Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 22 February 24 >

February 23

[edit]

Category:Hungarian politicians by political party

[edit]
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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hungarian politicians by political party to Category:Hungarian politicians by party
Propose renaming Category:Polish politicians by political party to Category:Polish politicians by party
Nominator's rationale: per naming scheme of Category:Politicians by party. In this context, "party" is unambiguous, so we don't need to add "political" for clarification. PanchoS (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2010 (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.

Figure skaters by century

[edit]
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 Category:Figure skaters by century, merge the rest. — ξxplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consensus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstrated at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).
This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of figure skaters, but retains the categorisation by gender. Editors may prefer not to create the Category:Male figure skaters and Category:Female figure skaters, by indicating upmerge all to Category:Figure skaters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- figure skating has only really been contested in the 20th and 21st centuries, and there is a great deal of overlap. By having these two categories, we would have 95% of skating bios in the 20th century category. We may as well not have a distinction.
And I don't understand your point about current and former skaters. Why is there a need to distinguish between skaters who currently compete and skaters who don't currently compete? Category maintenance on moving from current competitors to former competitors would be a pain in the neck, especially since a lot of competitors don't so much publically retire (with useful references that they've retired) as fade away. It may be better in a list; 2008-2009 in figure skating includes the name of every skater who competed in an event that registered a season's best score, and there is an article in progress on 2009-2010 in figure skating (the current season), which will probably grow to include the season's best list once the season is over. Would that kind of list be good enough for your "current vs. former" purposes? Kolindigo (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kolindigo, I think you have misread Peterkingiron's comment. He supports merging the categories, and is not advocating the creation of current/former categories; on the contrary, he pointed to them as another example of ill-conceived and deprecated categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*facepalm* Yes, I did. Sorry! Kolindigo (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2010 (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.

Gridiron football players by century

[edit]
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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consesnus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstrated at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).
This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of players of gridiron football, but retains all the other aspects of the triple-and-quadruple intersections in these categories. There may be other flaws in this compliacted category structure, but to keep things simple I suggest that this nomination focuses solely on whether to retain or upmerge the by-century aspect of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (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:Hartford-New Britain Busway

[edit]
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 Category:Hartford-New Britain Busway to Category:New Britain–Hartford Busway. --Xdamrtalk 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hartford-New Britain Busway to Category:New Britain–Hartford Busway
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, New Britain–Hartford Busway. — ξxplicit 21:20, 23 February 2010 (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:Image-Class articles

[edit]
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. --Xdamrtalk 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Image-Class articles to Category:File-Class articles
Nominator's rationale: Both categories pretty much cover the same scope, but Category:File-Class articles encompasses non-image type files as well. I don't see the point of keeping these two separate when one category can keep the file namespace neatly organized in one. — ξxplicit 20:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. I don't have strong views either way on the merger, but Category:Image-Class articles has nearly 700 sub-categories, all of which are populated through wikiproject banners, and this structure is standardised through use of the {{WPBannerMeta}} template. The merger cannot be done without a change to {{WPBannerMeta}}, and it will involve nearly 700 WikiProjects, so I suggest discussing this proposal at Template talk:WPBannerMeta and/or WT:COUNCIL to find out what the rationale is for keeping the categories separate. I will oppose this change unless prior discussion indicates that it can be done without arousing the wrath of hundreds of WikiProjects who discover that their assessment category structure has been rejigged behind their backs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Both WPBannerMeta and WikiProject Council have been notified. For those interested, a centralized discussion can be found here. — ξxplicit 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, although I second BHG's call for caution. This is a perfectly good place to develop a momentum to complete a transition from "Image" to "File" that has been ongoing for over a year now; but the implementation requires careful planning and should most definitely not be undertaken hastily. The rationale for the persistence of Image-class is purely inertia: we haven't yet got around to completing the switch over, which would require substantial bot-work to create the hundreds of new categories required. If someone is prepared to ensure that this is done properly (unfortunately I really don't have the time to spare ATM); I fully support them in doing so. Happy‑melon 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as a bot creating the categories, Cydebot (talk · contribs) would be able to take care of this should the end result in all the subcategories of Category:Image-Class articles be renamed. — ξxplicit 06:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the bulk of the file categories will consist almost entirely of images, and not really worth splitting out many of these. It might be worth it for the music projects to have separate file and image categories since they'll likely have a lot of non-free album covers as well as audio samples that won't be commons eligible and will need to be tracked, but better to move these out and correct the exceptions. As noted above though, this will require some planning to successfully pull off. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The music projects categorize audio files under Category:Non-free audio samples. — ξxplicit 06:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: what exactly is being proposed here? Is it that

The latter can be achieved fairly easily, mainly with a change to Template:Cat class. The former is much more work. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the read, I hope it's both. This nomination only concerns the latter. — ξxplicit 06:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a well planned and executed implemention of the former, but the latter seems somewhat pointless and will introduce an inconsistency into the naming scheme. XXX-Class articles should probably contain only categories of the form XXX-Class PROJECT articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I purposely nominated this sole category to see where it would head (I didn't want to waste my time tagging hundreds of categories should it fail). If there is consensus to implement this throughout the whole category scheme, I do plan to nominate all those categories after the closure of this nomination. The closing administrator may want to hold off getting this parent renamed so it can be easier to locate and tag the Image-Class categories. — ξxplicit 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating 696 categories for renaming will swamp the CfD system. And a group nomination is essentially what this is, so I can't really see the point of starting this discussion again! I think if the closing admin considers there is consensus for this, then we could find somewhere appropriate to discuss the technical details and then go ahead. I have one caveat though: WikiProjects have the right to decide their own classification systems, and while most will probably be happy enough to change Image-class to File-class, there may be some who reserve the right to continue to use Image-class. (One possible example is WikiProject Louisville which has Category:Audio-Class Louisville articles and seems to have decided to separate the different types of files.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 4 March 2010 (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.

Professional wrestlers by century

[edit]
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 Category:Professional wrestlers by century, merge the rest. — ξxplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consesnus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstrated at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).
This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of professional wrestlers, but retains the categorisation by gender. Category:Male professional wrestlers seems to me to be a pointless category, because most wrestlers are male and per WP:CATGRS there is no need to create a corresponding male category just because a female category exists for a small minority. Editors may prefer not to create the Category:Male professional wrestlers, by indicating upmerge all to Category:Professional wrestlers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 23 February 2010 (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.

Swimmers by century

[edit]
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 Category:Swimmers by century, merge the rest. — ξxplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Category:Swimmers by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consesnus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstrated at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).
This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of swimmers, but retains the categorisation by gender and style (and the combinations of those two, which appear to breach WP:CATGRS). I suggest that any consideration of whether to delete the gender and style categories be left until a later occasion, to avoid making this discussion too confusing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (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:German Pirate Party members

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:German Pirate Party members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Sheer membership in a political party is rarely defining for people who are not politicians or political activists, created Category: Pirate Party Germany politicians instead to be selectively populated. PanchoS (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2010 (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:German Communist Party members

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:German Communist Party members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Sheer membership in a political party is rarely defining for people who are not politicians or political activists, created Category:German Communist Party politicians instead to be selectively populated. PanchoS (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, running for office or holding office under a banner is a suitably limited category of encyclopaedic interest, whilst simple membership is not. Orderinchaos 05:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose shouldnt be limited to politicians Hannes Wader wasnt a politician but was a member and his membership is notable in relation to his work and at the various time he came under suspicion for kidnapping, terrorism just for being a member. Gnangarra 07:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous precedents of not categorising people by party unless they are politicians or activist. However in Germany the berufsverbot ensured that the German state treated membership of the communist party as a defining characteristic, so it seems to me that this a rare case where membership should of a party be categorised. (Note that this is a rare exception: in most European countries, membership of the CP was not explicitly and formally a ground for persecution.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was considered an extremist organization in West Germany, so mere membership is significant enough for inclusion in a category. Pcap ping 22:17, 2 March 2010 (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:SED members

[edit]
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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 00:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:SED members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Sheer membership in a political party is rarely defining for people who are not politicians or political activists, created Category:Socialist Unity Party of Germany politicians instead to be selectively populated. PanchoS (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the German Wikipedia, the SED had 2,3 million members of 8 million labor force or 16,8 million total population. This means membership wasn't unusual or particularly significant, neither was non-membership. However I admit that there are some cases where it was indeed significant. There are also enough cases where someone was listed as member without knowledge or consent. To me the question is: is it possible to come up with a rationale that embraces exactly these cases of significance but doesn't allow for tagging of random people who happened to be listed as a member? I'm a bit sceptic if this can be achieved with a category so broadly named. For people like Karl-Heinz Kurras it enough to categorize them in Category:East German spies, those who lost their SED-membership like Günter Kunert are more significantly non-members, someone like Erich Weinert could be better categorized in Category:East German communists if that existed. Many people are missing in this list. I just think it's not well enough conceptualized. PanchoS (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as we don't categorise by attributes solely because they are rare, an attribute doesn't have to be rare to be defining. It seems to me that the issue here is what difference being an SED member made to the life and/or career prospects of a citizen of the DDR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (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:NDPD members

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NDPD members to Category:National Democratic Party of Germany (East Germany) politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename to expand NDPD to match the main article, National Democratic Party of Germany (East Germany), and to recharacterize as "politicians" rather than "members," as membership in a political party is rarely defining for people who are not politicians or political activists (all listed individuals would qualify as one or the other).- choster (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: However, the category should be deleted and recreated as an empty category instead, as it would encompass only a subset of the current listed members, and no - potentially living - person should be automatically moved to a more specific category. PanchoS (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2010 (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.

Basketball players by century

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: The sport of basketball was created in December 1891, so it is less than 119 years old. Dividing those 119 years of the sport into three 100-year blocks is not helpful for navigation, per the precedent of a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).
This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of basketball players, but retains the categorisation by gender and position (and the combinations of those two, which appear to breach WP:CATGRS). I suggest that any consideration of whether to delete the gender and position categories be left until a later occasion, to avoid making this discussion too confusing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (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:20th-century divers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consesnus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstarted at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).
These 2 categories appear to be the only divers-by-century categories, and since Category:Divers by century does not exist, they are not even parented in Category:Divers. Of these two, Category:20th-century female divers is empty and could therefore be speedy-deleted, but I have included it in this nomination because a consensus to delete will allow any re-creation to be deleted on sight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 23 February 2010 (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.

Field hockey players by century

[edit]
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 Category:Field hockey players by century, merge the rest. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Category:Field hockey players by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: The sport of field hockey has existed on an organised basis only since the 1850s, and the Hockey Association was not founded until 1886. Dividing 150 years (or less) of the sport into three 100-year blocks is not helpful for navigation, per the precedent of a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).
This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of field hockey players, but retains the categorisation by gender and position (and the combinations of those two, which appear to breach WP:CATGRS), and I suggest that any consideration of whether to retain the gender and position catregories be left until a later occasion, to avoid making this discussion too confusing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 23 February 2010 (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.

Badminton players by century

[edit]
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 Category:Badminton players by century, merge the rest. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: The sport of badminton has existed on an organised basis only since the 1870s, and dividing 140 years of sport into three 100-year blocks is not helpful for navigation, per the precedent of a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).
These categories were created in July 2009, but after 6 months they contain only two articles, so it does not appear that any editors other than the category creator have any interest in populating them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 23 February 2010 (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:Trade unions of country

[edit]
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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Propose renaming “Category:Trade unions of country” to “Category:Trade unions in country”

Nominator's rationale: WP:NCCAT explicitely lists trade unions as example for categories that are named "... of country", though a reason for this is not given.

This stems from a discussion in 2006 where the previous naming scheme (e.g. "Chinese trade unions" or "French trade unions") was overturned in favor of the current naming scheme. While the nominator had proposed "Trade unions in country", a compromise was found at "Trade unions of country". The major argument at that time was:

“If there is a change it should be to "Trade unions of" in line with the convention used for companies and various other types of organisation. Organisations are and should be categorised by where they are based, as some of them operate in more than one country so categorisation by country of operation would lead to category clutter.” (CalJW)

However, the naming convention this argument refers to has changed in the meantime. The categories for most types of organizations, including companies, parties and much more are now following the "in country" convention. Only the parent categories are named following the "based in country" convention to avoid transnationally operating organizations to be listed in several countries. This convention was established shortly afterwards in this discussion. The nominators key argument for "in country" was there:

“In regard to "in country" or "of country", both options have merits and drawbacks. Sub-categories of Category:Organizations such as Category:Companies by country and Category:Trade unions by country currently use "of country", but "of country" can be misleading in regard to if the organization is an organ of the state, for example Category:Organizations of the People's Republic of China. "In country" does not have that confusion with the state, though it may also be slightly ambiguous as multinational organizations may operate within more than one, or in fact within several states. "Organizations headquartered in Foo" or "Organizations based in Foo" are also offered for consideration.” (Kurieeto, emphasis added by me)

Now in the case of trade unions we usually don't face the problem of transnationally active organizations. Trade unions are pretty much bound to their home countries' legislation and its specific labour structure and usually - like it or not - to the interests of their national economy. This is why even if they might cooperate with each other, they don't expand their own activities beyond their homecountry. This means, the "based in" naming scheme is not necessary here.

However, the argument that "of country" can be misleading in regard to if the organization is an organ of the state does apply here as well. While there might be countries where trade unions are monolithic and state-driven, this is certainly the exception. Even in countries with a few major unions there is usually also a multitude of minor independent unions, so there is not a single workers' representation body. So we need to treat trade unions like any other organizations, and not like a specific feature or facet of the country itself (such as "Economy of...", "Politics of..." etc.)

Finally, there's a plenitude of country specific articles on trade union, and all are consistently named after the scheme "Trade unions in..." (see on top of Category:Trade unions by country). Consistency to the corresponding categories would be worth striving for, and for the reason given above, the "Trade unions in" scheme is preferable.

Of course, the record in WP:NCCAT would have to be updated moving trade unions as the single last type of organizations (even more the last type of societal groups) down to the "in country" scheme.

PanchoS (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have looked at this several times over the last few day, but haven't reached a conclusion. I'm not sure that "Unions of country" actually poses any practical problems, and while I do take the point that as voluntary associations, unions are entities in a country rather than features of that country, I don't see that this a problem in practice. However, the national subcats of companies Category:Companies by country all use the format "Companies of country". Why treat the two differently? --20:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, the first comment after five days - my rationale was obviously too detailed, so I try to put it in a nutshell.
    Firstly, the naming does pose practical problems as most corresponding main articles are named "Trade unions in...", while some are named "Labor unions in...", however not one article is named "Trade unions of...". Now we can discuss how important consistency is or whether inconsistency might be acceptable to some extent. However, IMHO a naming scheme should be as consistent as possible for some good reasons. And in any case it needs to be obvious or at least understandable why we use "of" here and "in" there. There might be more drastic cases of misnaming, but the negative implications of this case are practical enough.
    Now we can discuss whether the categories are wrongly named or rather the articles. And yes, there is a slight but important difference to companies: companies are based in exactly one country but often operate transnationally, union's don't. And while I'd certainly prefer to use "based in" for companies as well, this is a different case. You correctly pointed to the fact that unions are "entities in", not "features of" a country. So let this be our guideline for the distinction in WP:NCCAT.
    To put it even more in a nutshell: there are some valid concrete arguments for the move, including trans-namespace consistency with the main articles and avoiding unions to be mistaken as "features of a country". Plus: there is the argument of consistency within the categorization scheme. On the other side there is only the argument not to change the status quo unless there are good arguments for a change. A clear case, IMHO — PanchoS (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanksfor the reply, PanchoS. I think I differ from you on several points: a) companies are also not "features of" a country; b) a company which wants to operate in another country has to open a subsidiary company, so it's not actually the same legal entity in both countries; c) quite a lot of unions recruit in more than one country (e.g. a lot of Irish journalists are in the UK-based National Union of Journalists, and some Dublin-based unions also organise in Northern Ireland), while other represent members who have been posted abroad.
    So I don't think that the distinction is as clear as you suggest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but your response again seems to me either inconsiderate or biased.
    ad a) Who said companies were "features of" a country? I certainly didn't. If you're building up a strawboard character just to have an easy time knocking it down, have fun, but don't expect it to be taken seriously.
    ad b) Yep, a company has its headquarter in exactly one country though it might have subsidiaries abroad. A fact I certainly didn't question and certainly no disagreement between me and you.
    ad c) I doubt that quite a lot of unions recruit in more than one country, with the National Union of Journalists maybe being one of the few exceptions. The central task of unions are wage negotiations, which are highly bound to national jurisdiction, minimum wages, the national health insurance system etc. Even if you came up with a few more exceptions, this wouldn't make a substantial difference to the overall picture. And for cases like the NUJ (just like with companies), it remains open whether the same legal entity operates in both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. So in any case this isn't considerably related to my argumentation.
    You're ending with the words "So I don't think that the distinction is as clear as you suggest." Sorry, but as I assume you read my argumentation, this really has a touch of a diversionary manoeuvre combined with FUD tactics. My argumentation doesn't even build on the distinction you're attacking, in the contrary I stressed the similarities in my argumentation.
    I'm perfectly fine with being overturned by good arguments. But if it's all about "I just don't like it" or maybe "I just don't like you", just say so and possibly tell me why you feel this way. Otherwise please answer to my arguments or bring up new ones. PanchoS (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PanchoS, as I set in my first response, I am genuinely unsure about this one, and am trying to explore the issues by raising the questions which seem relevant. That's all.
    Accusing me of me of "building up a strawboard character", "diversionary maneouvres", "FUD" etc is misplaced and does nothing to help build a consensus. Would you like to reconsider that reply? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear BrownHairedGirl, my wording was certainly a bit harsh, finally we're not even dealing with a particularly controversial topic. On the other side I had the strong feeling that you were not interested in building a consensus. This is exactly because I respect you as an experienced and competent contributor, and you did write that you looked at this several times, so for me it's quite hard to come to a different interpretation. Now, I'm perfectly ready to cool down and get back to the arguments without any anger being left on my side. Finally, we're all human and not machines. And we will finally come to an authorative decision, whatever the decision will be. PanchoS (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2010 (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:Wikipedia noindex pages

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia noindex pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Redundant to Category:Noindexed pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 23 February 2010 (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.

Lacrosse players by century

[edit]
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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: The sport of lacrosse has existed on an organised basis only since the 1850s, and dividing 150 years of sport into three 100-year blocks is not helpful for navigation, per the precedent of a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).
This nomination removes all the by-century categorisation, by retains the categorisation-by-position, which will require the creation of two new by-position categories (Category:Lacrosse defenders and Category:Lacrosse midfielders), because the by-century categories for those positions had not been properly parented. The by-century categories for defenders and midfielders are not well-developed, and editors may prefer to upmerge them to Category:Lacrosse players, but for simplicity I suggest that be left to another occasion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 23 February 2010 (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:Hotel chains in the United Kingdom

[edit]
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. --Xdamrtalk 16:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hotel chains in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Hotel and leisure companies of the United Kingdom. Hotel chains are better organized by type of hotel rather then where they operate or are based. The existing company categories serve us well for organization by country. This is the only category of this type with significant entries. Two smaller categories were deleted in this discussion. I'll add that one of the two parents is Category:Brands by product type and that shows that this is intended to list these as brands. I see little if any value in breaking out brands by country in this type of structure. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2010 (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:The Clark Family Experience albums

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Clark Family Experience albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only article is a redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sussexonian. Sure, it's acceptable for a category to only contain redirects, but a cat with only one item in it and that has no possibility of expansion seems pointless. -- AJR | Talk 11:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories with only on item are okay if there's a reasonable expectancy of expansion, but that does not seem to be the case here. Pcap ping 15:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – the size of the category is irrelevant - we have never deleted a 1-article album category, per WP:OC#Small (part of an established scheme, in this case Category:Albums by artist, which specifically says "Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded"). The categorising of redirects is covered in WP:Categorizing_redirects#Subtopic_categorization and this is a perfect example. (I am not sure why this was not a no-consensus close rather than a relist.) Occuli (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Occuli. A category scheme breaks a single decision. To overthrow the general rule we'd need to extend the discussion at least to a representative sample of comparable cases (i.e. single-album categories). Breaking single categories out of an existing scheme erodes the scheme. PanchoS (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2010 (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:FOX Sports logos

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FOX Sports logos to Category:Fox Sports logos
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 23 February 2010 (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:HGTV shows

[edit]
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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 7#Category:HGTV shows. — ξxplicit 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:HGTV shows to Category:Home & Garden Television shows
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 23 February 2010 (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.

HIV/AIDS

[edit]
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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS researchers to Category:HIV and AIDS researchers
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS research institutes to Category:HIV and AIDS research institutes
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS prevention organizations to Category:HIV and AIDS prevention organizations
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in Africa to Category:HIV and AIDS in Africa
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean to Category:HIV and AIDS in the Caribbean
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in the United Kingdom to Category:HIV and AIDS in the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in the United States to Category:HIV and AIDS in the United States
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in Uganda to Category:HIV and AIDS in Uganda
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in Switzerland to Category:HIV and AIDS in Switzerland
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in South Africa to Category:HIV and AIDS in South Africa
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in India to Category:HIV and AIDS in India
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in the People's Republic of China to Category:HIV and AIDS in the People's Republic of China
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in Canada to Category:HIV and AIDS in Canada
Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about HIV/AIDS to Category:Documentaries about HIV and AIDS
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in literature to Category:HIV and AIDS in literature
Propose renaming Category:People associated with HIV/AIDS to Category:People associated with HIV and AIDS
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS organizations to Category:HIV and AIDS organizations
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS by region to Category:HIV and AIDS by region
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS by country to Category:HIV and AIDS by country
Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS to Category:HIV and AIDS
Nominator's rationale: WP:SLASH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • clarification requested what is the meaning of the slash, does it equate to and or or given we have AIDS and HIV as seperate articles though HIV is the cause of AIDS one can exist without the other HIV infection has basically four stages: incubation period, acute infection, latency stage and AIDS(emphasis added). Gnangarra 06:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming to just 'HIV' (e.g. Category:HIV by region, Category:HIV in Switzerland, Category:HIV researchers etc.) because AIDS is the name for the common symptomatics of an HIV infection, meaning that 'HIV' encompasses all we want to collect in this category. We don't want to string together subsets like "HIV and AIDS and Karposi's sarcoma" (slight exaggeration of this principle) PanchoS (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor comment I'd prefer Category:Documentary films about HIV and AIDS because there's been a long standing problem imo with this category tree. Documentaries is the top-level category which can refer to film, television or radio/audio documentaries, but this category is populated with films. Anyway, it's no bid deal if renamed as nommed, it can just become a top level cat if we ever do create subcats for HIV television and radio docs, at some later date. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose HIV/AIDS is the most commonly used and recognisable descriptor available. It's even used in the name of a WHO department, a funded program by USAID, state departments, etc. This is one case where real world usage trumps Wikipedia guidelines (and they are, after all, only guidelines.) Orderinchaos 05:43, 24 February 2010 (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.

ISKCON

[edit]
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:
--Xdamrtalk 16:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ISKCON bands to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness bands
Propose renaming Category:ISKCON charities to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness charities
Propose renaming Category:ISKCON organizations to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness organizations
Propose renaming Category:ISKCON media to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness media
Propose renaming Category:ISKCON temples to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness temples
Propose renaming Category:ISKCON texts to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness texts
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 23 February 2010 (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:ISBN agencies

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 04:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ISBN agencies to Category:International Standard Book Number agencies
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, International Standard Book Number —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 23 February 2010 (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:ISI highly cited researchers

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ISI highly cited researchers to Category:Institute for Scientific Information highly-cited researchers
Nominator's rationale: Per main and grammar. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 23 February 2010 (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.

ISO

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ISO member bodies to Category:International Organization for Standardization member bodies
Propose renaming Category:ISO standards to Category:International Organization for Standardization standards
Propose renaming Category:ISO to Category:International Organization for Standardization
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure: ISO is much more known than "International Organization for Standardization" which doesn't even share the initials of 'ISO' which is because 'ISO' is no acronym. Definitely keep 'ISO standards' because that's the correct name. In the end, the potential ambiguity could be solved on the side of the organizations that are less known by their acronym, such as International Sugar Organization or International Socialist Organization. PanchoS (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2010 (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:ITAM faculty

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ITAM faculty to Category:Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México faculty
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 23 February 2010 (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:ITFA Awards

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ITFA Awards to Category:International Tamil Film Awards
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 23 February 2010 (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:IUPUI public art collection

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IUPUI public art collection to Category:Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis Public Art Collection
Nominator's rationale: Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 23 February 2010 (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:IROC tracks

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IROC tracks to Category:International Race of Champions tracks
Nominator's rationale: Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 23 February 2010 (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:IQA medalist (individual competition)

[edit]
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: Listify & Delete. --Xdamrtalk 00:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IQA medalist (individual competition) to Category:International Quizzing Association medalists or Category:World Quizzing Championship medalists
Nominator's rationale: Per main article and proper pluralization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I can comment here. I gave it this name to include both WQC and European Quizzing Championships(EQC) as the EQC is relatively similar in difficulty. German.Knowitall (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean please? German.Knowitall (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OC#Award-winners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A medal is no award, see Olympics. There have to be some IQA categories, before it was categorized under "quiz" where it doesn't belong.German.Knowitall (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2010 (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:ICFTU African Regional Organisation

[edit]
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. --Xdamrtalk 00:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ICFTU African Regional Organisation to Category:ITUC Regional Organisation for Africa
Nominator's rationale: per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO this needs to be solved in the main namespace first. The correct name of the organization is "African Regional Organisation of the International Trade Union Confederation", the short name is "ITUC-Africa" per its constitution, so this category rename wouldn't improve anything. PanchoS (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me be more clear about this: The name proposed by the nominator is better than the current name as it matches the main article's title, so I don't oppose the proposal. However, I'm not sure about whether the main article's title is correct. I'm going to propose an article rename and see what the discussion tends to. PanchoS (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2010 (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:ICFTU Asia and Pacific Regional Organisation

[edit]
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. --Xdamrtalk 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ICFTU Asia and Pacific Regional Organisation to Category:ITUC Regional Organisation for Asia and Pacific
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO this needs to be solved in the main namespace first. The correct name of the organization is "Regional Organisation of the International Trade Union Confederation for Asia and the Pacific", the short name is "ITUC-Asia Pacific" or "ITUC-AP" per its homepage and its constitution, so this category rename wouldn't improve anything. PanchoS (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me be more clear about this: The name proposed by the nominator is better than the current name as it matches the main article's title, so I don't oppose the proposal. However, I'm not sure about whether the main article's title is correct. I'm going to propose an article rename and see what the discussion tends to. PanchoS (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2010 (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:ICFTU Inter American Regional Organisation

[edit]
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. --Xdamrtalk 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ICFTU Inter American Regional Organisation to Category:ITUC Regional Organisation for the Americas
Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 23 February 2010 (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:IFTU-affiliated unions

[edit]
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 Category:IFTU-affiliated unions to Category:Indian Federation of Trade Unions. --Xdamrtalk 00:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:IFTU-affiliated unions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Affiliation with a redlink article, only one entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) can be verified to exist and seems to be notable. The category is also in line with other union associations in India (see Category:Trade unions of India) Even if an WP article on the IFTU is currently missing, the category should therefore be kept (struck by myself PanchoS (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
However as an abbreviation in the context of unions this is a bit confusing as there is also the defunct International Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). To clarify, a notice on the category's page would be necessary. PanchoS (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2010 (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:IMCRA regions

[edit]
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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IMCRA regions to Category:Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia regions
Nominator's rationale: per main article, Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
further thoughts is it could be at Category:IMCRA 4.0 or Category:Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia category clutter is a problem but extrapolation of know initials which arent necessitated by disambiguation appears to creating a bigger issues not resolving them. Gnangarra 04:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire thing is only of meaning to cogniscenti anyway - the average person couldn't give two hoots about IMCRA regions. :P Orderinchaos 07:45, 1 March 2010 (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.

ION

[edit]
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 all. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ION network shows to Category:Ion Television network shows
Propose renaming Category:ION Television affiliates to Category:Ion Television affiliates
Propose renaming Category:ION Television network to Category:Ion Television network
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 23 February 2010 (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:IPA

[edit]
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:International Phonetic Alphabet. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IPA to Category:International Phonetic Association or Category:International Phonetic Alphabet
Nominator's rationale: Not sure what this is about exactly. Also, includes pages from several namespaces. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 23 February 2010 (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:IBC stations

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IBC stations to Category:Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation stations
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:58, 23 February 2010 (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.

ICL

[edit]
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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ICL programming languages to Category:International Computers Limited programming languages
Propose renaming Category:ICL operating systems to Category:International Computers Limited operating systems
Propose renaming Category:ICL people to Category:International Computers Limited people
Propose renaming Category:ICL workstations to Category:International Computers Limited workstations
Propose renaming Category:ICL minicomputers to Category:International Computers Limited minicomputers
Propose renaming Category:ICL mainframe computers to Category:International Computers Limited mainframe computers
Propose renaming Category:Companies associated with ICL to Category:Companies associated with International Computers Limited
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category: International Computers Limited —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 23 February 2010 (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.

ICI

[edit]
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 both. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ICI executives to Category:Imperial Chemical Industries executives
Propose renaming Category:ICI people to Category:Imperial Chemical Industries people
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category: Imperial Chemical Industries —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for over 50 years ICI has been a recognised acronym - no need to play with it SatuSuro 09:20, 24 February 2010 (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.

IEEE

[edit]
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 all. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per main article/category: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Propose renaming Category:Senior Members of the IEEE to Category:Senior Members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Propose renaming Category:IEEE standards to Category:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standards
Propose renaming Category:IEEE publications to Category:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers publications
Nominator's rationale: per main article/category: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 23 February 2010 (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.

ICC

[edit]
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 all. Although there were those who saw the name of the categories fit in contextual form, there was significant agreement that ICC is too ambiguous and may cause confusion with other topics with the same abbreviation. — ξxplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per main article and category: International Cricket Council

Propose renaming Category:ICC associate and affiliate member competitions to Category:International Cricket Council associate and affiliate member competitions
Propose renaming Category:ICC Events to Category:International Cricket Council events
Propose renaming Category:ICC Cricket Hall of Fame inductees to Category:International Cricket Council Hall of Fame inductees
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 23 February 2010 (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:ICA products

[edit]
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. --Xdamrtalk 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ICA products to Category:Innovative Communications Alliance products
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 23 February 2010 (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:ICMLPO (International Newsletter)

[edit]
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 Category:ICMLPO (International Newsletter) to Category:International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (International Newsletter). --Xdamrtalk 16:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ICMLPO (International Newsletter) to Category:International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (newsletter)
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 23 February 2010 (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:ICMP messages

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ICMP messages to Category:Internet Control Message Protocol messages
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 23 February 2010 (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.

HTTP

[edit]
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; it's not clear, however, that the parent category (Category:HTTP) would have failed this discussion if nominated alone. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per main article at Hypertext Transfer Protocol.

Propose renaming Category:HTTP to Category:Hypertext Transfer Protocol
Propose renaming Category:HTTP status codes to Category:Hypertext Transfer Protocol status codes
Propose renaming Category:HTTP headers to Category:Hypertext Transfer Protocol headers
Propose renaming Category:HTTP clients to Category:Hypertext Transfer Protocol clients
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 23 February 2010 (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:HD and HDE objects

[edit]
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 Category:HD and HDE objects to Category:Henry Draper Catalogue objects'. --Xdamrtalk 16:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:HD and HDE objects to Category:Henry Draper Catalogue objects
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral—This makes some sense, but I am concerned about consistency with the naming convention of the other astronomical catalogue categories. Expanding those will add much additional bulk to the category sections. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that it makes sense to have this category, since it is so widely inclusive.—RJH (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2010 (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:HDR file formats

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:HDR file formats to Category:High dynamic range file formats
Nominator's rationale: Per High dynamic range imaging. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 23 February 2010 (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:HBO television network

[edit]
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 Category:HBO television network to Category:HBO. --Xdamrtalk 16:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:HBO television network to Category:HBO
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 23 February 2010 (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:GPS Schools

[edit]
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. --Xdamrtalk 00:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:GPS Schools to Category:Athletic Association of the Great Public Schools of New South Wales schools
Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I only looked at it as I thought it referred to 'Global Positioning System'. Very ambiguous. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to me that membership in a school association might indeed be a defining characteristic of these schools. Firstly, this is a very old association with a long tradition, meaning that the sports tournaments have become competitions about the schools honorary status. That the main article on the other category was missing contributed largely to the categroy's deletion. This is not the case here. PanchoS (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2010 (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:GPS navigation devices

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:GPS navigation devices to Category:Global Positioning System navigation devices
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:31, 23 February 2010 (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:GPS

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 23:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:GPS to Category:Global Positioning System
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:31, 23 February 2010 (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:GTK

[edit]
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 Category:GTK to Category:GTK+. --Xdamrtalk 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:GTK to Category:GTK+
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 23 February 2010 (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:GTM vehicles

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 23:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:GTM vehicles to Category:GTM Cars vehicles
Nominator's rationale: per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 23 February 2010 (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.

GIS

[edit]
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 all. — ξxplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:GIS companies to Category:Geographic information systems companies
Propose renaming Category:GIS software to Category:Geographic information systems software
Propose renaming Category:GIS file formats to Category:Geographic information systems file formats
Nominator's rationale: Per parent cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 23 February 2010 (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:GCHQ cryptographers

[edit]
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. — ξxplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:GCHQ cryptographers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, redirected for over two years. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:27, 23 February 2010 (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:GCHQ

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:GCHQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, redirected for over two years. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Time doesn't seem to be an argument here – what should have happened to the redirect in the meantime? Don't see a WP:R#DELETE criterion fulfilled, and it is paralleled in article namespace (GCHQ->Government Communications Headquarters), so it certainly doesn't hurt. – PanchoS (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a very odd nomination: why should the age of a redirect be grounds for deletion?
    This is an important one to keep, because in UKania the organisation is known almost universally as GCHQ. Say "Government Communications Headquarters" and most people will blank until you explain "GCHQ" ... at which point they'll recognise it as the spy centre in Cheltenham. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 3 March 2010 (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.

FR Yugoslavia

[edit]
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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per main article/category: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Propose renaming Category:FR Yugoslavia expatriates to Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia expatriates
Propose renaming Category:FR Yugoslavia expatriate footballers to Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia expatriate footballers
Propose renaming Category:FR Yugoslavia expatriates in the United States to Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United States
Propose renaming Category:FR Yugoslavia footballers to Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia footballers
Propose renaming Category:FR Yugoslavia international footballers to Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia international footballers
Propose renaming Category:FR Yugoslavia politicians to Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia politicians
Propose renaming Category:FR Yugoslavia sportspeople to Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sportspeople
Nominator's rationale: Per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: all of these categories were only created in 2009. While this doesn't automatically mean they were not justified, it gives an indication that their existence has never been obvious, and it means that we wouldn't abandon a time-proven categorization scheme by merging them up. PanchoS (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2010 (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:FWBO Buddhists

[edit]
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 Category:FWBO Buddhists to Category:Friends of the Western Buddhist Order. --Xdamrtalk 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FWBO Buddhists to Category:Friends of the Western Buddhist Order Buddhists
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Friends of the Western Buddhist Order —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Peterkingiron's suggest 100% - sensible - to have a subcategory of members of a groups such as this is redundant SatuSuro 23:38, 25 February 2010 (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:FOX network shows

[edit]
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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:FOX network shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 23 February 2010 (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:FOX network affiliates

[edit]
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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:FOX network affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 23 February 2010 (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:FOX8 shows

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 23:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FOX8 shows to Category:Fox8 shows
Nominator's rationale: per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:06, 23 February 2010 (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:FORTRAN programming language family

[edit]
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, but retain as category redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FORTRAN programming language family to Category:Fortran programming language family
Nominator's rationale: per main article, Fortran. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:06, 23 February 2010 (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:FISH clients

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FISH clients to Category:Files transferred over shell clients
Nominator's rationale: per main article, Files transferred over shell protocol. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 23 February 2010 (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:FGC stations

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FGC stations to Category:Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya stations
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 23 February 2010 (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:FGC lines

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FGC lines to Category:Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya lines
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 23 February 2010 (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:FEMA critics

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FEMA critics to Category:Federal Emergency Management Agency critics
Nominator's rationale: Really, this should probably be deleted as being completely arbitrary, but if not, it should be renamed per main article/category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain as is. It is short, to the point. Less is more. Rammer (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2010 (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:FAMAS Awards

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FAMAS Awards to Category:Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences Awards
Nominator's rationale: Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 23 February 2010 (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:FAP

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FAP to Category:Fabrika automobila Priboj
Nominator's rationale: Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 23 February 2010 (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:ESBWRs

[edit]
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, but retain category redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ESBWRs to Category:Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactors
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:58, 23 February 2010 (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:EZLN

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:EZLN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary redirect. Deleted for four years. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 23 February 2010 (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.

ECOSOCC

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per main article and category (one also per caps.)

Propose renaming Category:ECOSOCC Officials to Category:Economic, Social, and Cultural Council Standing Committee officials
Propose renaming Category:10 Sectoral Cluster Committees of the ECOSOCC to Category:10 Sectoral Cluster Committees of the Economic, Social, and Cultural Council Standing Committee
Propose renaming Category:ECOSOCC Standing Committee members to Category:Economic, Social, and Cultural Council Standing Committee members
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 23 February 2010 (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:EITB

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:EITB to Category:Euskal Telebista
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Either that, or delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming; I am agree with the renaming. ≈ --Raymond Cruise (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (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:EIEC

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:EIEC to Category:Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:53, 23 February 2010 (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.

EPs by artist

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to my proposal below, except I think all of these should be upmerged to "X albums" if not, then renamed to "X extended plays". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Unwritten Law EPs to Category:Unwritten Law extended plays
Propose renaming Category:Patsy Cline EPs to Category:Patsy Cline extended plays
Propose renaming Category:Misfits EPs to Category:Misfits extended plays
Propose renaming Category:Interpol EPs to Category:Interpol extended plays
Propose renaming Category:Descendents EPs to Category:Descendents extended plays
Propose renaming Category:CSS EPs to Category:CSS extended plays
Propose renaming Category:The Bronx EPs to Category:The Bronx extended plays
Propose renaming Category:Alkaline Trio EPs to Category:Alkaline Trio extended plays
Nominator's rationale: Per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum If these survive, someone should probably create Category:Extended plays by artist (assuming that the categories get renamed from "EP" to "Extended play" as well.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comments regarding EP can be found below, but if we are renaming shouldn't it be Misfits (band) and The Bronx (band) - these were the 2 I checked. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- "EP" is the usual usage. But if they're going to be renamed, it should be to "EP albums" or something similar. "Extended play" is decidedly less clear than "EP." Maurreen (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Patently ridiculous. Orderinchaos 05:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose terminology not current: not used for decades and usually found on record covers from 40 years ago SatuSuro 05:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are damn good records. Not as good as the ones from 50 years ago, but still better than that crap from the seventies. Once issued as EPs, they are reissued, referred to, copied, downloaded as EPs. 40 years ago isn't too far. Wait until my generation dies out! NVO (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Leave plays to theatres, please. No prejudice against renaming to something unambiguous, as IP proposed above. NVO (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming. The Misfits and Descendents categories, and the issue of renaming EP categories in general, were all just discussed at CfD here, here, and here. All closed as no consensus, and I doubt that much has changed in the 3 days since then... My arguments from those just-closed CfDs are still my arguments now: EPs by definition aren't albums, they come in too many formats to rename them "EP records" or the like, "EP" is the industry standard term, and (in response to Richhoncho) there is absolutely no reason why a category name has to be dab'd simply because the parent article is dab'd. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to IllaZilla. In which case you can explain this move here, there's literally 100s and 1000s more examples. Just when I accept cats should be dabbed and have a supporting article i.e. Extended play, somebody else comes up and tells me I am wrong. What chance anybody being right? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO that move was unnecessary, and any similar moves or renames are totally unnecessary. We don't pre-emptively disambiguate; we only do it when there is a necessity or a compelling reason. "To match the parent article" is neither. The parent article Madonna (entertainer) needs to be dab'd to distinguish the subject from other uses of Madonna. However, Category:Songs written by Madonna does not need to be dab'd, as none of the other uses of Madonna are songwriters. Dab'ing the category in this and similar cases is, in my honest opinion, unnecessarily stupid. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't ask for opinions, it is apparent everybody has one, but an explanation. In some respects I agree with you, I created the undabbed Madonna cat, but in a 100 years time very few will know who the singer was but I assume the other Madonna will still be famous,and at that point dabbing might be essential. As I say, all I am looking for is consistency, I am not going to argue which way that consistency leans! --Richhoncho (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- few people will remember what EP (and LP) stood for. So the abbreviation is better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I don't like the name "extended plays", I would support if it was "extended play records" or "extended play recordings", even "EP records" if the intention is to make it less ambiguous. I would also support "EPs by artist" rather than "Artist EPs" -- Bitplane (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2010 (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:ELP members

[edit]
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. --Xdamrtalk 16:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ELP members to Category:Emerson, Lake & Palmer members
Nominator's rationale: Note that a member from Emerson, Lake and Powell is included. Either 1.) rename it as suggested and remove him, 2.) rename and keep him, 3.) rename to something else and keep him, or 4.) create two categories for both supergroups. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 23 February 2010 (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.

EPs

[edit]
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 all. Early close per WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all cases, I am renaming "X EPs" to "X extended plays" per the name of the main article, Extended play. (Note that 1976 EPs is a redlink to be created and there may be more redlink EP categories hiding away; does anyone want to create them properly?)

Propose renaming Category:EPs to Category:Extended plays
Propose renaming Category:EP stubs to Category:Extended play stubs
Propose renaming Category:Debut EPs to Category:Debut extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2010 EPs to Category:2010 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2009 EPs to Category:2009 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2008 EPs to Category:2008 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2007 EPs to Category:2007 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2006 EPs to Category:2006 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2005 EPs to Category:2005 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2004 EPs to Category:2004 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2003 EPs to Category:2003 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2002 EPs to Category:2002 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2001 EPs to Category:2001 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2000 EPs to Category:2000 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1999 EPs to Category:1999 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1998 EPs to Category:1998 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1997 EPs to Category:1997 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1996 EPs to Category:1996 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1995 EPs to Category:1995 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1994 EPs to Category:1994 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1993 EPs to Category:1993 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1992 EPs to Category:1992 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1991 EPs to Category:1991 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1990 EPs to Category:1990 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1989 EPs to Category:1989 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1988 EPs to Category:1988 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1987 EPs to Category:1987 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1986 EPs to Category:1986 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1985 EPs to Category:1985 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1984 EPs to Category:1984 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1983 EPs to Category:1983 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1982 EPs to Category:1982 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1981 EPs to Category:1981 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1980 EPs to Category:1980 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1979 EPs to Category:1979 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1978 EPs to Category:1978 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1977 EPs to Category:1977 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1976 EPs to Category:1976 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1975 EPs to Category:1975 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1974 EPs to Category:1974 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1968 EPs to Category:1968 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1967 EPs to Category:1967 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1965 EPs to Category:1965 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1964 EPs to Category:1964 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1963 EPs to Category:1963 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2010s EPs to Category:2010 extended plays
Propose renaming Category:2000s EPs to Category:2000s extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1990s EPs to Category:1990s extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1980s EPs to Category:1980s extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1970s EPs to Category:1970s extended plays
Propose renaming Category:1960s EPs to Category:1960s extended plays
Propose renaming Category:EPs by year to Category:Extended plays by year
Propose renaming Category:EPs by record label to Category:Extended play by record label
Propose renaming Category:Kitsuné Music EPs to Category:Kitsuné Music extended plays
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 23 February 2010 (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:DEF.DIVA members

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:DEF.DIVA members to Category:Def.Diva members
Nominator's rationale: WP:ALLCAPS. (I moved the main article as well.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 23 February 2010 (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:DC Comics Supervillains

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:DC Comics Supervillains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 23 February 2010 (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:DCAU screenshots and pictures

[edit]
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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Category:DCAU screenshots and pictures. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:DCAU screenshots and pictures to Category:DC animated universe images
Nominator's rationale: Per main category and simpler name —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Naming convention - screenshots and pictures - is consistent with sub categories and other related categories for collection of stills, promotional images, artwork, posters, etc from comics related films and television shows. There may be an argument for lengthening by spelling out "animated universe", but a tenuous one. Again, it is consistent with how long, awkward titles are treated on "back-end" categories. - J Greb (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2010 (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:DBD members

[edit]
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:Democratic Farmers' Party of Germany politicians. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:DBD members to Category:Democratic Farmers' Party of Germany members
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Democratic Farmers' Party of Germany —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 23 February 2010 (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:CNC, CAD, and CAM

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CNC, CAD, and CAM to Category:Computer-aided design, Computer-aided manufacturing, Computer-aided engineering, and Computer numerical control software
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unwieldy, but has the added bonus of intelligibility. I am open to better suggestions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 23 February 2010 (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:CENTR members

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CENTR members to Category:Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries members
Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 23 February 2010 (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:ANTARA people

[edit]
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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ANTARA people to Category:???
Nominator's rationale: This should certainly be renamed if kept (per main article and WP:ALLCAPS), but the current name implies a people group. Should this be further renamed? Maybe Category:Persons associated with Antara? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this Indonesian organisation acronym was commonly found in caps SatuSuro 06:01, 24 February 2010 (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:ANAPROF

[edit]
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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ANAPROF to Category:Liga Panameña de Fútbol
Nominator's rationale: Per main. There should be some consistency to the articles within this as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - nominators personal rationale does not coincide with the usage again - just because an acronym exists is not necessarily a reason to create the expanded words - 10 of the articles in the category have the acronym as the title - common usage is a good argument against making it the title - just one in the category with the suggested name. SatuSuro 07:03, 24 February 2010 (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:AC/DC live albums

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:AC/DC live albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories. It's not necessary to create subcategories for types of artist albums except possibly in the case of unwieldy discographies (e.g. B. B. King or Jimi Hendrix.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Addendum Apparently, I created this. I have no idea why. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:56, 23 February 2010 (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:ADULT. albums

[edit]
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:Adult (band) albums. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ADULT. albums to Category:Adult. albums
Nominator's rationale: WP:MOS-TM, WP:ALLCAPS. I nominated the article for WP:RM as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:41, 23 February 2010 (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:Templates deprecated from December 2008

[edit]
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: Already deleted by Vegaswikian. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Templates deprecated from December 2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Emptied and will necessarily stay empty, since we won't be retroactively deprecating any templates from that month. I think a C1 speedy would have been possible for this one. --RL0919 (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2010 (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:SOCCSKSARGEN

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SOCCSKSARGEN to Category:Soccsksargen
Nominator's rationale: WP:ALLCAPS. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:08, 23 February 2010 (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:CALABARZON

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CALABARZON to Category:Calabarzon
Nominator's rationale: WP:ALLCAPS. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:08, 23 February 2010 (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:MIMAROPA

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MIMAROPA to Category:Mimaropa
Nominator's rationale: WP:ALLCAPS. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 23 February 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_23&oldid=1144513033"