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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lists of Irish monarchs to Category:Irish kings

Nominator's rationale. Contain almost identical articles or have the potential to do so. The target category is better populated. However, I would not be totally happy with the name. I'd prefer something more inclusive (in a gender sense) like "Monarchs of Ireland". However, one step at a time. For the moment I'll content myself with this merger. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both – these are completely different - the first one comprises lists and the 2nd one articles on specific kings; and a list of kings is not a king. Eg Kings of Ailech is a list and not a king; Eógan mac Néill is a king and not a list. (IMO Category:Lists of Irish monarchs is not a subcat of Category:Irish kings and {{catseealso}} is the only legitimate link between the 2.) Occuli (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following that logic. Kings of Aileach is a list and so should be in the LoIM cat, not the IK cat. Eógan mac Néill, as a named king, should be in the IK cat but not the LoIM cat. Is that right? But Eógan mac Néill is a member of the Kings of Aileach cat and so is indirectly a member of the LoIM cat. Why bother with this indirection? If Kings of Aileach is merged with IK then the proper inheritance will apply with no duplication. Just because the cat IK does not have the word "lists" in its name does not mean that it cannot contain lists if Irish Kings. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't follow the logic of the nomination. They are loads of pairs of categories in Wikipedia where one is Category:Foos and the other is Category:Lists of foos. If you look within Category:Lists, many of the descendant subcategories will be one half of such a pair. It is true that there are problems with this particular case:
  1. many of the articles in Category:Lists of Irish monarchs are also in the supercat Category:Irish kings
  2. the name of Category:Irish kings is too specific, excluding females and monarchs with a title other than "king".

So my suggestion is to

1. rename Category:Irish kings to Category:Irish monarchs
2. keep Category:Lists of Irish monarchs as a subcat of Category:Irish monarchs
3. remove Category:Irish monarchs from articles which are already in the subcat Category:Lists of Irish monarchs

There are some things that are not problems:

• The article Kings of Ailech belongs in both Category:Kings of Ailech and Category:Lists of Irish monarchs; both cats are children of Category:Irish monarchs, but neither is a child of the other.
• the article Eógan mac Néill belongs in Category:Kings of Ailech. It does not belong in Category:Lists of Irish monarchs because it is not a list. It does not belong in Category:Irish monarchs because it is in a subcat.

jnestorius^(talk) 17:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. The nomination is based on a false premise: one is a category of lists, the other is category of articles on individuals, and they do not "contain almost identical articles" nor do they have the potential to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both -- As others have stated they are different. The only reason to rename "kings" to "monarchs" would be if the lists contained significant numbers of queens. In view of the practice of tanistry, I suspect that rule by women or dowagers was highly exceptional. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also the Lords of Ireland. jnestorius^(talk) 15:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both - The nomination is based on flawed logic. Snappy (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both - as a monarch heads a unitary state. Many of our kings and monarchs were local rulers, but few of the High Kings actually ruled the whole island. For that reason "Kings in Ireland" is preferable to "Kings of Ireland".Red Hurley (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2011 (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. The nominator is of course correct that the phrase should be "Opposition to" throughout. The rest of these should be nominated for the same change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Opposition against Islam in North America to Category:Opposition to Islam in North America

Nominator's rationale: One is opposed to something not against it, "oppostion against" is incorrect. ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You should perhaps add Category:Opposition against Islam in Europe, Category:Opposition against Islam in Asia and Category:Opposition against Islam to this nom. At any rate, I support renaming this, and the other three if they should be added. However, I'm also not sure why we need opposition categories in the first place, as it seems they would fit just as easily in the parent Islam in foo categories. Resolute 20:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2011 (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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Period films to Category:Historical films

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There appears to be nothing that really distinguishes between these two categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge. Period films is rather nebulous term. Some see/hear the term and think only of films set in the 1700's. The merge would also allow for subcats covering specific eras. MarnetteD | Talk 19:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Historical films" says it is for historical dramas. The article List of historical drama films says it is about famous events. Period films does not have any of that restriction. A 1970's period comedy film would not be a historical film under the definitions in use on Wikipedia. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? So why is Category:Period films a sub-category of Category:Historical films? If "Historical films" should only include films about historical events then it should be renamed as it's extremely ambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also already a category specifically for such films: Category:Films based on actual events. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2011 (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. Ruslik_Zero 17:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theistic science theories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Consensus on WP:FT/N is this shouldn't be a catagory, since the terms theistic and theory may be inherently contradictory, and (mostly because) it's a POV and somewhat neologistic term coined for items already filed under Category:Intelligent design, but intended as a sub-cat of Category:Scientific theories. No other use (as far as articles needing this category) has been identified so far. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and discussions at FTN. "Theories" are testable hypotheses supported by a wealth of experimental evidence. There are none in this area. The category amounts to advocacy to create a subject area that doesn't actually exist. Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've fleshed out my argument in much further detail here. In short: this cat is neither useful nor encyclopedic, but the topic of "theistic science" may be worth fleshing out as a section of Theistic realism (or, maybe, a standalone article). — Scientizzle 17:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV category, created for purposes of advocacy and drama. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - POV pushing, not science and, mutatis mutandis, per WP:BOLLOCKS. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this category is oxymoronic. Raul654 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in accordance with the reasons presented in the nomination. POV and misleading, of minimal notability and utility. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as violating NPOV and POINT. And I cannot resist pointing out that it really should be a sub-category of Category:Oxymorons. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this category is meaningless and enough time has been wasted already on its talk page - get rid of it and let us get back to building the encyclopedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm don't really understand the level of animosity on display here or the allegations of bad faith involved the creation of the category. I'll just remind everyone that the category's defintion was cited at creation, said cite being subsequently removed. Also, a list of sources was presented to show that it is a real term. Anyway, while I have the floor, I'd like to remind the regulars at the ID article to focus on the discussion and be a little less quick to personalize debates and disagreements and to tone down the hostility. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cla68 is misrepresenting the original source, which represented 'Theistic Science' as a WP:FRINGE viewpoint "shunned" by the mainstream, and made no claim as to the existence of "Theistic science theories". None of the members of his subsequent 'list' add any further support for the legitimacy of this category (as they are either unreliable, dismissive of the viewpoint and/or tangential to the topic). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not help discussion that this category is now empty. Could someone list what articles were in it? --Bduke (Discussion) 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Intelligent Design, Natural-law argument, Creation Science, and Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. I agree that it isn't very helpful to remove the content from a page right before it's nominated for deletion. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This category gives WP:UNDUE weight to the pseudoscientific WP:FRINGE viewpoint of a "tiny minority" of academics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that it's a pov category and am disappointed to say the least that it was created. I'm not a regular at the ID article, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see a lot of objections that, given their antagonistic wording, seem to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact is, there have historically been a number of attempts at science that included theological explanations. Was it good science? Usually (maybe always) not. However, the fact remains that these attempts do exist, as Cla68 has listed several items at this point (God of the Gaps might be another addition). The negative emotional responses and chicanery in making sure the category was empty before nomination are telling, IMO. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sxeptomaniac: (i) Do you have any basis, other than a violation of WP:AGF, for equating the above WP:NPOV concerns with WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Do you have a reliable source basis for identifying any of the topics identified above (or any others for that matter) as theistic science theories (so that placing them within this category isn't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I can understand the argument that there could be a category for pages like those, but it should not be given a name that pushes the POV that they are a form of science. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Supernaturalism is not science, plain and simple. — raekyt 16:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Repopulate and keep -- I would have liked to vote keep on this (possibly renmed), but I cannot tell what it contained, because some one has emptied it out of process. The idea that there is a creator is a POV; the idea that it all just happened is equally POV. Intelligent design is not necessarily the only theory (or POV) involving a creator. The problem is ultimately that science assumes that the laws we observe today have applied since the begiining and we can therefore extrapolate back. Any intervention by a divine being is necessarily a discontinuity, with which science cannot cope. Accordingly science has to ignore that possibility. Science cannot prove whether there is or is not a God. It is not even competent to address the question. Ban the person who emptied it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The four articles that were in the category are listed in this discussion. There was nothing "out of process" about their removal from the category - note that the last article was removed from the category several hours before it was nominated for deletion, and the validity of the category has been subject to extensive discussion both on its own talk page, and at WP:FTN. Guettarda (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As listed in abpve, they were Intelligent Design, Natural-law argument, Creation Science, and Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. Your Keep vote is interesting because your explanation—that theism by nature is incompatible with scientific theory—would mean that this category should not contain anything. (I might argue it could contain several strains of Category:Pseudoscience, but that category has already been created.) / edg ☺ ☭ 18:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: "The idea that there is a creator is a POV; the idea that it all just happened is equally POV." The claim that they are equally so is, itself, POV, at least insofar as we are discussing a category about science. And that ban suggestion is over the top. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note for those arguing keep, it's worth noting that the term "Theistic science theory" is almost a complete neologism. — Scientizzle 16:14, 24 January 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Use dmy dates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I understand that this hidden category is used to track articles that use one of the two possible date formats per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Full date formatting. (The other variant does not seem to have a category.) I do not however see the point of tracking articles by style variant. In the event that the style variant to be used in any particular article is disputed, that dispute can be resolved by looking at the article content and history, and having an invisible category for one of two variants does not help. Moreover, if we start adding categories for every possible style variant (UK/US English?) we create a huge maintenance overhead with no clear benefit.  Sandstein  10:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. For clarity, this nomination also applies to the dated subcategories.  Sandstein  10:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's not just used to track... but used in maintaining WP:MOSNUM compliance as articles evolve. There is a category for mdy dates too, but it's not so well populated now. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, whether an article has adopted dmy or mdy actually matters. It is not always immediately apparent which date format has adopted, and impossible for a bot; even using AWB, significant processing time is necessary to create such a list by scanning the database before a list can be compiled. Article tagging is always done manually, to avoid classification errors (insofar as possible); the template+cat allows future periodic maintenance to take place by programmed bot action. Removal of the category (with or without deleting the template, which I guess would be the next logical step) would be unhelpful. Without the cats, future maintenance will have to be done manually, extremely time-consuming. Alternatively, the category would need to be recreated each time a bot run is planned, so there is little point in deleting. Oh, and I was afraid Sandstein is also putting the Category:Use_British_English under scrutiny; same rationale would apply to not deleting those. :-( --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really understand why it is important to "maintain WP:MOSNUM compliance as articles evolve", and what that means. I suppose this category could be used as a basis for bot error reports, but a bot only needs to detect that an article uses inconsistent date formats, not necessarily what is supposed to be the "correct" date format. The editor who fixes the inconsistency will still need to determine that on their own, as the category may not be correct. This still looks like a solution in search of a problem to me.  Sandstein  10:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles evolve and grow. People add content, text, tables, citations, all of which may contain dates. You may not have noticed that editors adding same don't necessarily observe the prevailing date format being used when adding context. That explains why there are thousands of articles with a mixture of date formats, in violation to MOSNUM, and their numbers would grow without the sort of effort I and others are putting in. This is exactly the sort of clean-up that is very repetitive and time-consuming. Tagging is the fastidious first step. Once a given article has been tagged through conscious 'decision', enter the bot – these rely on the categories you are seeking to have deleted. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are these categories actually used by any bots for approved tasks? If yes, I'll withdraw the nomination.  Sandstein  21:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet. There's still much work to tag articles. I plan to make a submission within 2 months. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – These categories are useful for defining the dating styles used in articles. Incorrect tagging is always a problem. A referenced sentenced could have the reference replace by {{Citation needed}} by a vandal but if no one notices, a careless editor may come along and delete the sentence without checking for a source. That's not a reason to delete Category:Articles with unsourced statements though. However, if this category is deleted, the American and ISO dating format categories should be deleted as well, but the templates should be kept because we need some way of letting editors know the style used on a particular page. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This a maintenance category used by a bot which does valuable work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Which bot?  Sandstein  21:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hidden tracking of style variants seems like a reasonable thing. Nomination seems directly at odds with WP:PERFORMANCE. What is the estimate of the maintenance overhead? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While there is evidence this is a useful maint category, there was no meaningful evidence this could lead to "a huge maintenance overhead". Also, regarding the possibility of other types of categories, WP:OTHERSTUFFMAYSTARTTOEXIST isn't an established deletion criterion. Deletion rationale also seems to dwell on those close cousins of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT and WP:IDONTSEETHEPOINTOFIT. It's also premature to expect full bot usage of the category yet - per cat description which suggests cleanup tasks could apply "after, say, 12 months have elapsed" versus significant tagging only since Aug 2010. Dl2000 (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- this is a desirable maintenance category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2011 (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. Ruslik_Zero 17:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Craven to Category:Craven (district)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to disambiguate from the other uses of the term "Craven", as listed at Craven (disambiguation). This category refers to the local government district of Craven in North Yorkshire, England. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – The eponymous article is at Craven. If the article does not need disambiguating, then neither does the category. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename – the category certainly needs disambiguating. I would say the article does as well, but this is not a matter for cfd.

78.151.68.178 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - agree with the above. Category and article both need renaming to make them more distinct. The district is not sufficiently notable within the context of other uses of Craven. Rimmer1993 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Unless Mclay1 is saying that the district is cravenly in it disposition, so it would be appropriate to add cravenly disposed articles to its category. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• REname -- A disambiguator is needed for the category to prevent it picking up articles about other uses of Craven. The Birmingham categories are at Category:Birmingham, England. There are numerous cases of this.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Depictions of Nero on plays to Category:Depictions of Nero in plays

Nominator's rationale: Rename - this is not an English expression. The preposition should be "in". See also my comments under Category:Depictions of Nero on Comics. Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clear overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've changed to delete. Serious over-categorization at this point—currently has one member, and dubious at that. Voceditenore (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2011 (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. I'm not sure why this should be kept while the ones above and below are not, but that's what you folks seem to want.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Depictions of Nero on Operas to Category:Depictions of Nero in opera

Nominator's rationale: Rename Apart from the obvious capitalization error, this is not an English expression. The art-form, "opera", should be singular and the preposition should be "in". Voceditenore (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Depictions of Nero on Comics to Category:Depictions of Nero in comics

Nominator's rationale: Rename Apart from the obvious capitalization error, this is not an English expression. The preposition should be "in" Voceditenore (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm wondering if this category should even exist. It has only one entry (Armageddon: The Alien Agenda) and the only connection is that it is partly set in "the Emperor Nero (54-68 AD) era Rome.". The article is unreferenced, but there is no indication that Nero himself is actually depicted. The same user is currently creating many categories like this [1] and several of them are badly named, e.g. Category:Depictions of Nero on plays with improperly categorized members, e.g. Henry VI, Part 1. Not sure if these should all be under one discussion section. Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clear overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've changed to delete. Serious over-categorization at this point—currently has one member, and dubious at that. Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous category in which every character who has taken a decision based on luck seems to fit. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Arbitrarily-defined overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Actually, rather than grouping any character who has made a decision based on luck, it's actually much tighter grouping only including characters who compulsively make key plot decisions by flipping a coin. I'm fine with the grouping but, with 3 articles and little room for growth, it is underpopulated.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2011 (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. The category contains both structural and river basins. This should be sorted out before any new nomination. Ruslik_Zero 14:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Basins by country to Category:Structural basins by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basins is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• question. Are they all structural? What about the drainage basins, as you mentioned in this cfd? I don't agree that we need to subcategorize under more specific categories when there's barely any articles filling the category. Ambiguous "basins" is good, it will help fill out the category, once we get more types of basins we can further subcategorize by type. -- œ^™ 15:14, 30 January 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Union songs to Category:Trade union songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category name is ambiguous—it's not clear from the name whether it is for trade unions, the Union Army, or some other union. Renaming will match the parent category Category:Trade unions, and the article is trade union. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to clarify scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Reason is perfectly apt, as I saw this in the table of contents and somehow expected it to be about Union Army songs. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2011 (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. Ruslik_Zero 15:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Watersheds of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Geography of the West Coast (U.S.)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Currently has only two entries. While more may be included over time, it is not clear that we need to break this out at this level at this time. I'm thinking about including in Category:Watersheds of the Pacific Ocean (subject of another rename) and Category:Drainage basins of North America (which is already in the parent's tree) in addition to the current category which should be ample categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are more articles around, some of which are in Category:Watersheds of the United States and its tree. The whole structure needs tidying up. My personal view is that this area should start at Category:Drainage basins of North America then be split by coast (north, east, south, and west). I would prefer not to have any countries/states recorded - these are structural features not political features. And they should be drainage basins NOT watersheds. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Geography of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Geography of the West Coast of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. While there is a main article, I find this category somewhat misleading since it covers far more then the west coast of the US. If deletion is the consensus, I can support that. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Seems a clumsily-named category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "West Coast (U.S.)" is used for most of the other subcategories of Category:West Coast of the United States.- choster (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that most of those are now nominated for renaming. I probably still have a few more to find and list. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the renaming of this one and other abbreviated "U.S." ones.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nom. as with other 'West Coast' cats. — Look2See1 t a l k → 20:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Geography of the West Coast (United States) then. I find "West Coast of the United States" terrible as a disambiguator; we don't say "Georgia of the United States" after all.- choster (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Volcanic fields of the Columbia Plateau to Category:Volcanic fields of the western United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category with unknown growth potential. Another one from Hike. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per previous consensus on using the one Category:Volcanic fields of the western United States, with [Cat:Volcanism of State xyz] for locale. — Look2See1 t a l k → 20:39, 23 January 2011 (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. The main article has been moved. Ruslik_Zero 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Karst to Category:Karst topography

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I used the generic name because Karst actually redirects to Karst topography. I'm not sure why it isn't just plain used as the article name, because I don't believe the region which is now called Kras is comparably as well known as the term it gave rise to. Certainly it doesn't make sense for Kras articles to be put in a category called "Karst", there should be no confusion there. That disambiguation is left over since 2004/2005. It could just be cleaned up fully nowadays IMHO. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed the mismatch and did the normal nomination. If leaving is the better choice, you can !vote that way and the article could also be moved to match. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, "Karst topography" is a popular term but karst can refer to an area below the surface as well. I do think the landform in general is more popular than the region in Europe and support "Karst topography" being moved to "Karst".--NortyNort (Holla) 14:05, 22 January 2011 (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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Railway turntables in the United States to all parents

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to all 3 parents. One of the problems in the entire tree is the lack of articles about turntables. They are generally mentioned as a feature of some other rail related article. So deletion is clearly an option. If there were more articles, I would not object to keeping. However, the lack of articles makes the case for keeping this category and some of the parents problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge and delete per nom. The only article in the cat isn't even about a railway turntable. Can be recreated if we ever do acquire an article about one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional Articles: I found one article and this is a maybe. The existing article should be removed though so that only leaves 1 or 2 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge & Delete: I gave this cat with one non-relevant article my best shot and ended up with 2 relevant articles. An improvement but that's not enough. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I have no doubt that there are (or have been) numerouse turntables. The question is ho many are notable enough to require articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2011 (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. This is not the category on which a global rename should be judged. If people want "Emirati" as the demonym, start at the main category, and we'll see if consensus favors the shorter name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Emirati people of Sri Lankan descent to Category:United Arab Emirati people of Sri Lankan descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was nominated at the speedy section on the grounds that it was conforming the category name to others in the category tree. The nomination was opposed (see copy of discussion below). The opposer said that "Emirati" was the correct demonym and that all the categories that use "United Arab Emirati" should be changed to "Emirati". The current situation is that all of them use "United Arab Emirati" (see Category:United Arab Emirati people, Category:United Arab Emirati people by ethnic or national origin, etc.). It's possible they all could be changed to "Emirati", but creating one category that is different than all the others is not the way to go about it. The way to go about it would be to nominate either Category:United Arab Emirati people as a test case or nominate all the applicable categories for renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think expert attention is needed. However, I don't think saying just Emirati will cause any confusion. --Deryck C. 14:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not, but the point of this discussion is not to choose which is correct. That would require a broader discussion. This is just one isolated category out-of-step with the others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, interesting post indeed. I must mention that there is no such term as "United Arab Emirati" and "Emirati" is in fact the correct denonym. And this had to be discussed at one point or another, because I personally created so many "United Arab Emirati" categories following other established ones. If we conform to what is correct, all categories in that case are incorrectly named and I would support any proposal which calls for massive renaming to "Emirati" Mar4d (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- this needs to be resolved by renaming the parent category, not a sample subcategory. "Emir" is a certain class of Arab ruler. An emirate is his kingdom. I suspect that there are other emirs with subjects outside UAE, though probably without full soverenignty. "Emirati" (if that is indeed the correct word) would refer to the subjects of any emir. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2011 (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: Upmerge to Category:Diplomatic missions in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Buildings and structures in Dublin (city). Ruslik_Zero 17:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name Category:Diplomatic missions in Dublin to Category:Diplomatic missions in Dublin (city).

• Nominator's rationale Per discussion at Dublin here a few days ago where the decision was to disambiguate Dublin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As the capital of Ireland, any diplomatic mission to Dublin is obviously going to be to the city instead of the county. This is taking disambiguation too far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency with other categories relating to the city of Dublin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is only one article in this cat and this cat is the only thing in the parent cat. Category:Diplomatic missions in the Republic of Ireland is part of ane established pattern but I see no reason to create a city cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I do not oppose removing this category until such time as there are more articles to populate it, but it should not be simply deleted. It should be upmerged to both Category:Diplomatic missions in the Republic of Ireland and to Buildings and structures in Dublin (city). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that was my intent. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Diplomatic Missions are government to government. They are thus normally located in the capital. There may be consultates elsewhere, but not embassies. However, there are most unlikely to be any missions in the Dublin region, other than the city; and if there are, ther eis no need to giove them a separate category. As usual with Iriush topics BHG has come up with a good solution, which I support. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with proposal to upmerge. This is an example of the many small cats in County Dublin that are not justified on their own. The Category:Landforms of County Dublin is repleat with sub-cats that contain only 1 article (and have no potential to have more0. They too would greatly benefit from upmerging to Category:Landforms of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Landforms of County Dublin. But that's a proposal for another day. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upmerge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2011 (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.