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 to Category:Fictional shapeshifters. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional transmorphs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Categrorising fictional shapeshifters under a neologism. Outmerge the articles to Category:Fictional shapeshifters if appropriate and then Delete this cat.J Greb (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Interesting though the word itself is by having a rare three and four consecutive consonants (although it is beaten by "watchstrap"), a quick search shows no definition from a reliable source. --Rodhullandemu 00:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete per nom - neologism, no clear inclusion criteria. Terraxos (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete per nom. - jc37 09:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Corinne Bailey Rae ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete There is no reason for this umbrella category - artist has not released enough material to warrant it and she already has the basic album/songs categories, which is more than enough. eo (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overcategorization. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – 3 substantial subcats (+ 1 dodgy one) is sufficient justification. Occuli (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Occuli - even if the "dodgy one" goes, there's still enough to warrant a category. Cgingold (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per extensive precedent and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Everything is appropriately linked through text and template. Otto4711 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep organizes multiple subcategories to a common parent that are otherwise unconnected. This is what categories are for. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly past discussions would make this a reasonable action. Given the existence of a navbox for the singer, it is a hard case to make that we also need the category and I don't see that in the discussion so far. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The navbox enables a reader to find related material more quickly and easily than a category, therefore it's redundant to maintain the category. --Rodhullandemu 22:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entire tree Categoroies are intended as a navigation tool. However most of the material is listed in the main article and/or the navbox. This is essentially a complicated structure to form a halo around the article on the musician. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British people of Indo-Guyanese descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Seems to be an example of overcategorisation, based on an intersection of ethnicities already covered by existing categories such as Category:British people of Indian descent and Category:British people of Guyanese descent. Furthermore, the people included in the category arguably shouldn't be given the advice that "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:British people of Indian descent and Category:British people of Guyanese descent. It is indeed a fine example of WP:OCAT. Occuli (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I am far from sure that this is an unsatsifacotry triple intersection. A large number of Indian labourers were brought to British Guiana (as it then was) to work in sugar plantations in the 19th century. I think they remians a signifciant ehtinic group within the country. Accordingly, those of them whom emigrate to Britain may be regarded as a disticnt group. This should not be dismissed out of hand, but I would like to see more views. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I m with Peterkingiron. I think it should ideally be a subcat of the two, but I won t stand in the way of the nomination Mayumashu (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also tend to agree that it's not really a triple-intersection in the accepted sense - Guyana is one of a handful of countries (Fiji is another) where Indian immigration was at some time in the past so high that "Indo-Guyanese" is almost regarded as a single ethnic group in its own right. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Indo-Guyanese", like the recent Ulster Scots, Afrikaners etc, should be treated as one intersection not two. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep despite the fact that there are more than three words in the title, this is not one of those dreaded "triple intersections". This captures a defining characteristic with a strong and defining connection. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep according to my commetn above. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Groups to Category:Groups (military aviation) and the others per nom. I think this is where consensus was for the top one. The other two seem to have been forgotten in the discussion so if the new names need to be reconsidered I will not object to a follow on nomination. As noted in the discussion, there may be other categories that need a rename following this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Groups to Category:Air force groups
• Category:British groups to Category:Air force groups of the United Kingdom
• Category:Groups of the United States to Category:Air force groups of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous. --Eliyak T·C 02:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Eliyak, are you planning to add Category:Groups of the United States and Category:British groups? They both need renaming, too. Cgingold (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have, but I got disconnected. They are there now. --Eliyak T·C 03:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Air groups - This is a textbook illustration of what happens when a category name is too generic and imprecise: 4 of the 5 articles currently listed don't belong there, as they have nothing to do with military aviation. However, the rename should not be to Category:Air force groups since not all of the sub-cats are Air force groups -- some are naval or marine corps groups. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Groups (military aviation). The main article is "Group (air force)," but if it is important the category exclude units that are not part of Air Forces (though they may be part of air forces), perhaps it is the article that needs renaming to Group (military aviation). IMHO "air group" would be redundant to an insider while being no less ambiguous to the lay person, and if "Air groups" is interpreted to contain any grouping of military aviation units, it would swallow Category:Flights and Category:Wings (aviation), wouldn't it? Incidentally I could stand to see those categories renamed as well (to Category:Flights (military aviation) and Category:Wings (military aviation)) depending on the outcome of this discussion. -choster (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you make a pretty fair case for Category:Groups (military aviation). But how would that work with the 2 sub-cats that also need renaming? Cgingold (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would Category:Groups (military aviation) of the United Kingdom be too unwieldy? We could eliminate this layer of subcategorization, seeing as they contain only two subcategories apiece, or go the route of Category:Squadrons and divide further by branch. I also found Category:Army groups in Category:Military units and formations by size.-choster (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That was, indeed, my concern -- both of the subcats would end up with pretty unwieldy names. Would it make sense to use a different formulation for the sub-cats? I'm thinking perhaps Category:Military aviation groups of the United Kingdom. For that matter, how about using that formulation for the parent cat? (Or does that come across too much like "Military aviation fan clubs"?) Cgingold (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, preferably per Choster. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I invited WikiProject Military history to participate; they appear to be the only active WP throughout the branch.-choster (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – there is also Category:RAAF groups which needs more attention. I favour the Choster solution of replacing 'Groups' with 'Groups (military aviation)'. Occuli (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename, probably as choster, but does the existing name "Groups" need to be retained for the miscellany that has been added, or does the category merely need to be purged of these? The RAAF item merely needs its abbrveiation expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Groups should probably redirect to Category:Organizations. --Eliyak T·C 15:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - 'Military aviation groups' seems best to me, as I dislike seeing brackets in category names, but it may be necessary here. Category:Groups should probably be redirected to Category:Organizations, as proposed by Eliyak above. Terraxos (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting that you've suggested Category:Military aviation groups for the main category. The thought had crossed my mind, since it would be consistent with the sub-cat I suggested, Category:Military aviation groups of the United Kingdom. I would like to know what other editors think of this formulation. Cgingold (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin relisting note. So, just to summarise what we have so far: Category:Groups (military aviation) has been suggested and has received some support, but also now Category:Military aviation groups has been suggested. I would have renamed them to the first, but the second was proposed late in the discussion and it may be preferred by some of the previous users who seemed luke warm about the first. So, if there's a support shift to Category:Military aviation groups, we'll go with that. If not, we'll go with Category:Groups (military aviation). Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer Category:Groups (military aviation), but either would do. I am afraid that the other alternative would attract articles on aircraft spotting groups, and such like, whereas this is about a High Command organisation structure in Air Forces. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I too prefer Category:Groups (military aviation); the idea is to identify a "Group" as a distinctive type of entity, and not any generic "group," so the alternative formulation ought to be Category:Military aviation Groups which just looks like a typo to me.-choster (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Journalists by publication in the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American journalists by publication to Category:Journalists by American publication

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to accurately reflect what this is actually categorizing. The subcategories are by publication, not by the nationality of the journalists, so there is no reason to believe that all the entries in Category:New York Times people, for example, are American just because it's an American newspaper. An alternative could be to rename to Category:Journalists by publication in the United States. Postdlf (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Journalists by publication in the United States, which eliminates almost all of the possible ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Journalists by publication in the United States. Cgingold (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:History of France by city to Category:Histories of cities in France

Nominator's rationale: Merge to match other inhabitants of Category:History by country and city. Also, "Histories of cities" appeals to me more because these cities often predate the modern countries. --Eliyak T·C 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, keeping the parents of the other. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Macau Grand Prix drivers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Highly indiscriminate category for a Formula 3 race. Karpouzi (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can demonstrate that this is a 'defining' race (as was previously done for the first 2 in Category:Racecar drivers by competition - but even in this previous recent cfd the 'drivers' category was deleted, and the winners one retained). Occuli (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a fairly indiscriminate list. Readro (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Formula Three drivers: despite its name this is not a race in the Grand Prix series, and its drivers are likely to appear in many Formula 3 events. There may be more in the Formula Tree category tree that needs merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The race itself is moderately notable - at some periods being the winner of the (non-championship) race has been a big deal in terms of attracting sponsors and getting into F1. Possibly less so nowadays. Despite that, I can't see what useful purpose such a category serves - it's just a large subset of all F3 drivers. 4u1e (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete (category is empty, so apparently already merged). VegaDark (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US-guitarist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Oddly-named category, and a duplicate of Category:American guitarists. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i do appreciate your feedback on this subject - i do wonder if, a collection of US guitarists who are not always considered "rock" players may be valid. i.e. george benson, les paul, and wes montgomery may not be considered "rock" guitarists, but they are "US" guitarists...much obliged! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dljone9 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant to existing Category:American guitarists, per nom, and its more specific subcategories, e.g. Category:American blues guitarists. Also does not conform to naming convention. --Rodhullandemu 11:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks for the observation - is it worth considering that, a guitar player can be US based, but not "American"?? i.e. robbie robertson and neil young, who were from canada but may live in the US now?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dljone9 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Firstly, there's a the strong overlap with an existing category. Secondly, given the creator's concern that we're not categorising US-based non-Americans, we already have the subcats of Category:Expatriates in the United States, which are not noticably in need of further refinement by occupation. -- Kife 12:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, RH&E and Kife. Occuli (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The proper action in this is Merge with Category:American guitarists. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep at current location. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Argentine people by occupation to Category:Argentinian people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Rename, along with ALL subcategories. All the other countries use the adjective form, except those with compound names (which makes using adjectives awkward if impossible). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess it's fallen to me to "break the news" to you, Headbomb. (I realize that you're fairly new to CFD procedures.) If you're serious about renaming all of these categories, every one of them will need to be properly tagged. Given the sheer number, you may want to request the assistance of a bot. However, I think you should bear in mind that this discussion will also implicate Category:Argentine people as well as all of its 100s of other sub-categories -- all of which (to the best of my knowledge) use "Argentine". And lastly, I'm pretty sure this exact issue has been discussed previously, resulting in the current naming convention. So changing to "Argentinian" would be a very uphill battle, to say the least. But of course, you are free to proceed if you feel strongly about it. Cgingold (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well obviously the change would be implement by bots. No way I'm manually retagging 1000+ articles and moving 100s of categories.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The infobox for the article Argentina states the demonym to be Argentine and not Argentinian. And per Cgingold. Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I just learned that Argentine is one of the possible demonyms (Argentineans and Argentinians being the others), but it still sticks out like a sore thumb.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A fair number of precedents exist for using "Argentine" instead of "Argentinian" or "Argentino", all 3 of which are in the OED (but the primary entry is under "Argentine"). There's probably nothing wrong per se with changing all of them, but why bother when they seem to be consistent and we seem to be using one that is endorsed by reliable sources? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage amongst sources is mixed. Prior to today, the only usage I've seen was Argentinians (or sometimes Argentineans). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you might be confusing nouns with adjectives. "Argentineans" may well be the most common noun form, but that doesn't mean that "Argentine" isn't the more common adjective form. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - change for the sake of change. "Argentine" is perfectly acceptable here. Otto4711 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's change for sake of consistency. Which IMO, is worth going for.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Argentine" is in consistent use across the category system. "Category:Argentine" returns 1,603 results. "Category:Argentinian" returns seven, of which only four are actual category names. "Category:Argentinean" returns zero results. "Argentinean" itself only turns up 85 results, many of which are redirects to a category or page using "Argentine". Otto4711 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Headbomb, I also prefer the term Argentinian to Argentine (Argentinean always looks like a typo to me, but that's by the by) - despite that, I oppose this for the simple reason that Argentine is a perfectly acceptable adjectival form of the demonym for people and things from Argentina (I suspect the difference may be at least partly preferences between the UK and US). In fact, if google is anything to judge by, it's a far more common term to use (23.6m WP-free google hits for Argentine, 3.1m for Argentinian, 1.5m for Argentinean). Argentina simply happens to be a country with two three acceptable demonym forms, that's all. At some point in Wikipedia's history, the form Argentine was chosen, and all categories and articles were standardised to that. Things were changed for the sake of consistency, and you're simply finding a different inconsistency where there isn't one. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per CSD C1. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battleships of Australia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Empty category. The only article that was previously in this category was HMVS Cerberus which was miscategorised: the ship was a breastwork monitor, not a battleship. No other articles are appropriate for this category: the largest non-aircraft carrier warship operated by an Australian navy was the battlecruiser HMAS Australia (1911). -- saberwyn 06:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per CSD C1: the category was empty. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cerberus class battleships ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Following discussions at Talk:Cerberus class battleship and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force#Cerberus class battleship?, it was determined that the article Cerberus class battleship was misnamed, which was then moved to to the more appropriate Cerberus class monitor. As such, this category is also misnamed, and has been superseded by Category:Cerberus class monitors -- saberwyn 06:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. It's worth noting that Category:Argentine scientists and all of it's sub-cats use "Argentine", not "Argentinian". Cgingold (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Argentine physicists to Category:Argentinian physicists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Self-explanatory Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the vast majority of subcats that categorize people from Argentina use "Argentine". I see nothing in this nomination that indicates that "Argentine" is incorrect or that this one category should be changed in isolation. Otto4711 (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I'll have to give more reasons then. Category:Argentine physicists is a sub category of Category:Physicist by nationality which always use the adjective form. Hence the renaming.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close this. I'll propose something different.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by city ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:People by country and city, to better reflect the contents of the category, and for consistency with the other sub-cats of Category:Categories by country and city. Cgingold (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. This helps finish up the good names for this set of categories. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This category pre-dated the other categories by country and city, and so an updated name is in order. --Eliyak T·C 19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Basketball players from Georgia to Category:Basketball players from Georgia (U.S. state)

Nominator's rationale: with the disambiguate 'U.S. state' is conventional Mayumashu (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Merging of this kind of duplicate ought to be a speedy criterion.-choster (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it is now a speedy criterion under the new #6 at WP:CFDS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only renames appear to be eligible, not deletions.-choster (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, I'm not sure if that was the intent. The section is titled "Speedy renaming and speedy merging", but you're right that #6 only mentions renames. That may be an oversight. I have raised the issue there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The initial reaction is from the talk page there is that it applies to both, and the wording has been changed to reflect that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per nom to match what all other categories for the US state of Georgia are/should be named. Hmains (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to distinguish from Georgia (country), but check that there really is no one in it from the Caucasus. Thiere is much precednet on this. Retain existing form as a redirect (or a disambiguation category). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2008 (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.