new Category:Gargoyles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gargoyles in television to Category:Gargoyles in popular culture

Nominator's rationale: No other TV shows exist about gargoyles. As far as I can see, the cartoon is the only TV show about them. WP:OCAT#SMALL to the extreme. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are TV episodes about gargoyles in other series, and telefilms unrelated to the Disney franchise. As well as a Japanimation; clearly this can grow, since Syfy seems to like making gargoyle based TV movies. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then wouldn't it be better to either create those articles to populate the category, or delete the category until such shows do have articles? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've already populated it with the various Syfy TV movies that have articles, and the Japanese TV anime -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete having a single gargoyle in a tv show is not defining. Most travel shows featuring France, England, etc. have them. If some threshold amount of gargoyles are needed show me reliable sources that describe this threshold so we can see it's widely accepted and not subjective, and then before adding any article to the category, be sure reliable sources are cited that the article's subject meets the widely-accepted non-subjective threshold that's been established. Failing that, the category is of no value. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what of the corresponding Category:Gargoyles in film ? A single rampaging gargoyle horror monster isn't defining for such purposes as a TV episode or movie, when it is the central plotpoint? (or if it is told as the story of a gargoyle come to life, and the only one in the world?) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It ought to go, too. Without reliable sources telling us what's happening, any conjecture is pure subjectivity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the articles should have plot summaries, which should be sourced, they (when fixed when needed) would tell you what's happening. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the whole tree to a single category. I suspect that the Hunchback merely has pictures of gargoyles (I do not know); if so, it should not be in the category; nor should travel programs that happen to mention or show gargoyles. I have often argued "one franchise: one category". My feeling is that this is another case where it needs to be applied. Currently several of the articles are both in film and TV. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the whole tree into Category:Gargoyles per Peterkingiron. The problem with this breakdown is that made for TV films are being categorized twice. Since there are no real gargoyles, I also find Category:Fictional gargoyles puzzling. I'll tag the other cats.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gargoyles are architectural elements. So if documentaries on the architectural elements and artforms exist, they would not be fictional. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only one I found on a gargoyle statue is Darth Vader Grotesque which looks like it's getting merged. I think they're still real-world statues of fictional beings, just like a movie is a real-world DVD of a fictional being. 13:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

---

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) 00:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - The category has only 2 entries: a small Bavarian valley and a borderline-notable band with a somewhat promotional article. Both elements already have additional better categories ("Valleys of Bavaria" and "German musical groups" respectively). Overcategorization and very unlikely to be of future use. (1st nom, please fix evtl. errors) GermanJoe (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a useful grouping, especially as you would mainly expect geographical features here, rather than a band. SFB 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The category consists of a place and a musical band. Both articles may need recategorising, through a partial upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Category:Kahlgrund was wrongly placed anyway at creation (far too high in the category tree), it can safely be deleted without upmerging. Both entries have other more fitting cats already in place. GermanJoe (talk) 23:20, 22 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.