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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Category's empty anyway. Wizardman 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2012 Summer Paralympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - was nominated for deletion, then withdrawn, the redirected. There is no need for this category either free-standing or as a redirect at this time. Otto4711 (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:South Park Holiday Specials to Category:South Park holiday episodes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I've read a number of the articles about these episodes and there's nothing to suggest that all of them were "specials", unless by "special" it just means "special because it's holiday-focused". In all other respects they seem to just be regular episodes or regular length that aired at regular times, so we may as well use the normal naming word "episodes" and just call them "holiday episodes". This might be overcategorization by episode type, but I'm not familiar enough with how TV programs are commonly categorized to know for sure. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an overly bureaucratic fixation on semantics, but if you feel that it needs to be changed, go for it, man. As far as overcategorization, I don't think so. It would be reasonable to make the South Park Holiday Episodes a subcat of Christmas Episodes. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - categorizing individual episodes within a series based on their supposed theme is ridiculous. It's no different than the various "films about" categories that we've deleted, only more absurd because it's subdividing a single series. Next up: Category:South Park episodes about Terrence and Philip, Category:Three's Company episodes where someone mistakes an innocent conversation for a sexual conversation, Category:Bewitched episodes where Samantha saves an advertising client, the mind boggles. Nip this in the bud now before it spreads like the weed it is. Otto4711 (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. A Christmas special is a specific type of episode, whereas the other categories are plot lines. I'm not sure I completely understand why it is apparently so bad to categorize episodes this way? I believe that the better categorized episodes are, the easier they will be to find for the potential reader. L'Aquatique[talk] 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There currently is a Category:Christmas television episodes. As L'Aquatique pointed out, this category could be a subcategory of this, but isn't currently. I'm just not sure if we need to break down holiday/Christmas episodes by series. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit suspicious of that category as well. Otto4711 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For good reason, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Flowerparty^☀ 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Airdrie to Category:People from Airdrie, North Lanarkshire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Airdrie, North Lanarkshire. Airdrie is an ambiguous placename, there being an Airdrie, Alberta. The one in Scotland is pop. 36,000 and the one in Alberta is pop. 29,000 and on the main highway in the province, so neither appears to be the "primary" usage, hence the disambiguation page at Airdrie. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to remove confusion. Are all people here from North Lanarkshire?--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As Airdrie is a redirect, nominator's thinking seems to be consistent with the articlespace. Rename. Alai (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you meant "DAB page" rather than redirect? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, brainfart. Alai (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Clearly we need to fix the U.S. abbreviation so a no consensus close would leave a problem. I did not see a consensus to delete which was the other choice.Vegaswikian (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. female rugby union footballers to Category:American female rugby union footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change "U.S." to "American" per standard "adjectivizing" for sportspeople. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only one article. If there is a U.S. female (or women's) rugby union as apparently there is elsewhere, Women's international rugby union, then capitalize the proper name of the organization and add the other players; as it is, this has no basing in importance as rugby union seems to include all games played by that rules, amateur or professional, so that the characteristic may be purely trivial whereas tying it to a professional league minimizes that problem, here there is no attempt to do so. Furthermore, if kept or renamed, I don't know whether rugby players are called footballers in the United States, as American football players are certainly not so-called. If footballers is a Britishism that isn't used for American athletes, whatever is used in normal conversation is what should be used at WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, its parent categories are Category:Female rugby union footballers, and Category:American rugby union footballers. If you want to unpick the rationale for the target, you'll have to go quite a bit further up the hierarchy than that, to boot. (Personally my opinion on the whole U.S./United States vs. "American" thing would be that WP's jumped the shark something chronic on it, but I seem to be in a minority on that one. (Maybe something to do with the US bloc vote, but come to that, I'm none too thrilled about most of the "British" categories, either.)) Alai (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I know US-English and UK-English are Bill Gates's invention. "Rugby Union" is a code of Rugby football, as well as Association football is the English name of what some call "soccer"; anyway renaming category is fine for me. I see no use in deleting such category (where should we categorize a female U.S. rugby union player who won a Rugby World Cup?). Sergio † BC™ (Write me!) 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat it (talk • contribs) [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. Flowerparty^☀ 07:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rhett Akins songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one of the two songs in this category was actually sung by Rhett Akins, and even then, it was just a cover song he did for a soundtrack. The other was a song he wrote for Brooks & Dunn. This is spreading the category too thin methinks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - same as always, per Category:Songs by artist. I removed the song that he wrote, but the remaining song, which did chart and was used in a motion picture soundtrack, is notable as a Rhett Akins song so the category is appropriate. If you believe that songs should not be categorized based on cover versions, a wider discussion beyond the scope of this CFD is required. Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto. Eric444 (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Categorization by the actual legal region (or preferably department) of France does need to come first, although the Brittany category can be cat-disambiguated to deal with the Nantes problem. Bearcat (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Bretagne to Category:People from Brittany

Nominator's rationale: There is no distinction between "Brittany" and "Bretagne". Bretagne is just the French word for Brittany. The rationale for creating this distinction was that the Wikipedia article on the current French province (région) is called "Bretagne", but that article is purely about the administrative unit. All the articles on French provincial adminitrative units use the French name. But as a category, the distinction is meaningless. The article Brittany covers the whole history of the peninsula, and all articles on persons refer to them as "Bretons", or from "Brittany", since that's the English word for the area, including the province. Even French government publications use the name "Brittany", not "Bretagne" in their English language versions. In any case, many of the people listed were born before the provincal unit was created. The whole distinction between Brittany and Bretagne is nonsensical and unworkable. Who gets added to which of the two categories seems to be almost wholly arbitrary. This also applies to the subcatgories "composers from Bretagne", "Writers from Bretagne", "Musicians from Bretagne". Paul B (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes A) Let's include the 5-strong Category:Bretons, no? B) Only the Bretagne category is currently tagged. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bretagne is the French region, and people from that French region should be categorized there. For people from the historical region of Brittany (whose borders differed from the French region), before the region was established as such, they belong in the people from Brittany. Right now there is a mix & match approach, but there is a distinction. For example, the largest city of Brittany, Nantes is not in Bretagne.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These point do not, I think, address the issue. The ambiguity of where "Brittany" begins and ends is not a simple distinction betwen the modern region and a clear earlier unit. The modern region was created in 1941, but Nantes ceased to be part of a legal concept of Brittany/Bretagne in 1789. So when does someone from Nantes cease to be a Breton? 1789 or 1941? Are there no Bretons between 1789 and 1941? These problems of definition exist with almost all national/regional categories because of changes in borders over history. The issue is whether it is helpful to have distictions in categories that arbitrarily break up membership, which vitiates the usefulness of the categories altogether, and whether it is proper to arbitarily use the French "Bretagne", which is contrary to common use naming rules, when the default should be "Brittany", with a subcategory of "from Bretagne" if and where it is necessary to specify the region. In reality, people from the modern region are "from Brittany" in English and there is no useful point made by preferring the French spelling or dividing up, say, composers from before and after 1941 (or whenever it is supposed to be). For example the category "composers from Bretagne" includes eight persons. Two of them, Jean Cras and Maurice Duhamel, died before the region even existed, and two more lived the great majority of their lives before it existed. This makes the category title nonsensical. If it were simply called "composers from Brittany" it would logically include all eight persons, since the term "Brittany" encompasses the region, the Duchy and the peninsula when it had no legal administrative existence from 1789-1941. If the category were to become over-populated, then sub-categories could be usefully created, but there's not much likelihood of that is there? Paul B (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure this is a worthwhile or practical distinction in any case (per the nom), but at the moment the two cats, neither of which refer to the other by note or link on the page etc, are hopelessly intermingled. The modern "Bretagne" region has only existed since (!)1941, but Brittany in fact did not cease to exist between 1791-1941, although it had no official status. We only have 16 sub-cats to Category:People by French department and don't have one for Loire-Atlantique or whatever, and only have 42 in Category:People from Pays de la Loire - the region- which seems a tiny number, and also includes many from well before the region was created. I think we should merge these two, and the Bretons, with a note explaining the whole historical Duchy is covered. Of course there is a movement to reunite Loire-Atlantique with the rest, and Breton flags etc are not exactly unknown in Nantes in my experience. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Bretagne is merely the French word for what the English call Brittany, and its residents are Bretons. Merge all preferably to Category:Bretons. I do not think we can go in for over-nice distinctions between residents, Breton-language speakers etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per earlier arguments, or else rename one, (or possibly both), to make the distinction explicit. Note that In Another Place, these are variously at fr:Catégorie:Région Bretagne and fr:Catégorie:Bretagne. That's at least a feasible naming distinction -- how manageable it is in practice is another matter. Alai (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Flowerparty^☀ 07:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elfen Lied songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory of Elfen Lied. Of the three items in the category, one is a user page, and the other two articles being merged elsewhere. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, unnecessary category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as uneccesary. cat:animated series songs plus cat:elfen lied will suffice.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge 70.55.85.131 (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Flowerparty^☀ 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Organizations in San Francisco‎ to Category:Organizations based in San Francisco‎, California

Propose renaming Category:Organizations in San Diego‎ to Category:Organizations based in San Diego‎, California

Propose renaming Category:Organizations based in Pittsburgh‎ to Category:Organizations based in Pittsburgh‎, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Organizations based in Philadelphia‎ to Category:Organizations based in Philadelphia‎, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Organizations based in Omaha‎ to Category:Organizations based in Omaha‎, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Organizations in Denver‎ to Category:Organizations based in Denver‎, Colorado

Propose renaming Category:Organizations based in Chicago‎ to Category:Organizations based in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Organizations based in Atlanta‎ to Category:Organizations based in Atlanta‎, Georgia

Nominator's rationale: Standardization of category names. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, and consistency with parent cat name. Neier (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Flowerparty^☀ 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of Baltimore‎ to Category:History of Baltimore‎, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:History of Austin‎ to Category:History of Austin‎, Texas

Propose renaming Category:History of Atlanta‎ to Category:History of Atlanta‎, Georgia

Propose renaming Category:History of Baton Rouge‎ to Category:History of Baton Rouge‎, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:History of Chicago‎ to Category:History of Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:History of Cleveland‎ to Category:History of Cleveland‎, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:History of Cincinnati‎ to Category:History of Cincinnati‎, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:History of Detroit‎ to Category:History of Detroit‎, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:History of Denver‎ to Category:History of Denver‎, Colorado

Propose renaming Category:History of Indianapolis‎ to Category:History of Indianapolis‎, Indiana

Propose renaming Category:History of Miami‎ to Category:History of Miami‎, Florida

Propose renaming Category:History of Nashville‎ to Category:History of Nashville‎, Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:History of New Orleans‎ to Category:History of New Orleans‎, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:History of Olympia‎ to Category:History of Olympia‎, Washington

Propose renaming Category:History of Omaha‎ to Category:History of Omaha‎, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:History of Pittsburgh to Category:History of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:History of Philadelphia‎ to Category:History of Philadelphia‎, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:History of San Francisco‎ to Category:History of San Francisco‎, California

Propose renaming Category:History of San Diego‎ to Category:History of San Diego‎, California

Propose renaming Category:History of Seattle‎ to Category:History of Seattle‎, Washington

Propose renaming Category:History of Tulsa‎ to Category:History of Tulsa‎, Oklahoma

Nominator's rationale: Standardization of category names. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all yesEuroleague (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, and consistency with parent cat name. Neier (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Steam5 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong feeling of total pointlessness. Alai (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Flowerparty^☀ 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Audio technology to Category:Sound technology

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Any discernible difference? 6 articles in candidate, destination well-populated. Both in Category:Sound and Category:Technology by type. Lainagier (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, but with a category redirect, as for many contexts "audio" is the standard term. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Flowerparty^☀ 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Fiji actors to Category:Fijian actors
• Category:Fiji anthropologists to Category:Fijian anthropologists
• Category:Fiji film director to Category:Fijian film directors
• Category:Fiji writers to Category:Fijian writers

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with everything else in Category:Fijian people by occupation. (And in the case of "Fiji film director", to get it into the standard plural form.) --Paul A (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom for consistency and based on precedent. These categories were created by an editor who maintains that "Fijian" should be limited to an ethnicity only. See related 2008 MAY 18 CfD, where this argument was presented and category was renamed to Category:Fijian swimmers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom and Good Ol’factory. This reminds me of the Afghan categories where a somewhat analagous debate ultimately came down in favor of Afghan rather than Afghanistani. Cgingold (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to match precedent.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Fijian is the nationality and should include all races/ethnicities; people who are not Fijian citizens but have ancestors who were Fijian citizens don't belong in these cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The only entry was Azoic age, so we've not lost much if someone wants to recreate under a better name. Flowerparty^☀ 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terms used to describe rocks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Poor category name, only one entry. Not likely to be populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Only article is categorized ok. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although I love the possibilities. Otto4711 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to Template:Mineral identification--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Geology is an enormous parent category, so that I dare not suggest "upmerge". Rename possibly to Category:Classification of Rocks, which is probably better than the technical term, which is I think "Petrology". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Flowerparty^☀ 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian people to Category:Christians

Nominator's rationale: Conformity with other such categories (e.g. Category:Hindus or Category:Muslims), unnecessary qualifier. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don t really care which of the two it is but do care that there is consistency. I m hoping to see however consistency across the board and wonder if then Category:Basque people should be Category:Basques (ie. people by ethnic group) and Category:Spanish people should be then Category:Spaniards? The difference between people by religion, by ethnicity, and by nationality can be fuzzy with respect to a few members of each set (eg. Jews/Jewish people are both a people by religion and ethnicity; many peoples from ancient times lived in nation states ill-defined in terms of geopolitics that are probably more aptly described as peoples by ethnicity, as well as modern sub-national groups such as Kurds, Palestinians, Basques, Romani, etc.). I very much would like to see the members of Category:People by race or ethnicity, Category:People by nationality, and Category:People by religion follow a consistent naming pattern Mayumashu (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we know, lots of countries don't have an easy equivalent of "Spaniards" - the adjectives give us enough trouble. And Basques has potential ambiguity :) Religions, being mostly older than countries, have nearly all got terms sorted out in English - except for Orthodox I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, that Dutch, English, French, etc don t have such equivalents. I think (then) that use of 'people' is better, across the board, again, as 'people by religion' is an extension of 'people by ethnicity' which overlaps with 'people by nationality'. Oppose Mayumashu (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You do realize that Christians are not a people, right? If anything, it's one of the most globalized identities. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christians are not a people? I know many Christians who would disagree with that. And anyway, the article People you linked to says: "The term people can collectively refer to all humans or it can be used to identify the citizens of a nation, or members of a tribe, ethnic, or religious group." (emphasis added). It's a very large group and very widespread, but that doesn't mean it's "wrong" to use the phrase "Christian people". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; Mayumashu brings up a good point that I think Johnbod effectively counters; Dominican Republic and Dominica and the various incarnations of Congo, two Georgias (one subnational, acknowledged) have been the subjects of several debates in recent months. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency's sake if nothing else. -Sean Curtin (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak rename. Hm, I don't know, I could go either way on this and in the end will just go for a rename for consistency. In the abstract, I personally would probably prefer the use of "people", but since all the other religion categories don't use people, then this one probably shouldn't either. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate proposal: Rename to Category:Christian individuals. This has the virtue of clarity and precision, in contrast to the inherent ambiguity of Category:Christians or Category:Christian people. Cgingold (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is the ambiguity in a category named "Christians?" Is this somehow more ambiguous than Category:Hindus, for instance? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communist newspapers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose renaming Category:Communist newspapers to Category:Newspapers published by Communist parties

Nominator's rationale: This article documents some left-leaning newspapers. There is no significant discussion about the term "communist newspaper" in peer-reviewed academic journals. This category includes List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom. But the article List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom actually documents left-wing newspapers which include socialist and anarchist newspapers also. Socialist and anarchist newspapers are never "communist". The ideology of Moscow News is hard to determine. I will propose to rename this category to Category:Newspapers published by Communist parties. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, category also includes papers published by communist youth league, etc. However, inclusion into the category should be limited to explicitly communist publications. --Soman (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Newspapers published by Communist organizations would take care of both of these concerns. Cgingold (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Cgingold - also avoids problem of whether newspapers from an organization necessarily allign 100% with the publicly-stated views thereof. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Cgingold, proposed name seems more reasonable.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, i still think 'keep' is a better option, and just weeding out the non-communist publications from the category. There are several cases, such as large parts of the Swedish communist press, were newspapers were functioning as press outlets of the communist party but were the formal publishership was independent (in order to avoid banning the newspaper if the party was banned). --Soman (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They could be published by different communist organizations, not necessarily parties.Biophys (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete per consensus below, pre-emptive emptying of the category notwithstanding. Bencherlite^Talk 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums produced by Robert Ellis Orrall ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; his only credits are as co-producer (note that he's one of five producers on Weather the Storm, one of three on Taylor Swift (album), and one of two on Michael Peterson (album). A search turned up no other albums that he has produced, save for some non-notable indie rock stuff on his own label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is similar to Category:Albums produced by Rick Rock (by the same user), which is being put up for deletion for the same reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and my general apprehensions about this entire categorization scheme. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify (if necessary). Though this is about a producer not a performer, the precedent for not categorising performer by performance springs to mind. Listing in the article on the producer should be quite good enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Flowerparty^☀ 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:North Korean-American relations to Category:North Korea–United States relations

Nominator's rationale: Per main article -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - Country X-Country Y is the proper formulation for categories like this -- not adjectives. Cgingold (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to refer to countries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Greater Wellington to Category:People from Wellington Region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Both names are commonly used; "Wellington Region" is the official and legal name used in New Zealand law; however, Wellington Region tends to call itself "Greater Wellington" in all but the most formal documents. Probably either would be acceptable but since the main article is at Wellington Region and the main category at Category:Wellington Region, I think we should conform this category to them. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent cat and article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's further confusion likely here, too. In general usage, "Greater Wellington" is often not the same as the Wellington Region, but rather relates to the four cities of Wellington urban area. The Wellington Region is the official governmental region which covers the four cities of Wellington, Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt and Porirua, plus the hinterland stretching up the Kapiti Coast and across to the Wairarapa. "Greater Wellington" in general refers normally only to the urban area around the four cities, and I'm quite surprised that the Wellington Regional Council uses the term in the way it does. I have no objection to a parent category for Category:People from Wellington Region, but that may be a substantial rescoping when I suspect that this category is likely to be for Category:People from the Wellington urban area. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some people from the Wairarapa currently in the category, which (as you state) is in the Wellington Region but not part of the four cities in the Wellington urban area. I would assume Category:People from Wellington is for anyone from the 4 cities since that's what the article Wellington is about. Would not the hypothetical name for just people from the city of Wellington be Category:People from Wellington City, to match Wellington City? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, though I hadn't realised that Wellington City had been moved from its earlier location at Wellington (the article, that is, not the city itself :). In either case, "Greater Wellington" is too ambiguous to survive as a title. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Flowerparty^☀ 07:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online music stores selling in Canada ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It is pretty much useless, and it haven´t been edited since last year. There is not a lot to be said about a group of music stores available in Canada except, well, selling music in Canada ometzit<col> (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete presumably any Canadian with a credit card can order from iTunes, Amazon, and nearly any other US-based seller, and perhaps most non-North American ones too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While I agree that it's WP:OCAT, it's actually not the case that any Canadian with a credit card can buy music from any American music website. We can now, but for the first couple of years Canadians couldn't even buy from iTunes. eMusic is open to Canadians, but still blocks some titles. And while I can't swear to this, IIRC Napster still isn't open to Canadians at all (though correct me if I'm wrong). It's deletable, but mainly because it duplicates existing categories (and no other country has a subcategory of this type, either) rather than for the reason cited by Carlossuarez46. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2012 Summer Paralympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is an empty category, so I see no reason for it to be here. Once there is something to put in it, it can be recreated. However, it recently survived a CFD discussion, so I have declined the speedy and here it goes. Dlohcierekim 01:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now populated by the page on 2012 Summer Paralympics (category often forgotten in creating the page) and will no doubt have more by 2012! Hugo999 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn. please speedy keep' In view of the fact that the only reason I could think of to delete it is no longer true and it's recent survival at an earlier CFD, nom withdrawn. Dlohcierekim 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Flowerparty^☀ 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theistics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Indiscriminate category subject to interpretation and as similar to previous debate on List of Christians, unhelpful to have here. Rodhullandemu 01:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Meaningless neologism. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what is a Theistic vs. a Theist vs. a Deist? Totally a confusion, and I think that more than just Christians believe in God, but that's a bigger debate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What do we call a person who believes in God(s) but it is unclear what religion they belong to or they don't belong to any religion? Mytruck (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge to the alternative proposal. About the only clear consensus decision here is that merges are needed. If there are objections to the one used, feel free to bring it up as a rename, but I suspect either of the options should be acceptable. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Bamian Province and Category:Bamiyan Province into Category:Bamyan Province
• Merge Category:Nurestan Province into Category:Nuristan Province
• Merge Category:Uruzgan Province into Category:Orūzgān Province

Different transliterations for the same provinces. And - despite the fact that the name Bamiyan is perhaps better known in the English-speaking world - the target names are consistent with the articles on the provinces. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Soft directs is also reccomended.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What, no Bamyian Province???
  

Okay, on a more serious note... I'm really not sure which of these we should go with. I'm not terribly impressed by the fact that the articles happen to have a certain name at this particular point in time, even though that's generally what we go by. For example, "Bamiyan" gets far more G-hits than the other spellings, but of course, that doesn't necessarily settle the issue. So I've asked for input from two WikiProjects (Afghanistan & Geography). There's one other thing I want to mention -- these duplicate cats are all very recent creations, and mostly the work of one editor, the redoubtable Blofeld of SPECTRE. Very strange -- what was he thinking?? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I created the categories following this Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot. I wasn't going to create sub categories for afghanistan. Remember though 1100 article will be added and they were to prepare for this. Apologies if I got some of the spellings wrong but I set them up for a reason ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, one way or the other. Doesn't matter to me which, if the article's at the "wrong" title, let's sort that out as speedily as possible, and then follow suit with the category. Alai (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we should settle on the province names. My personal preference would be to follow the ghits if it's overwhelming and not trumped by some serious additional usage apart from the geographic:

• Nuristan is 3x Nurestan (150K to 50K)
• Uruzgan is 9x Oruzgan (1300K to 150K)
• Bamiyan (446K) is 3X Bamian (155K) and 4X Bamyan (113K)

Google News for 2008 (reflecting probably current usage):

• Nuristan (26) Nurestan (3)
• Uruzgan (205) Oruzgan (556) <-- note difference from ghits
• Bamiyan (251) Bamian (15) Bamyan (13)

Google Scholar (reflecting academic usage):

• Nuristan (996) Nurestan (47)
• Uruzgan (320) Oruzgan (136)
• Bamiyan (2060) Bamian (932) Bamyan (442)

• So, I would
• Merge Category:Bamian Province and Category:Bamyan Province into Category:Bamiyan Province (contrary to nom.)
• Merge Category:Nurestan Province into Category:Nuristan Province (per nom.)
• Merge Category:Orūzgān Province into Category:Uruzgan Province (contrary to nom.)

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for doing the legwork on this, Carlossuarez -- I support this alternate proposal. I suppose we should take care of renaming the articles in accord with these findings. Cgingold (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm perfectly happy with this alternative propsal, as long as the redundancy is removed. As Alai in particular will be aware, though, this has bearing on a current split going on at WP:WSS/P, so any changes made here should be taken into consideration there too. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge certainly. I'm sure Carlos is right, but my personal preference is to stick with the main articles, per nom. However, I will follow concensus. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Flowerparty^☀ 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Accessible transit services to Category:Paratransit services

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ambiguous name. The proposed name matches the main article, Paratransit. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. I'd also like to note that while the edit history will show me as the creator, I merely moved this from a misspelled title ("assessible") that was created by someone else some time earlier. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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