Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

February 20

Category:Michael Franks

Category:Michael Franks - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An eponymous category with a single child category and its eponymous article. Typically, an eponymous category is created when there are various subcategories and related articles on the subject to warrant it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when I created the category there were various subcategories (and soon to be templates), but in the interim they were rearranged. Fair enough, in its current state it doesn't warrant existence, was just trying my hand at WP:BOLD. Delete when ready, and probably delete many others here too as they would fail with your same criteria. --Ruben[nerd] (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do so when I find them. I don't go searching for them. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I find most things through serendipitous circumstances myself. Cheers :) --Ruben[nerd] (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems pretty anemic for a so-called "eponymous category". If kept for whatever reason, rename to Category:Michael Franks (musician) to match Michael Franks (musician). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point regarding renaming; not calling it that from the outset was my mistake, along with not adding the templates or other categories sooner. For a newbie's (aka: mine!) future reference though, what bearing does anemia have on eponymous categorisation? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, feel free to chime in here too. Doesn't the former regard utilisation, and the latter semantics? Cheers --Ruben[nerd] (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By anemic I just meant "lightly populated" or "not much content". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by city in Virginia

Propose renaming Category:People by city in Virginia to Category:People by independent city in Virginia

Propose renaming Category:People by town in Virginia to Category:People by city or town in Virginia

Nominator's rationale: It seems that Virginia is the only state (as far as I know) that seperates 'People from...' by 'Town' and 'City', this, apparently, being due to the fact that Virginia 'Towns' are what most states would consider 'Cities', and Virginia 'Cities' are independent entities standing alone from any county. These renamings would help to clarify things, with 'by independent city' being a subcat of 'by city or town', allowing all city-equivilants in Virginia to be found under a single subcategory of Category:People by city in the United States by state. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed at this point based on Category:Municipalities in Virginia. Call cities cities and towns towns. The fact that this may not match what other states use, is not at issue. Given that the Census Bureau calls unincorporated areas 'principal cities' does not make those cities. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The catch is that Category:People by city in Virginia needs to also be categorized under Category:People by county in Virginia, as the independent cities are equivilant to counties as well, and as it stands that would appear very odd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, they are in two categories. That is not a problem. See Carson City, Nevada or Anchorage, Alaska. The fact that this is a category should not be an issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough, I reckon - no big deal if this closes with no change. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both categories into one Maryland has the same situation with respect to Baltimore city, which isn't in a county. What we have therefore is Category:People by county in Maryland and Category:People by city in Maryland. Baltimore of course has Category:People from Baltimore, Maryland, which is in "people by city" but not anywhere under the counties hierarchy. Other incorporated cities have a category which is in both people by city and in the appropriate "people from county" category in which the city lies. Having two sets of categories depending on the jurisdictional status of the community is unnecessary and arcane; it might make sense to have that sort of categorization for the city articles, but the placement of people into the various places has nothing to do with that, and it means that people looking for cities have to look into two different "city" supercategories. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Other examples are Fairfax, Virginia and San Francisco. Is there a burning need to fix something by changing these? I'm not sure that anything is really broken in how we should deal with these. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, merging "city" and "town" for VA to just "city" would make sense. I'm on the fence regarding cases where the county and city are the same. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - - These auto-disambiguate given for example Category:People from Baltimore County, Maryland and Category:People from Baltimore, Maryland. Mangoe (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why would one think that Hurt, Virginia is a city? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, we don't have it, but it would be possible to have Category: People from Hell, Michigan were one of its residents to gain sufficient notoriety. Mangoe (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because "city" is the default term for every other state in Category:People by city in the United States by state. Whether it's officially "city", "town" or "village", it goes under "People by city in Foo". Virginia is the only one that has seperate "city" and "town" categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential candidates

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 C2C/C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this is a more logical way to do this. The important point is that these are candidates for the "FOOian presidency", not that they are presidential candidates of "FOOian nationality". But the articles about the positions are not called "FOOian presidency" (Argentine presidency or Ukrainian presidency) and the categories for winners are not called "Category:FOOian presidents"—they are called "President of FOO" (President of Argentina and President of Ukraine) and "Category:Presidents of FOO" (Category:Presidents of Argentina and Category:Presidents of Ukraine). If renamed, some follow-up work on subcategories of these will be in order. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom, for greater clarity and accuracy, and to ensure that the category title reflects the title of the office. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree also fixes obscure FOOian issues such as that there are two Congos, and other obscure fooian naming conventions.Mddkpp (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support but I hope these are not used for the successful candidates after election. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sucessful candidates should all be in the "Presidents of Foo" categories, and since they were all candidates the "Presidents of Foo" should be a subcat of the candidates category: see e.g. Category:Irish presidential candidates and its subcat Category:Presidents of Ireland. That applies even if they were the only candidate, as with Patrick Hillery in the 1976 election. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BrownHairedGirl. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for clarity. GregorB (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for greater clarity, per nom. & others. Note that the same move will need to made with Category:United States vice-presidential candidates as well as similar categories in other nationalities.--JayJasper (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lord Lilford

Propose ~~deleting~~ renaming Category:Lord Lilford to Category:Barons Lilford

Nominator's rationale: ~~Delete (or rename)~~ Rename.. ~~My first concern is that I'm not sure that we categorize people who have held the same title in the same category named after the title?~~ If kept, my second concern is that the article about the title is Baron Lilford, and Lord Lilford redirects there. My third concern is that if kept, the category needs to be pluralised. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and Rename to Category:Barons Lilford per convention of Category:Barons in the Peerage of Great Britain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that's what I was looking for. Yes, just rename then—my first concern is resolved. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guinness World Records

Category:Guinness World Records - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is OCAT; apparently by its contents it's a category for nearly anything or anyone who was ever in the Guinness Book of World Records. Right now, the category is manageably small, but it it were to be populated along those lines, it would basically be whatever GWB has ever had in it. What's next? Things in the Brittannica? Things in the Book of Lists? People in Who's Who? Best rock songs per Rolling Stone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nominator, with great haste, and lethal force. Categorising things by their inclusion in books of lists or records would lead to horrendous category clutter. (I'm sure that this category was created in good faith by an editor unaware of the consequences of this type of categorisation, but however attractive it may seem at first glance, it doesn't work. If someone wants to read the Guinness Book of World Records, it is available for purchase or can be read for free in most libraries). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We always delete the kind of category that categorizes people because they appeared in some other work. It leads to overcategorization and sets a bad precedent for future category development. These are not articles about Guinness records, which is what the name suggests. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or better still recategorise I think I know how to make this work without "clutter" - make it similar in fashion to the categories listed on the Guinness World Records website, and leave it at that. It would be great to have a Inaugural, superseded by, current in the relevant pages categorised by this. In short, if you remove the guinness world record category you should then look at removing DJ award categories and other awards as they have less relevance. A guinness world record is an award of World merit. There is nothing bigger in the world to signify such a world achievement. Each article categorised to this should be notable on its own merit. I mean, an article really shouldnt be written for a person who has the only claim to fame as having watched soapies for the longest time, unless it was lindsay lohan or something (no offence to be taken).

Category:People educated at Royal Wolverhampton School

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. An article should be included if that's how the school normally handles it, which this one does. Had the article been included in the original nomination, it likely would have passed without comment.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could somebody delete this category? It's now empty as I've moved the pages to 'People educated at the Royal Wolverhampton School'. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should not simply move the pages unilaterally. Instead you should come here to seek a WP:CONSENSUS for your proposed change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that what you did was right, and non-contentious, you can use Template:Db-c1 to have empty categories deleted, see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Categories. However if someone objects, you'll be in trouble.. Mddkpp (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the out-of-process move. "The" is not included, as far as I can tell, in the "People educated at Foo" categories. If it is to be included it needs to have a full discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I included the 'the' to make the phrase grammatically correct. If it's going to cause problems then could we have a category called 'People educated at The Royal Wolverhampton School'? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to include 'the', which is needed if one was educated at the Royal Wolverhampton School. (See this search for similar ones.) Oculi (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People educated at the Royal Wolverhampton School, to correct grammar. Retain the old title as a {{category redirect}}.
Note: I have just tagged the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Whitbread Awards

Propose renaming Category:Whitbread Awards to Category:Costa Book Awards

Propose renaming Category:Whitbread Award winners to Category:Costa Book Award winners

Nominator's rationale: The Whitbread Awards have been renamed the Costa Book Awards starting in 2006. We recently renamed Category:Whitbread Award winners (books) to Category:Costa Book Award winning works.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this point must have been made before so apologies for stating the obvious but surely past winners won the award under its former name, not its current name. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true, but we don't typically have two categories under both names for an award that merely changed its name. We just use the current name and class all awardees in the single category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Convention for alumni categories is that the graduates of a merged or renamed institution are treated as graduates of the successor. This should be extended to cases such as this. Categories are navigation tools, not mere bullet points. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename C2D - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jibanananda Das

Propose renaming Category:Jibanananda Das to Category:Works by Jibanananda Das

Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform to the convention of Category:Works by author. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. It's functioning as a works-of category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the convention of categorization very well. I did it after watching Category:Rabindranath Tagore. If it can exist, I think Category:Jibanananda Das can exist too. What would happen if I later want to include an article on a person who was a critic or translator of Jibanananda Das, e.g. Abdul Mannan Syed, Chidananda Dasgupta and etc in that category. If it is inappropriate, please, let me know. Anyway Category:Works by Jibanananda Das is also welcome. As you are an experienced editor and admin, please, feel free to do what suit best. Thanks. -- Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croatian presidential candidates, 1997

Category:Croatian presidential candidates, 1997 - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very limited category per WP:SMALLCAT, only two members at the moment. GregorB (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Croatian presidential candidates, and add candidates for all the presidential elections. Being a candidate for a presidential election is a defining characteristic in most countries, and the only thing wrong with this category is that it is restricted to one such election. There are plenty of other "Fooish presidential candidates" categories in Category:Presidential candidates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BrownHairedGirl. A very good point, so I'm changing my initial suggestion and going with rename too. GregorB (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Category:Croatian presidential candidates created a and populated, but not with the contents of subcats. There are some minor issues with the overall categorisation of the parent-parent - ie are presidential candidates subcats of "president of foo" or vice versa? or should an entire category be created to contain both as per Category:Presidency of the United States ? - there's some minor work here needed overall.

Also despite its tiny size (probably should be expanded by 1 to include the winner) - I can't help noting the utility of this category - which is actually far greater than the lump together parent category - ie the proposed mergeto parent Category:Croatian presidential candidates doesn't seem that useful to help find things because it lacks dates. (On the other hand I could just read the relavent articles listed in Category:Presidential_elections_in_Croatia..

one of two options : either keep, and assume further potentially useful cat. work will be done. or delete and delete everything in Category:Croatian presidential candidates, but keep Category:Presidential elections in Croatia - I'm basing this on my expectation of what categories actually end up being useful, rather than any rules-conforming or completeness arguments..Mddkpp (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Mddkpp: "are presidential candidates subcats of "president of foo" or vice versa?"

Answer is vice-versa. All Presidents were once candidates, but not all candidates became president. For example, see Category:Irish presidential candidates and is subcat Category:Presidents of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Related nomination above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's also Category:Croatian presidential candidates, 1992 - more members (8), but essentially the same issue. GregorB (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category under discussion has only 2 articles. OTOH, Category:Croatian presidential candidates, 1992 has 8, which sounds like enough articles to make a viable category, so I suggest retaining it as a sub-cat of Category:Croatian presidential candidates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Campaniles

Propose merging Category:Campaniles to Category:Bell towers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. As far as I can tell these two terms are synonymous. (If not can someone modify the main article Campaniles so that the meaning is clear - currently it says The term applies to bell towers which are either part of a larger building .. or free-standing - that covers everything ?)Mddkpp (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator to Category:Bell towers, but recreate Category:Campaniles as a {{category redirect}}. The two terms are not quite synonymous, because some usage restricts "campanile" to free-standing bell towers, so it is better to use the term which is unambiguously inclusive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

aside - new subcat? A quick check shows that the Category:Campaniles hasn't been used exclusively for free standing bell towers - however if people think "Free standing bell towers" (or similar) is a valid cat, then agree here, and I will try make that..Mddkpp (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further aside. A while ago while going through building categories I noticed that Category:Bell towers and Category:Clock towers were added based on a tower in a building with a bell and/or clock. In most of these, these features were not defining. So one wonders if some of these entries even belong. For many this could be as useful as Category:Red towers. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (keeping cat-redirect) -- They are much the same thing. I think that Campanile may merely be the Italian word for a bell-tower, usually freestanding. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting question. Is it the freestanding ones that are defined by being one? If so, should freestanding be part of the name? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Bell towers is something of a mess, in that it has a lot of buildings with clock towers or even structures that look something like bell towers, plus a lot of churches with bells in a tower, but by and large the proper membership of the category consists of freestanding bell towers, i.e., campaniles. I don't see a lot of reason to keep the small number of integral towers separate. Mangoe (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sanchez family

Category:Sanchez family - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, unlikely to be expanded further Secret ^account 06:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I'm not particularly keen on any of these 'Foo family' categories (which are surely ambiguous - are there no other related Sanchezs with articles?) and here there are just 2 of them (linked from each article). Oculi (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some "Foo family" categories are useful; one with only two entries is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A navbox would do the jib much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Less than 5 articles and no category scheme where every family gets a cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whew, not Suarez family ;-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defense wings of the United States Air Force

Propose merging Category:Defense wings of the United States Air Force into Category:Air defense wings of the United States Air Force

Nominator's rationale There are only ten wings that could possibly be included in this Category. Two are currently listed in the category. All USAF Defense Wings in existence in September 1954 were renamed Air Defense Wings, (six of the ten wings). The potential universe of Air Defense Wings is 65 (with 19 currently categorized). There is no substantive difference in the type of unit. If needed Category:Defense wings of the United States Air Force could be retained as a redirect page to Category:Air defense wings of the United States Air Force. --Lineagegeek (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator as an obvious duplicate, but recreate the old name as a {{category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST notified. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Objectivism

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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Objectivism to Category:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Objectivism is ambiguous, so I propose matching this article to its main article Objectivism (Ayn Rand). The category definition says the category is about Rand's philosophy. (This rename falls under the C2D speedy rename criterion, but all my speedy nominations of philosophy categories have been opposed as of late by User:Gregbard, so I'm just bringing it straight here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – I can think of no example when a category name directly linked to a dab page has survived cfd. Oculi (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. The term is highly ambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the more precise title is definitely required to avoid ambiguity. Pichpich (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per C2B and C2D (assuming "Randism" wouldn't work. ;) ) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Naturalism

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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Naturalism to Category:Naturalism (philosophy)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naturalism is ambiguous, so I propose matching this article to its main article Naturalism (philosophy). (This rename falls under the C2D speedy rename criterion, but all my speedy nominations of philosophy categories have been opposed as of late by User:Gregbard, so I'm just bringing it straight here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and other options at the disambig page Naturalism. (per that page, I myself am much more familiar with the "alternate" meanings Naturalism (arts), Naturalism (literature) & Naturalism (theatre), and don't see why they should be relegated to secondary status behind what is the presumed "lead" meaning Naturalism (philosophy), but that's not an issue for here). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and quite a few recent examples at cfd. Oculi (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. The term "naturalism" is highly ambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Obviously ambiguous. Pichpich (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:S2 Games media

Category:S2 Games media - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A sub-category, which has been in existence since 2006, with a single file pertaining to it. This video game developer has not the prominence or notability to necessitate having a category for media images, let alone one that only pertains to its company logo. Therefore, it is not sensible that this sub-category is deleted. DarthBotto_talk•cont 23:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]