Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 22

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|United States Navy patrol craft sweepers}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. The sole member of this category is a PCS-1376 class minesweeper and categorized in :Category:PCS-1376 class minesweepers. The PCS-1376 class is the only United States Navy ship class to ever have been called "patrol craft sweeper", so there is no need for this more generic "type" category. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete -- I presume there is no room for expansion. Accordingly the one member should be categorised both as a patrol boat (as now) and also as a minesweeper - a sort of upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The ship class category, :Category:PCS-1376 class minesweepers, is already catgorized in :Category:United States Navy minesweepers :Category:Minesweepers of the United States and :Category:United States Navy patrol boats :Category:Patrol vessels of the United States, so the article itself doesn't really need to be re-categorized. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Keep. NW (Talk) 15:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:University of California, Berkeley alumni to :Category:University of California, Berkeley, alumni

:Nominator's rationale: Berkeley is a parenthetical that should be "closed" with a comma before proceeding. LarRan (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per all other categories in :Category:University of California alumni. I'd wp:snow this one. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:To be consistent, all of the categories in the category mentioned by Debresser should be renamed. LarRan (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, Berkeley is not a parenthetical, it is part of the name. Maybe we should change it to University of California at Berkeley, but the comma sets Berkeley aside from University of California, it is to distinguish it from University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, San Diego and so on. You do not put a comma after the school name.Johnpacklambert (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:...unless the expression continues. As in "He was born in Portland, Oregon, in the late 1950s". You cannot dismiss that with "you do not put a comma after a state name". It's not as simple as that. It depends on what comes afterwards. Without the closing comma, this sentence/expression falls into the following two clauses: "He was born in Portland" and "Oregon in the late 1950s", both of which (in this case) acceptable, but with another meaning than what was intended. In most cases, the second clause becomes more awkward. LarRan (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep to match title of parent article. No comma is needed here. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

:The category name matches the parent category also with the comma. The first comma marks the start of the qualification Berkeley, and the second marks the end. It's an analogy with using parentheses. The category could have been named Category:University of California (Berkeley) alumni, in which case it would be more obvious. To me it's obvious it's needed here too. Without the comma it's two clauses: "University of California", and "Berkeley alumni". LarRan (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Again, "Berkeley" is neither a parenthetical nor a qualification; it is an intrinsic part of the name, and the presence of the comma is simply the institution's orthographic convention. It is hardly any more confusing than University of Washington North Sound or University of Missouri–Kansas City. This is the case with the entire UC system; no one refers to any particular campus solely as "University of California," not even the flagship campus, and not because they would be confused with one another, but simply because that name is applied exclusively to the entire system.- choster 23:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

:Of course it's a qualification, how could it be otherwise? And that doesn't neccessarily mean that it's mutually exclusive with "Berkeley" as an intrinsic part of the name. If the name stands alone, the qualification implicitly ends when the name/expression ends, but if not, the qualification should be ended before continuing. However, considering that I'm outvoted, I propose an alternative: how about "Category:Alumni of University of California, Berkeley"? LarRan (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

::A qualification is a restriction in meaning or application. But "Berkeley" does not modify "University of California." The subject is neither a type nor an example of a University of California. It is not provided to clarify "which" University of California. The University of California is a completely different concept from the University of California, Berkeley. The presence of the comma does not change that any more than it does the meaning of Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway.- choster 01:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• keep per choster's explanations. Grammatically, I think choster is correct here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Fictional United States Republicans to :Category:Fictional Republicans (United States)

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename as I said in the nomination below this one. Debresser (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Fictional United States Democrats to :Category:Fictional Democrats (United States)

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename per :Category:Democrats (United States) (which is what nominator meant). Debresser (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 19:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming Category:Fooian Eastern Orthodox Christians to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Foo

::Category:American Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from the United States

::Category:Armenian Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Armenia

::Category:Australian Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Australia

::Category:Austrian Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Austria

::Category:Azerbaijani Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Azerbaijan

::Category:Bahraini Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Bahrain

::Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Bosnia and Herzegovina

::Category:British Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from the United Kingdom

::Category:Byzantine Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from the Byzantine Empire

::Category:Canadian Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Canada

::Category:Croatian Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Croatia

::Category:Egyptian Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Egypt

::Category:Estonian Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Estonia

::Category:Filipino Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from the Philippines

::Category:Finnish Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Finland

::Category:French Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from France

::Category:German Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Germany

::Category:Hungarian Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Hungary

::Category:Irish Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Ireland

::Category:Israeli Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Israel

::Category:Italian Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Italy

::Category:Japanese Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Japan

::Category:Lebanese Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Lebanon

::Category:Mexican Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Mexico

::Category:Moldovan Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Moldova

::Category:Montenegrin Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Montenegro

::Category:Palestinian Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Palestine

::Category:Swedish Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Sweden

::Category:Swiss Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Switzerland

::Category:Syrian Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Syria

::Category:Turkish Eastern Orthodox Christians to :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Turkey

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the sister cats within :Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by nationality renamed due to consensus at this October 5 CfD. ^{User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude} 19:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• In principle Support, but we must be sure not to rush in where fools fear to tread. Certain articles on Orthodox Churches of the Levant region have for a long time been tagged for attention by an expert (which they certainly need). Can we be sure that the change is not implying something unintended. Serbian, Greek, and Russian Orthodox are separate denominations. The Syrian case may be more difficult due to confusion with Syriac, which refers to denominations that worship in that language. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom and per previous consensus. It is clear that these are "nationality" categories, not "denominational" or "autocephalic", or whatever the correct term is. That tree is {{Cat|Eastern Orthodox Christians by jurisdiction}}. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename all and please read my essay on the subect at Wikipedia:Clergy by nationality. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Delete. NW (Talk) 15:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Artery Foundation}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete This page is of a non-notable organization with no Wikipedia.--Krazycev 13 ^{other crap} 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• this category is for artists currently under management by The Artery Foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofthechi (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Which does not make it defining for the artists. Also we don't tend to split categories by currency of the members. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non defining and not notable. Resolute 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, which I hate to say, but this category does not seem to be justified. I convinced myself of that by making a link to The Artery Foundation and finding there is no wikipedia article on it. Whther the Foundation is notable, I don't know, but it appears no one has felt the need to create an actual article on it, until they do having categories related to it makes little sense.Johnpacklambert (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - there was an Artery Foundation article, which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artery_Foundation&action=edit&redlink=1 deleted as spam], part of an energetic spamming campaign documented in the COI/N archives here. The campaign seems to be continuing. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Lady Byng winners to :Category:Lady Byng Memorial Trophy winners

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Trying to clean up inconsistent formatting of the NHL trophy categories. The Lady Byng category omits the word trophy, while many omit the word "memorial". Propose renaming the following to match the name of the parent articles:

• :Category:Lady Byng winners to :Category:Lady Byng Memorial Trophy winners
• :Category:Bill Masterton Trophy winners to :Category:Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy winners
• :Category:Hart Trophy winners to :Category:Hart Memorial Trophy winners
• :Category:Norris Trophy winners to :Category:James Norris Memorial Trophy winners

Resolute 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:Support More appropriate names. Matches articles. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:Support adding 'Trophy' to the Lady Byng. Oppose additions to the other trophies. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

::Why would you oppose using the proper title in the category structure? Resolute 18:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Changed my mind. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:Support it's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Renames to match title of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support to match articles. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Though it does seem that some good discussions regarding this have occurred below. I would suggest that the Chicago WikiProject look around at the WikiProject categories' structure for other WikiProjects to see if it's possible to bring their categorisation scheme in line with others (for ease of navigation, if nothing else.) Otherwise, there's a decent possibility that we'll be seeing this back at CfD in a month or so. - jc37 10:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|WikiProject Chicago content categories}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. This already exists as :Category:Category-Class Chicago articles, which is on the talk pages, where it belongs. This category is both redundant and categorizes the wrong namespace. NE2 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

::Although most categories are created to categorize articles, this one is for the purpose of categorizing categories unlike the Category mentioned above that is for articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:Oppose deletion - As the text within the cmbox says, the subcategories and pages assigned to this category are for encyclopedic pages and other subcategories that contain encyclopedic pages. :Category:Category-Class Chicago articles contains all categories - portal, project, user, template, help, files, categories, and encyclopedic. This category is a subset of :Category:Category-Class Chicago articles and does not duplicate its members or the function. The intent is to populate this category with nothing but articles and subcategories that readers and editors of encyclopedic pages can use to quickly find encyclopedic (i.e., content) categories that are appropriate for their article - something that seems to be missing at this time (please see finding Chicago Project content categories. By using this category it sets up the potential to further categories Chicago Project content categories into subsets based on topic. That would help readers/editors even more. Please note that there is a counter part to this category - it is :category:WikiProject Chicago tracking categories. If one of these pairs is deleted the other might as well also be deleted. The two split :Category:Category-Class Chicago articles into two subsets each serving a different area of interest - either readers/editors or Chicago Project members. Pknkly (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::How does this help the assessment process? That's the reason these categories really exist. And why is this project so unique to require this level of detail? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:::The category was not meant to support the assessment process, it was meant to support the wp:categorization process. As I understand it, categories exist for two reasons: (1) support the various functions of a project (one of those function is the assessment process and the other is to support and maintain a categorization scheme); and (2) provide an alternative navigational method for readers to find articles. This category is meant to help project members to support a categorization scheme that fulfills the second role of a category. This project is not unique in any special way, it simply needs to come to terms with a categorization scheme, document it, and continue to develop and work with supporting processes (e.g., use of bots and project categories). Pknkly (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, I am confused as to the organization of categories. As I understand it :Category:WikiProject Chicago, :Category:WikiProject Chicago articles, and :Category:Category-Class Chicago articles are standard categories for projects. I am in support of all categories that are consistent with established categorizations. I am sort of unsure why projects need :Category:WikiProject Chicago tracking categories and :Category:WikiProject Chicago content categories and whether they are redundant, but feel our project should do whatever is standard and justified by common procedure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::I too was confused as to the organization of categories. I looked and failed to find a document that explains the Chicago Project categorization scheme and its use of established categories. Without such a document I have no idea what phrases such as "established categorization", "standard categories", and "common procedure" mean. From what I've seen none of the "standard" categories provide the information that :Category:WikiProject Chicago tracking categories and :Category:WikiProject Chicago content categories are designed to provide. To me it looks like all the categories you gave in the above "standard" categories mix content and project categories. It doesn't look like redundancy. Pknkly (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:::O.K. you know, I like to do what other projects do. Mostly, this is because before you there were few people that considered WP:CHICAGO the main project that they want to improve. Thus, if I create categories just like all the other projects, I know that a lot of other people have thought about the proper way to do things. The three categories I mentioned above are all categories that dozens and dozens of other projects have all decided are necessary and desirable to have. The two you are adding seem to have no analogs to categories other projects use. This causes me to wonder how necessary and desirable they are. Can you more clearly explain exactly what is suppose to be in those categories and why the project is better because of these categories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

::::Just wanted to let you know I saw your message. I need time to try and respond in a way that doesn't repeat most of what I have said. Pknkly (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::I am sorry for not understanding the first time, but I don't.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::I cleaned up some sections within a documents that are under development that uses this category in hopes that I could use it to present my argument. Using a document that is under development to document a categorization scheme that is under development to justify the existence of this category just doesn't seem right. So, I'll probably be repeating myself but hopefully in simpler terms. I'm placing my concluding statement at the bottom. Pknkly (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

←Here is our impasse. You are confused by "established categorization", "standard categories", and "common procedure" mean and I am confused about the need for your pair of categories. When I say standard categories or common procedure, I mean a category that naturally fits as a subcategory of higher level categories that exist. E.g. :Category:Category-Class Chicago articles. This article rolls up into :Category:Category-Class articles, which is a category that has numerous analogous categories. It is also a natural subcategory of :Category:Chicago articles by quality, which includes all classes of that have a quality ranking and those classes that do not have quality rankings because they are not in the article space. It is clear that the project would sort of be missing a standard category that fits in with common procedure if we did not have such a category. Even a category such as :Category:Airports in the Chicago metropolitan area is a sort of standard category that fits into the broader scheme as a subcat of :Category:Transportation in Chicago, Illinois, :Category:Airports in Illinois, and :Category:Airports by city. Note that each of those cats is a subcat in the larger hierarchy of wikipedia cats. Without looking I am guessing that there are categories that each of these parent categories are logical subcats of. Basically what would convince me that we need :Category:WikiProject Chicago content categories is :Category:Content categories with analogous subcats for dozens (maybe hundreds) of projects. Similarly, :Category:WikiProject Chicago tracking categories would seem essential if there were a :Category:Tracking categories with numerous analgous subcats. That is what I mean by "established categorization", "standard categories", and "common procedure". Basically, I think this would fly if you went to a project which makes decisions about categories and convinced people that this is a worthwhile system for categories in general. If those people come to a consensus that all projects need these categories then we need them. If they say these categories are not productive for projects, then our project is no different. Since there aren't a lot of minds helping us to reach conclusions about proper procedure within the project, we should leverage the collective thought for the project to guide us. I think all projects that are short on manpower could save a lot of time and hassle in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

::Holy cow. :Category:Tracking categories is not redlinked. This means many other projects believe such a category should exist. However, I do not see subcats like ours in the category. Thus, we have either misnamed our category or are wrong about its use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Concluding statement for not deleting the category. By definition (see wp:categorization#Project categories there are two main types of categories - content and project. Therefore, it should be allowed to have two types of list categories for Wikipedia projects. One for content categories and the other for project categories. In my opinion it is important to have the category because it provides an element within the Chicago Project Categorization Scheme that logically breaks down all the Chicago Project categories into the two major groups of categories. With its counter part :Category:WikiProject Chicago tracking categories there is no other category that currently does this. The immediate benefit is that project members could quickly spot categories that were improperly categorized. Because this category would contain nothing but content categories, future benefit may be that a bot could spot miscategorized categories or articles because all the categories within this category are to be within the main namespace. Pknkly (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

:O.K. Can you explain the difference between having this category and saying an article should be in :Category:Chicago, Illinois or some other category within the projects list of categories (see WP:CHIBOTCATS)? Is this a category that should just be renamed :Category:Chicago, Illinois-related article categories?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

::Several answers for:

:::(1) "Explain difference between ...." - This category is a project tracking category and :Category:Chicago, Illinois, though it is not clearly stated within the category, looks to me like a content category. As the Chicago Project Categorization Scheme is further developed I hope we can make the purpose of a category clearer (see effective categories ).Pknkly (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

:::(2) "...other category within list of categories..." - This points to a need for the two categories (content and tracking). CHIBOTCATS has all the categories. I would have to go through all the categories to answer your question. I think it would be great to have one category whose members were all the project categories and that is what the counterpart this this category is going to be unless it is deleted. I did my best to look at the titles of the categories within CHIBOTCATS and could not find any that does what this category would do.Pknkly (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

:::(3) "...category renamed :Category:Chicago, Illinois-related article categories." - This category (the one being considered for deletion) is a a Chicago Project project tracking category and as such the title should be prefixed with "WikiProject Chicago" (I believe this is correct - please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions. Also, I believe the renaming to the proposed name may require that there would have to be another category to cover the Chicago metropolitan area related article categories (those that are for articles beyond the city limits of Chicago). Pknkly (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Observation When the Chicago Project Categorization Scheme is complete we could have a better idea on the usefulness of this category. As the development evolves alternatives for the use of this category may be discovered or its use becomes clearer. It seems to me that with greater regularity the questions and answers are related to the development of the scheme which is better discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Categories. Pknkly (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support After all this debate, I am somewhat convinced it is a useful category.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Rename to :Category:Conglomerates (geology). NW (Talk) 15:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Conglomerates to :Category:Conglomerates (geology)

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article Conglomerate (geology) and to disambiguate from business conglomerates at :Category:Conglomerate companies. Tassedethe (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename per nom, although one can think of many of the companies whose natural place is under a rock, Boom-boom! Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Visabeira doesn't belong in this category. Which just comes tho prove the urgent need for this rename. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Rename all; proper new name for :Category:Companies in Trivandrum will be determined based on an other discussion which is still open. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming and merging various Companies in Foo or Companies headquartered in Foo categories to Companies based in Foo

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Aichi to :Category:Companies based in Aichi Prefecture

:Propose merging :Category:Companies headquartered in Bratislava to :Category:Companies based in Bratislava

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Chiba to :Category:Companies based in Chiba Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Fukuoka to :Category:Companies based in Fukuoka Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Hiroshima to :Category:Companies based in Hiroshima

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Hyōgo to :Category:Companies based in Hyōgo Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Ibaraki to :Category:Companies based in Ibaraki Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Kanagawa to :Category:Companies based in Kanagawa Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Karachi to :Category:Companies based in Karachi District

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Kobe to :Category:Companies based in Kobe

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Kyoto to :Category:Companies based in Kyoto Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Nagano to :Category:Companies based in Nagano Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Okinawa to :Category:Companies based in Okinawa Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Osaka to :Category:Companies based in Osaka Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Saitama to :Category:Companies based in Saitama Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Shizuoka to :Category:Companies based in Shizuoka Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies headquartered in Yamaguchi to :Category:Companies based in Yamaguchi Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Anhui to :Category:Companies based in Anhui

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Beijing to :Category:Companies based in Beijing

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Bergamo to :Category:Companies based in Bergamo

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Bologna to :Category:Companies based in Bologna

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Chongqing to :Category:Companies based in Chongqing

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Dalian to :Category:Companies based in Dalian

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Emilia-Romagna to :Category:Companies based in Emilia-Romagna

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Florence to :Category:Companies based in Florence

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Fujian to :Category:Companies based in Fujian

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Fukui Prefecture to :Category:Companies based in Fukui Prefecture

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Genoa to :Category:Companies based in Genoa

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Guangdong to :Category:Companies based in Guangdong

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Guangzhou to :Category:Companies based in Guangzhou

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Guizhou to :Category:Companies based in Guizhou

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Hebei to :Category:Companies based in Hebei

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Heilongjiang to :Category:Companies based in Heilongjiang

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Henan to :Category:Companies based in Henan

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Hubei to :Category:Companies based in Hubei

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Hunan to :Category:Companies based in Hunan

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Inner Mongolia to :Category:Companies based in Inner Mongolia

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Jiangsu to :Category:Companies based in Jiangsu

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Jiangxi to :Category:Companies based in Jiangxi

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Jilin to :Category:Companies based in Jilin

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Kerala to :Category:Companies based in Kerala

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Liaoning to :Category:Companies based in Liaoning

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Liguria to :Category:Companies based in Liguria

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Lombardy to :Category:Companies based in Lombardy

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Milan to :Category:Companies based in Milan

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Naples to :Category:Companies based in Naples

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Parma to :Category:Companies based in Parma

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Piedmont to :Category:Companies based in Piedmont

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Qinghai to :Category:Companies based in Qinghai

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Rome to :Category:Companies based in Rome

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Shaanxi to :Category:Companies based in Shaanxi

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Shandong to :Category:Companies based in Shandong

:Propose merging :Category:Companies in Shanghai to :Category:Companies based in Shanghai

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Shantou to :Category:Companies based in Shantou

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Shenyang to :Category:Companies based in Shenyang

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Shenzhen to :Category:Companies based in Shenzhen

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Sichuan to :Category:Companies based in Sichuan

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Tianjin to :Category:Companies based in Tianjin

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Trivandrum to :Category:Companies based in Trivandrum (or :Category:Companies based in Thiruvananthapuram based on other discussion)

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Turin to :Category:Companies based in Turin

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Tuscany to :Category:Companies based in Tuscany

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Veneto to :Category:Companies based in Veneto

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Xinjiang to :Category:Companies based in Xinjiang

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Yunnan to :Category:Companies based in Yunnan

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies in Zhejiang to :Category:Companies based in Zhejiang

:Propose renaming :Category:Companies of Shanxi to :Category:Companies based in Shanxi

:Nominator's rationale To be consistent with the naming scheme used in :Category:Companies e.g :Category:Companies of the United States by state or :Category:Companies of Norway by location. Also to correct locations to the name of the appropriate parent category (e.g. Kyoto Prefecture not Kyoto). Tassedethe (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom except :Category:Companies in Trivandrum should become :Category:Companies based in Thiruvananthapuram (Thiruvananthapuram is now the official English name). Categorizing companies by geographic areas of operation is utterly unsustainable.-- choster 04:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• :Please note that the stated exception is now part of an other group nom, and the existence of this other group nom is mentioned in the nomination list. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename: :Category:Companies in Trivandrum can be renamed to :Category:Companies based in Thiruvananthapuram. This nomenclature satisfies the purpose of this category ( to catagorize the companies based in Thiruvananthapuram). Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: DELETE/MERGE per nom. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose deleting {{Lc|Commonwealth Games basketballers}}

:Suggest merging :Category:Basketballers at the 2006 Commonwealth Games to :Category:Basketball players at the 2006 Commonwealth Games

:Nominator's rationale: Basketball players is preferred (per :Category:Basketball players). The first category is superfluous to :Category:Commonwealth Games basketball players. Tassedethe (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• delete/rename per nom per established usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:Suggest merging :Category:Common chords to :Category:Chords

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. Further categorization not required for a single template. Tassedethe (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge or delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: RENAME. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Common albums to :Category:Common (entertainer) albums

:Propose renaming :Category:Common (rapper) songs to :Category:Common (entertainer) songs

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the main article Common (entertainer). Tassedethe (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename. To match parent article, Common (entertainer). Common is too common of a word. — ξ^xplicit 07:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• rename per nom per established conventions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: RENAME. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:I'm a Celebrity…Get Me out of Here! to :Category:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!

:Nominator's rationale: per WP:ELLIPSIS. The use of a non-keyboard character in these categories makes using and editing them cumbersome for only minor typographical gain. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. ^{User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude} 10:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:The Commodores albums to :Category:Commodores albums

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the main article Commodores and the related category :Category:Commodores songs. Tassedethe (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename. To match parent article. — ξ^xplicit 01:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename. For reasons above. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename per above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Legião Urbana}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for a music group just has standard album and song subcats and so is superfluous. Tassedethe (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:Delete per nom. But couldn't you have just removed this category from the songs/albums sub-cats and this one would have been speedied as empty? :) --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::Comment If it was speedy deleted as empty it could be recreated by refilling. By discussing its deletion it can only be recreated if its contents substantially change, i.e. more articles and subcategories, otherwise it can be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Tassedethe (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: rename/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Ewa Sonnet singles to :Category:Ewa Sonnet songs

:Propose renaming :Category:Legião Urbana singles to :Category:Legião Urbana songs

:Propose merging :Category:CSS singles to :Category:CSS songs

:Propose merging :Category:Bajofondo singles to :Category:Bajofondo songs

:Propose merging :Category:Imogen Heap singles to :Category:Imogen Heap songs

:Propose merging :Category:Psapp singles to :Category:Psapp songs

:Nominator's rationale: Standard category for artists is Foo songs not Foo singles, per :Category:Songs by artist. See previous discussion. Tassedethe (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename first two per standard naming conventions. Merge the rest as there's no need for separate categories. — ξ^xplicit 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: delete/rename as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose deleting {{Lc|Royworld}}

:Propose renaming :Category:Royworld singles to :Category:Royworld songs

:Nominator's rationale:. Apart from the standard albums and songs categories the parent category just contains the main article and discography. Unneeded for navigation. The singles category should be renamed to the standard per :Category:Songs by artist. Tassedethe (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. Delete parent category and rename singles to songs per category conventions. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Haitian international footballers to :Category:Haiti international footballers

:Propose renaming :Category:Welsh under-23 international footballers to :Category:Wales under-23 international footballers

:Propose renaming :Category:Syrian international footballers to :Category:Syria international footballers

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. International footballers should be referred to by their country but not the adjectival form (per :Category:Football (soccer) players by national team). Tassedethe (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename alll per correct argument of nominator. See also Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Speedy_rename_-_Criterion_4. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:Suggest merging :Category:Expatriates from Democratic Republic of the Congo to :Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo expatriates

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. Correct name per :Category:Expatriates by nationality. Tassedethe (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename per correct argument of nominator. See also Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Speedy_rename_-_Criterion_4. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: RENAME ALL to "Organisations based in..." postdlf (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Organizations in French Polynesia to :Category:Organizations based in French Polynesia

:Propose renaming :Category:Organizations in Kosovo to :Category:Organizations based in Kosovo

:Propose renaming :Category:Organizations in Montenegro to :Category:Organizations based in Montenegro

:Propose renaming :Category:Organizations in São Tomé and Príncipe to :Category:Organizations based in São Tomé and Príncipe

:Propose renaming :Category:Organizations in the Cook Islands to :Category:Organizations based in the Cook Islands

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming in :Category:Organizations by country. Tassedethe (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk)
• Rename, but using "organisations", which is the standard spelling in the Cook Islands and - as a UK English spelling - would normally be used for categories dealing with countries using other European languages. Grutness...wha? 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename using 'organisations' per Grutness. At minimum, for the Cook Islands, which is country in free association with NZ and therefore uses UK/NZ spelling. But the other ones probably could also use UK English, though it's not as critical. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: MERGE. postdlf (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:Suggest merging :Category:Foreign relations of Greenland to :Category:Politics of Greenland and :Category:Foreign relations of Denmark

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. In Greenland, foreign relations are still controlled by Denmark. Greenland has no autonomous foreign policy, ambassadors, diplomatic missions, etc.; nor does Greenland sign treaties, join international organizations as a state, etc. Some non-UN member countries, like the Cook Islands, control some parts of their own foreign relations, but Greenland is not yet one of them. This category will never really be a useful category until it has some foundation in reality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• (Up-)Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Self-close; category was speedily deleted by uninvolved admin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Mohsin Hamid}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Main article and a "novels by" subcategory are insufficient to justify an eponymous category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy the creator was a sock of Strider11. It was Skeptifall in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Strider11#Suspected_sockpuppets. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 23:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Kateri Tekakwitha}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. A main bio article and a school named after the person is not enough to justify an eponymous category for a person. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as too small and not likely to get expanded. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{Lc|British-American politicians}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a defining intersection of ethnicity and occupation. If fully populated would likely include a huge proportion of those in {{cat|American politicians}}. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete -- this has a single article, on some one whose British links are weak. He presumably has (or had) British nationality due to his birth, but it is notorious that Greek shipping magnates (such as his father) claim to be non-domiciled for tax purposes. Since his profession is "diplomat", he is hardly a politician. Furthermore, there are so many Americans of British descent that British-American (or do we mean American-British) is a hardly defining characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete — too large to be useful, not a defining characteristic. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment — the same editor also created :Category:Welsh-American politicians (current population one) and :Category:Welsh-Americans politicians (wrong spelling, current population a different one). Also :Category:Greek-American politicians (typo, ignoring the already existing and fairly well populated :Category:Greek American politicians). These duplicates should get cleaned up. And I'm not sure whether "Welsh-American politicians" is even legit – it's arguably a trivial intersection since there's no self-identified Welsh-American voting block or population in the U.S. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Also recently created {{cat|Norwegian-Americans actors}} AND {{cat|Norwegian-American actors}}; {{cat|Greek-American musicians}} AND {{cat|Greek-American musicans}}; {{cat|German-American musicans}}—many, many other intersections of American ethnicities and professions containing one or two articles only, some spelled correctly and some not. I think we have a problem here. This follows on the heels of the editor's creation of the NHL "Fram Teams" category fiasco. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• I would have to say the dismissal of Welsh Americans ignores the conditions in Pennsylvania in 1900. There were clearly defined Welsh populations, and they very likely had a voting block. Something not existing today does not prove it never existed.Johnpacklambert (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Reviewed non-free images to :Category:Reviewed non-free files

:Nominator's rationale: Category contains all content in file namespace and should be renamed for clarity. — ξ^xplicit 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rename Just as all "images". Debresser (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

----

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