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: split per nominator. The existing category will become a {{container category}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Vancouver Whitecaps coaches to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1974–1984) coaches and Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) coaches

Nominator's rationale: These two versions of the Whitecaps have their own categories, so their coaches should not be commingled in one category. See this series of Whitecaps nominations for details.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Three distinct categorizations of this clubs history. This needs to be split to continue with that flow (although could the current category simply become a housing cat for what would be the three coaching cats?). – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Japhetic to Category:Japhetic people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarification of the adjective per main article (to distinguish from language). Brandmeister^talk 22:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• REname to match main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD November 5. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: A collection of unconnected things and concepts that simply share the name "professional" - grouping "professional sports" with "professional negligence" and "professional courtesy" is an example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. Bencherlite^Talk 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose -

• It provides a natural parent category for Category:Professional associations and Category:Professional ethics‎ which in turn nicely bridges to Category:Management and Category:Occupations
• It is self-evident that "professional" is the common theme, also they are generally quite closely linked in context except possibly "professional sports".

--Penbat (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are professional courtesy, professional embarrassment and professional negligence in English law doing in a subcategory of Category:Management? It's a category mess. Bencherlite^Talk 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a mess. I was intending to shortly add new articles professional boundaries and professional competence to this category. Professional courtesy, professional embarrassment and professional negligence in English law are all aspects of professionalism. Anyway you conveniently mention Category:Management but not Category:Occupations --Penbat (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they don't belong together in a subcategory of Category:Occupations either. Bencherlite^Talk 14:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a move to "professionalism", however, I Support the proposal to delete it otherwise.Greg Bard (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mind if the template is called "professional" or "professionalism".--Penbat (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands this is a collection of things with a similar name, which is not how we categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see a category, "Amateur", and I don't see a category for "semi-professional". Just a random collection of hodgepodge. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: split to Category:Garages (house) and (Category:Garages (parking).--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Garages to Category:Garages (house) and (Category:Garages (parking lot) or Category:Parking garages)

Nominator's rationale: Split. Currently this category covers two very different uses. One is for a 'room' in a house, and the other is a commercial, generally, storage facility. Also garage is a dab page. I suspect that the send target may generate some discussion from the US/UK differences. Which is why I chose a main topical article to dab the second one.Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per nominator, although we could really do with a better name for the second type. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a second option, don't know if that would be better. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the suggestion. "Parking lot" is a pure Americanism which I have never heard in Ireland or the UK, whereas "parking garage" is unfamiliar usage which to my ears would imply that building beside a house where the the homeowner stores their own car. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split—I agree with the need to split, but in NZ English a garage is where I take my car to be repaired and/or serviced and not a general parking lot. This last we call either a parking building or a car-park depending on its layout. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Category:Automobile repair shops and Category:Bus garages were created. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split however I would thing maybe Category:Parking garage or Category:Garage (parking structure) would be a good name for the second category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- A garage is a building in which motor vehicles are stored. I must certainly oppose "parking lot" which is a horrid Americanism, and probably properly refers to an open air car park. In England (like NZ) it also covers a busiess that sells and repairs cars. It is a word with a variety of uses, and the category should be big enough in scope to encompass them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we keep it just to collect together the various things in various countries that are called "garages", then that's categorization by shared name, which isn't done. Instead, split to Category:Garages (house) and Category:Garages (parking structure) (not quite per JPL, since the name should be in the plural not the singular). Bencherlite^Talk 12:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thnakyou for pointing out my mistake about number. The clear thing is we have to split this because we do not categorize by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've started a requested move of the article. See Talk:Garage_(house)#Requested_move. - jc37 23:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split - It's obvious they should be split, the main difference of opinion seems to be the target name. I think I prefer Garage (residential) and Garage (parking). - jc37 23:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, these two are identical in meaning. I park my car in its garage, which is at my place of residence. If the second was Garage (parking building), then I could differentiate. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  We'll run into the same problem with parking building then. Presumably a house is a building, and so is a garage? So I went for merely using the term "parking" as a disambiguator, since this (in my opinion) will help give the semantic sense that this isn't residential use. While we may indeed park a car in a garage, when we use the term "parking" it usually gives the sense of parking for many cars. YMMV of course. But at this point, due to usages of the terms, we aren't going to have any "perfect" usage split. So I'm suggesting what will likely be the clearest. - jc37 01:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 per nom. Bencherlite^Talk 21:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies to Category:Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify that this relates to constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and rather than to the wider set of constituencies in the United Kingdom (such as those of the European Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly, Parliament of Northern Ireland). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies has been notified --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has been notified --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative rename to Category:Constituencies of the United Kingdom Parliament (or UK Parliament), per official and common usage in the real world. "Parliament of the United Kingdom" (sic) mainly turns up a bunch of wiki mirrors: the classic sign that Wikipedia neologists have been at work. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless we are going to rename the head article Parliament of the United Kingdom and Category:Parliament of the United Kingdom plus all of its subcats, I suggest we are better to stick with the format of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Clarifies meaning and increases consistency. ChemTerm (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per BrownHairedGirl. --Scott Mac 21:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The multiple uses of "of" may seem excessive, but it is needed to make the name clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename, Category:Westminster parliamentary constituencies. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. While some editors feel a cat needs to follow the naming of the article, others feel that they are independent. I find myself more akin to the former group, absent extraordinary circumstances. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Constituencies of the UK Parliament. This is quite long enough to be clear. A lot of Parliament-related categories use such an abbreviation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 per nom, in particular for consistency with the top-level category rather than creating a new category name midway through the structure. Bencherlite^Talk 22:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Scottish Parliamentary constituencies to Category:Constituencies of the Scottish Parliament

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify that this relates to constituencies of the Scottish Parliament, and not to constituencies in Scotland of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or constituencies in Scotland of the European Parliament. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scotland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative rename to Category:Constituencies of the Scottish Parliament (post-1999) to differentiate from Category:Constituencies of the Parliament of Scotland (to 1707), as that legislature is also commonly referred to as the "Scottish Parliament" in reliable ext refs. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The head article is Scottish Parliament, and the parent category is Category:Scottish Parliament. I'd prefer to keep consistency in the category tree; if we are going to rename, let's start from the top. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Clarifies meaning and increases consistency. ChemTerm (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per BrownHairedGirl. Not least because the modern constituencies will have far more prominence than the historical pre 1707 ones and ought to have the simpler name.--Scott Mac 21:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename much better wording.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom as this makes it clearly match the article on the given Parliament.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative Rename Category:Edinborough Parliamentary Constituencies Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Ben MacDui 18:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Don't really understand the alt proposed by Benkenobi18 - is "Edinburgh" spelled with the extra "o"s deliberately? I think Mais oui! makes a decent point but agree with Scott Mac that this isn't necessary. Can't help feeling there is a hint of "Category:Constituencies of the Scottish Parliament (1999-2014)" somewhere in there? Ben MacDui 18:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mais Oui, here are the extraordinary circumstances that I referred to in the above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom -- There is a headnote that adequately defines what the category is about with links to related ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 - jc37 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Massacres in the Palestinian territories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, should be upmerged to Category:Massacres in Palestine. It is not as if this category is supposed to grow considerably over time. :) Debresser (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SMALLCAT as part of an established series at Category:Massacres by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess BHG meant Category:Massacres by country not Category:Massacres by county. ChemTerm (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed I did. Typo now corrected, and thanks for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fits into Category:Massacres by country ChemTerm (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To both Chem Term and BrownHairedGirl: "Palestinian territories" are not a country. That is precisely why I said it should be upmerged to "Massacres in Palestine", which is a country. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's the other way around, see Palestinian territories, Palestine. The latter is currently an article about the region containing Israel and the territories. ChemTerm (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Mass killings incidents in Palestinian territories. The current name fails NPOV rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the whole by country category should be changed. ChemTerm (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• REverse Merge -- "Palestine" covers Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. The two latter are properly the Palestinian Territories, since they have not yet achieved nationhood. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• New Votes since people seem determined to keep the term "massacres" we should leave this category. It is different than a more generic Palestine cat, which can cover things in British Palestine and in the same genderal area earlier than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename both per nom. Bencherlite^Talk 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Constituencies of Northern Ireland to Category:Constituencies in Northern Ireland
• Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Wales to Category:Constituencies in Wales

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename both to a more inclusive title, and to fit the pattern of the 2 other national subcats of Category:Constituencies in the United Kingdom, which I have just created.

These are both container categories, which include constituencies of entities called "Parliament" and also of entities called "Assembly". So including the word "Parliament" is misleading.

I prefer the word "in" rather than "of", because

1. it fits the pattern for other human-geographical categories ("cities in", "towns in"), etc;
2. it avoids any pedantic concerns about whether constituencies in these countries which elect to bodies elsewhere are truly "of". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the following WikiProjects have been notified: WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom [1], WikiProject Wales [2], and WikiProject Northern Ireland [3]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Clarifies meaning and increases consistency. ChemTerm (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename Category:Stormont Parliamentary Constituencies, and Category:Cardiff Parliamentary Constituencies. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Benkenobi18. Please re-read the nomination, and check the contents of these categories. These are container categories, not categs for the devolved Parliaments, and your proposal would radically alter their scope.

  Even for the devolved Parliament categories, Benkenobi18's suggestion would be inappropriately ambiguous. "Stormont" could equally either to Category:Constituencies of the Northern Ireland Assembly or to Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic). "Cardiff" could mean either "all the constituencies of the Welsh Assembly" or "the ~9 Westminster constituencies which have existed in Cardiff plus the city's assembly constituencies". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• REanme per nom -- As BHG says these are container categories covering all legistative assmblies. "Stormont", "Cardiff", and "Westminster" are mere journalistic shorthand and should not be used in WP for these assemblies. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Suggested titles are straightforward and consistent. --RA (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:I Hate Kate albums to Category:Darling Thieves albums

Nominator's rationale: Same band, different name. There is no reason to have a new category for every band name iteration (cf. A Silver Mt. Zion, who has about a dozen.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as target is the name used for the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hot Swing Trio albums to Category:Mark O'Connor albums

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, as artist is a redlink —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 - jc37 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hannah Montana albums to Category:Miley Cyrus albums

Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize albums by persons who don't exist: cfr. Category:Garth Brooks albums, not Category:Chris Gaines albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the category is more about being part of that franchise that being by that person. It fits in with the other categories concerning the franchise. Also they wouldnt be purely cyrus albums anyway as some are soundtracks with multiple artists.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Then we can remove it from the Category:Albums by artist scheme and to the Category:Soundtracks by media franchise scheme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The article Hannah Montana is about the TV show of that name. This is supposed to be albums by artist, and the convention we have in wikipedia is to refer to the artist in question as Miley Cyrus, so her work should be categorized under that name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. No participants other than the nominator, whose description is inaccurate, or at best incomplete. The only content is GD & TOP, which is in fact a joint effort between G-Dragon & T.O.P (entertainer). Both those articles exist, and if that had been explained in the nomination it might have created a different outcome to the nominator's recommendation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:G-Dragon & TOP albums to Category:Both parents

Nominator's rationale: Artist is a redlink —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Chamillionaire albums and Category:Mixtape albums.

Proposals are more likely to be well-scrutinised and reach a clear consensus if the nominator takes a few extra seconds to list the merger targets, rather than leaving other editors to go find out what they currently are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Chamillionaire mixtapes to Category:Both parents

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for Category:Mixtape albums by artist —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Double upmerge to Category:Chamillionaire albums and Category:Mixtape albums per nom. Bencherlite^Talk 22:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Buddy Miles Regiment albums to Category:Buddy Miles albums

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, redlink artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Tobacco in New Zealand - jc37 23:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tobacco smoking in New Zealand to Category:Smoking in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, it goes agains the current convention, and per WP:TITLE. Smoking does no need to be qualified with the word tobacco. Coverage of the other major drug that is smoked is in the Cannabis in New Zealand article. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_20#Category:Tobacco_in_New_Zealand. Note that there is a Category:Tobacco by country and a Category:Smoking by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, merge into the more general category which is adequate for all the articles on the subject, ie Category:Tobacco in New Zealand (see discussion of 20 Oct about that category). No Smoking. Hugo999 (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merging is the issue, then we need a group nomination to eliminate all of the smoking categories. Smoking as a category name is clearly ambiguous since tobacco is not the only thing that is smoked. Conversely, smoking is not the only way to consume tobacco. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 20 & 28 October proposals related to New Zealand only, and this (28 October) proposal is bypassing the main (20 October) discussion. Hugo999 (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close—this should not have been proposed while the broader discussion is taking place on the 20 October page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Tobacco in New Zealand. I have to specifically object to Beeswaxcandle's Procedural close nomination. What should not have been done was the creation of this category on Oct. 27th when the parent category was still under discussion. However since this category was created in a manner essentially meant to be an end run around CfD, we should merge it to its parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm fine with this proposed upmerge. I was more concerned with having two conversations about essentially the same thing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per JPL.Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. The proposed action says "delete Category:Subgenres of death metal", but the nominator's rationale says "upmerge", and the one other participant says "delete". The effect of this would be to leave the contents of Category:Subgenres of death metal outside of Category:Death metal, and it is not clear that this is what either editor intended.

When a nominator makes a self-contradictory proposal, other editors are likely to be confused, and the result is a no consensus discussion which wastes everyone's time.
There are standard templates which set out proposed actions clearly, and they can be used very easily with WP:TWINKLE. Editors should consider using them when making CFD nominations, so that their intentions are made clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Genres of death metal to Category:Death metal
• Propose deleting Category:Subgenres of death metal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Has one further subcategory: Category:Subgenres of death metal. I have no clue why that exists underneath this, but either way, just upmerge them all to Category:Death metal. Why would we need these? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no need for either of these subcats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Public policy and citizen participation in California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The category tree for "public policy in foo" is for nation-state level, and there is no established "public policy and citizen participation" category yet. I see what the creator is getting at, but this is not well defined enough. see also Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States, which is by focus, and Category:Advocacy groups, which is also by focus, and for comparison Category:Environmental organizations based in the United States, Category:Environmental organizations based in California. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a missmatch category with no clear inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 manually and distribute contents to other categories such as a Category:Iraqi academics, Category:Iraqi scholars, Category:Iraqi writers, where appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Iraqi intellectuals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete "Intellectual" is too much of a catch-all term to be a sound basis for categorization and we therefore have no Category:Intellectuals or any category of the form Category:Fooian intellectuals. There are many more precise alternatives including Category:Iraqi academics, Category:Iraqi scholars, Category:Iraqi writers among others in Category:Iraqi people by occupation. Pichpich (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not an accepted categorization method.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Iraqi scholars, which seems to cover the one artile currently in it. Do not keep a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Croix du combattant volontaire 1914–1918 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete appears to have been missed during this recent discussion but it should probably go as well. (In particular, its lone parent was zapped by the previous CfD) Pichpich (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Croix du combattant volontaire 1914–1918 is a "French decoration that recognizes those who have volunteered to serve on the front in a combat unit during World War I". This decoration appears to have been widely-issued, and is not a defining characteristic of its recipients. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons given by BHG and in the previous discussion. Bencherlite^Talk 21:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename C2E. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Crusaders navigational boxes to Category:Crusaders Rugby League navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: Rename as (very) ambiguous. I think an overwhelming majority of people opening this category would expect to find navigational boxes about Richard the Lionheart. Pichpich (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I have no issues with the name being changed at all. I probably should have created it in the suggested name in the first place. Sorry I'm new to this. Mr51cuk (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Four Leaf Records albums to Category:Four Leaf Clover Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename to Four Leaf Clover Records since that appears to be the correct name of the label. That being said, I'd prefer deletion since there's no article about the label and as far as I can tell no article about another album on that label. It's not clear that the label would be sufficiently notable for an article. (The label is mentioned in Jim Riggs and in Sven Scholander but it seems to be of very limited importance). Pichpich (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Opposed - jc37 23:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Subdivisions of India to Category:Country subdivisions of India

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The generic term "country subdivision" is used 1500 times in the category namespace. The current name is misleading, since in the context of India "subdivision" may refer to a specific type of country subdivision below districts in Sikkim, Manipur and Lakshadweep; details at Subdivisions of India. The generic term from the top category can be used as a container for all types of country subdivisions of India. ChemTerm (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC) - Reworded. ChemTerm (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is part of the nominator's efforts to rename everything under category:Country subdivisions to use "Country subdivisons". It has created numerous problems where modifiers are required, and should be reconsidered from the top. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is my effort to wipe out the few inconsistencies within category:Country subdivisions. Consistent naming is VERY convenient for search. If you have another string that can be used instead of "country subdivision" and does perform as good as the current, I would be VERY happy to hear about it. ChemTerm (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do advocate consistency, but a different consistency.
      We should have Category:Subdivisions of countries containing Category:Subdivisions of Spain, Category:Subdivisions of Bolivia, Category:Subdivisions of South Africa, etc. This approach works fine for many other category trees such as Category:Landforms→Category:Landforms of the United States→Category:Landforms of Texas or Category:Landforms→Category:Landforms of South Australia→Category:Landforms of Western Australia. There is no requirement for a unique search search string; that is a personal fixation of yours, unsupported by any policy or guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't have Category:Landforms of countries - this of countries is unsystematic. ChemTerm (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, we have Category:Landforms by country, because a landform can exist even if there is no such thing as a country. OTOH, a subdivision can only exist as a subdivision of some entity (or type of entity). In this case we are talking about "subdivisions of countries", so we should call them by that name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The present category is apt to cover the present states and predecessor polities rules by rajahs, nawabs, etc. It always seems nice to make things tidy, but reality is often less tidily organised than that. There is no reason why Subdivisions of India and subdivisions of Iraq should not both be subcategiories of Country subdivisions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  They are. But Subdivisions of India cannot be a subcategory of itself. ChemTerm (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the current name works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not, because Subdivisions of India cannot be a subcategory of itself. ChemTerm (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As per these sources ([4], [5], [6], [7]), the individual entities currently labelled "subdivisions of India" are in fact "subdivisions of districts" of India. A new Category:Subdivisions of districts of India should be created to reflect their actual nature and titles.

  That resolves Chem Term's concern about the clash of names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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