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) 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic Church in Comoros ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Roman Catholic Church in Kyrgyzstan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Roman Catholic Church in Turkmenistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Roman Catholic Church in Uzbekistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A user recently created a whole swath of one-article categories for "Roman Catholic Church in XXXX". I've gone through and tried to populate them as well as I can. These ones, however, I have been unable to find any subcategories or articles to put in them. Unless someone can find other articles or subcategories for them, I suggest deleting them until they can hold more than the main article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Isn't this part of a larger scheme explicitly allowed for by WP:SMALLCAT? Is there something I'm missing here? In principle, these could all be larger (biographies of bishops, articles about demographics, or dioceses, etc.), so I don't see the harm in letting them continue to exist as a part of the larger scheme. By the way, if my questions come across as sarcastic, they're not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've seen, the SMALLCAT exception tends to apply when there is only one article place in a category, but I've not seen it applied to categories that only have one article about the general topic. For example, SMALLCAT could apply if Category:Mozambican dentists had one article about a person, but I wouldn't think it would apply if the only article were Dentalcare in Mozambique. In the latter case, it's just overcategorization. Why can't the article Roman Catholicism in Comoros just go in the category Category:Roman Catholic Church by country rather than the one-article category? Nothing is lost in terms of navigation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:SMALLCAT is for categories with no potential for growth, which cannot be said of any of these categories, as articles about Catholic schools, cathedrals, clerics, and so on are created at a prodigious rate. - choster (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale for the nomination was not and is not WP:SMALLCAT. It is that there is presently only one eponymous-topic article in it—the category is not needed at this time and it doesn't improve navigation. The exception serves an exception in the case when there is in fact no potential for growth. Since there is potential for growth here, SMALLCAT is not used. But potential is just that—potential. We don't pre-emptively create categories "just in case" they come in handy in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to equivalent continental categories, at least for the three Central Asian counties. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2010 (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. (Articles should be forthcoming soon.) Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pig-faced women to Category:Images of pig-faced women

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is an image-only category. (Insert joke here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• These are all PD pictures, shouldn't they be better be at Commons? It probably needs no action, the uploader can handle it once he's through with this. East of Borschov 04:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they should be at commons but they are not. Until they are, they aren't, and we deal with them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As East of Borschov says, it's an image-only category at the moment purely because I haven't finished the articles which are going to populate it. Nice of you to nominate it here less than 12 hours after it was created and without bothering to notify me, though. – iridescent 18:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My pleasure? I thought generally content is produced first, then the category to hold it, but that's just me I suppose. The trend seems to be create categories now, fill them up later (see nom directly above). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Women with pig's heads - or "pigs'" Category:Women with the head of a pig - something more precise anyway, and assuming articles arrive. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pig-faced woman" (or occasionally "swine's-faced lady" or "hog-faced gentlewoman") is the correct term. This isn't a generic "women with pig's heads" category; the pig-faced woman is a genuine, albeit today almost forgotten, character from English folklore. If Category:Women with pig's heads is created, Category:Pig-faced women will still need to be created to separate this specific usage out from images of Varahi and so on. If it's causing problems, speedy the category and I'll re-create it in a week or so once the first few articles in the series are ready. – iridescent 23:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's see the articles. I suppose this can be kept on hold till then. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with that, presuming the articles are forthcoming soon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 25 July 2010 (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. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Athlete-politicians to Category:Sports competitors who became politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As with the below nomination, for more clarity as what is meant by the cat's name. (Alternatively, it could be Category:Sportspeople who became politicians to include any non-competitors.) Mayumashu (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is - I don't see any fuzziness or lack of clarity here. Why fix what ain't broken? Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Competitors in athletics who are now politicians? Were politicians? Sports competitors of any sort who are? Were? Mayumashu (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Canadian musicians'. Were/are canadian, were/are musicians? The same argument applies to most categories. Occuli (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming per cgingold. There's no point in adding redundant terminology or excessive verbosity or increasing the word-count ... etc.
  No objections to deleting this category if anyone else is so minded, although we been there before: no consensus at CFD 2009 April 14. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as a non-notable intersection between two different careers. Yes, some athletes use their celebrity status as a springboard to political office. Most don't. Celebrities of various stripes sometimes attempt to parley success in one field into success in another, but that doesn't mean we should be categorizing every intersection of old profession and new. Someone minor league baseball player who got enough coverage to be considered notable for it gets elected mayor 30 years later. Where's the connection between old career and new? There isn't one and by asserting there is (which it does by its existence) the category is an exercise in original research. Otto4711 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely disagree with your assessment -- see my remarks below. Cgingold (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Otto. Can we finally dispatch this and its subcategories? I honestly don't understand why these have persisted even though a high number of other categories that categorize people by intersection of two occupations have been deleted. This should be sufficiently dealt with by the lists that already exist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Also, as nominator, I d support delete as my second choice. Mayumashu (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that if we're going to delete, there are 19 sub-categories which also need to be zapped. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cgingold. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Cgingold's opinion relates to the proposed rename only and not deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be ridiculous. Surely you remember that I argued strongly for these categories in the previous CFD. Cgingold (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't recall it (and don't call me Shirley!) but that doesn;t change the fact that in this discussion your comment was about the rename only. Otto4711 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Athletes who became politicians. The category should be limited to those who were notable in both respects. Politicians by former career should be a respectible cat-tree. Previous occupation is likley to be a notable feature of theri political career. This is a well-populated category, with well over 100 people in sub-cats (all of whcih will also have to be renamed). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the encyclopedic relationship between "played sports" and "ran for office"? The number of people in the category and its subcats is not relevant. If it's a bad category it's a bad category regardless of size. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not merely incidental that these people have played sports. It's all about the relationship they've established with the public through their careers as (in most cases) star athletes. It's doubtful in the extreme that any of these people would ever have been elected to office without the visibility, name recognition, and -- absurd though it is -- the level of trust they enjoy with the public as a direct result of their careers in sports. Does anybody seriously believe, for example, that a certifiable cretin like Jim Bunning could ever have been elected to the US Senate if he hadn't been a star baseball pitcher?? Unimagineable. (I am not by any means suggesting that *all* athletes are as stupid as Bunning.) While there are exceptions, in many countries this is a very noteworthy socio-political phenomenon. In short, this particular nexus is indeed highly significant -- hardly a random intersection by any stretch of the imagination. Cgingold (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you cite some reliable sources that support the notion that there is a direct relationship between participating in sports and then later being elected to public office? Are there sources that support the assertion that "it's doubtful in the extreme" that the people in this category could have been elected to public office in the absence of participating in sports? I would certainly not deny that they may have received some advantage from name recognition, but anyone running for office is going to benefit from previous name recognition regardless of the origin of that recognition. I read the previous debate on this category and there were several newspaper articles and what-not that mentioned that various category members had played sports and were also politicians, but many requests for sources that demonstrated a causal connection between them or that studied the phenomenon of athletes who become politicians went unanswered. I can't see how in the absence of such sources that this category tree can be considered anything other than synthesis. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but that is not the standard for Categories. Original Research applies to the content in articles, which is not what we are dealing with here. (In fact, the word "category" does not appear even once on that page.) I have laid out a very credible case for these two categories, and that should be more than sufficient. Clearly a main article can be written on this topic, which is all that is needed to meet the threshold for a category. It is not the case that I am required to supply the research for that article in order to create or defend the category. Cgingold (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OR applies to all material published on Wikipedia, which includes categories. Claiming that we can publish original thought just as long as it's somewhere other than in the text of an article is nonsensical. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, do not rename, do not delete. The present name is succinct and clear; the intersection seems non-trivial to me. Occuli (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon what reliable sources are you basing that conclusion? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't share your belief that there is any research involved in intersecting 2 categories. Occuli (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When the category is asserting that there is a relationship between the two intersected categories and when that assertion is defended by editors insisting that the relationship is of encyclopedic value then yes, there is research involved. This isn't a simple cataloging of fact like some other intersection categories. This is an assertion that there is a relationship between the points of intersection. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See my remarks just above, which take issue with your assertions here. Cgingold (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not only is the category trivial overcategorization in every possible aspect, regardless whether it's renamed or not, the name of the category also makes comes across as if the people categorized are both currently athletes and politicians. There may be the rare cases where that's true (I haven't checked the contents), but there is no correlation or defining characteristic between a politician who was a former sportsperson. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is- I've had the keep argument a million times and don't care to recount it again... as for the renaming... while the two terms mean the same thing... I still see this as a springboard for somebody to alter the nature of the category itself by claiming sports competitors do not include coaches and people not physically involved in the sport (even though those people are still competitors by the fact that they are involved). Still, the bottom line is it's an unecessary change to a longer term.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just hit me what this nomination is all about and I have a further point... it doesn't matter if the proffesional athlete became a proffessional politician or if the proffessional politician became a proffesional athlete. Order does not matter... notability is not a temporary thing... also sports competitors makes it sound like anyone who played a sport and became a politician should be in this category... isn;t that almost all politicians. If 80 something Senator Daniel Inoyea makes it onto an olympic curling team then he's in.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2010 (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. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Actor-politicians to Category:Actors who became politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity, as all began as actors and subsequently became politicians. Mayumashu (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is - I don't see any fuzziness or lack of clarity here. Why fix what ain't broken? Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as a non-notable intersection between two different careers. Yes, some actors use their celebrity status as a springboard to political office. Most don't. Celebrities of various stripes sometimes attempt to parley success in one field into success in another, but that doesn't mean we should be categorizing every intersection of old profession and new. Some actor who got just enough coverage to be considered notable for it gets elected mayor 30 years later. Where's the connection between old career and new? There isn't one and by asserting there is (which it does by its existence) the category is an exercise in original research. Otto4711 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely disagree with your assessment -- see my remarks below. Cgingold (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Otto4711 ... and if not deleted, oppose the proposed verbose new name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto. Can we finally dispatch this and its subcategories? I honestly don't understand why these have persisted even though a high number of other categories that categorize people by intersection of two occupations have been deleted. This should be sufficiently dealt with by the lists that already exist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is - Category makes more sense to me as it is right now Anirvan (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Also, as nominator, I d support delete as my second choice. Mayumashu (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that if we're going to delete, there are 9 sub-categories which also need to be zapped. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is it covers all three varieties - actors who became politicians, politicians who became actors, and political comediants. No need to split all three, sometimes it's too hard to tell one sort from the other... As for Otto's objection, the intersection is not non-notable. Acting and politics share too much to be overlooked as a trivial intersection. East of Borschov 12:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What specifically do acting and politics share in common? Otto4711 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Arthur Miller presented the subject much better than yours truly could: On Politics and the Art of Acting. "It is all very theatrical but the closest thing to a deliberately rehearsed passion that I witnessed was the organized mob of Republicans banging threateningly on the door of a Florida vote counting office and howling for the officials inside to stop counting" :))) East of Borschov 16:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But that isn't about people who were once actors by profession who became politicians by profession. Otto4711 (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cgingold. If deletion is being considered the last debate should be linked to. No-one could reasonably claim the intersection is not notable in Indian politics, not even Otto. We've been though all this before. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Cgingold's "keep" opinion relates only to the rename proposal and is silent on the question of deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be ridiculous. Surely you remember that I argued strongly for these categories in the previous CFD. Cgingold (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Politicians by former career sought to be a worthwhile category. I would not advocate this for every pair of careers, but it is useful for politics. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Much as I explained above with respect to athletes, it's not merely incidental that these people have been actors. In large measure, it's about the relationship they've established with the public through their careers in movies or television. It's highly doubtful that very many of these people would ever have been elected to office without the visibility, name recognition, and -- absurd though it is -- the level of trust they enjoy with the public as a direct result of their careers as actors. Equally important, their acting skills and their ease in front of tv cameras pay huge dividends in the political realm. In many countries this is a very noteworthy socio-political phenomenon. In short, this particular nexus is highly significant -- hardly a random intersection by any stretch of the imagination. Cgingold (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but this is one assumption after another. There is nothing offered here or elsewhere that establishes that the people categorized here wouldn't have been elected in the absence of an acting career, nothing that establishes that their name recognition as actors got them elected, nothing that indicates that their supposed ease in front of a camera led to their choice of a political career or to their electoral success. I would note that this category applies equally to bad actors who were hated by the public, were thoroughly uncomfortable on camera and ran unsuccessfully for office and is not limited in any way to the popular and successful. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking your last remark first, I will simply state the obvious: such people are highly unlikely to have articles to begin with, and certainly would not be found in this category, which is for individuals who have had notable careers in both realms. As for the rest, I will repeat what I just posted in the related CFD above: I have laid out a very credible case for these two categories, and that should be more than sufficient. Clearly a main article can be written on this topic, which is all that is needed to meet the threshold for a category. It is not the case that I am required to supply the research for that article in order to create or defend the category. Cgingold (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? People who are bad at their chosen professions are unlikely to have articles? Can you point me toward the clause in our notability guidelines which specifies that? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Try "The Painted Face of Politics: The Actor-Politicians of South India." In Cinema and Cultural Identity, ed. Wimal Dissanayake. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 127—147. . 1991, or any biography of Ronald Reagan & many other figures. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, do not rename, do not delete. The present name is succinct and clear; the intersection seems non-trivial to me. Occuli (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Same questions as above apply. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not only is the category trivial overcategorization in every possible aspect, regardless whether it's renamed or not, the name of the category also makes comes across as if the people categorized are both currently actors and politicians. There may be the rare cases where that's true (the Governator comes to mind), but there is no correlation or defining characteristic between a politician who was a former actor. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As is - Notability is not a transient thing... if a politician becomes an actor (as long as he is truly professionally known for both and not merely playing some version of his or herself in movies and TV)... then it doesn't matter what came first.. the actor or the politician.. I believe there's a wikipedia guideline that says notability is not temporary.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2010 (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. Category was not tagged.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uffie EPs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is a list of Uffie's singles that have been mislabeled as EPs. These songs should be placed under Category:Uffie songs. Burnberrytree (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Pop the Glock and Pop the Glock/Ready to Uff appear to have been released as EPs. How are these mislabeled? — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the pre-1707 English Parliament to Category:Members of the pre-1707 Parliament of England

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article Parliament of England. After the move, please re-create the existing title as a {{Category redirect}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support -- This is harmless change, though I am not sure that it is needed. I hope that in the long term, we can split this by Parliaments, as with Britsih & UK Parliaments. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Zero-carbon economy to Category:Low-carbon economy

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Not clearly resolved at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 9#Category:Carbon economy. Fayenatic (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a small category. We had similar category:Carbon economy merged to Category:Zero-carbon economy. The only entry in this category about zero-carbon is Zero-carbon city. Other entries does not belong here. Renewable energy is not necessarily zero-carbon. Icelandic New Energy is a promoter of hydrogen fuel. Although hydrogen fuel itself does not contain carbon, its production is not necessarily carbon-free. London Green500 is about a plan to reduce carbon emissions by 60% in London, so it is definitely not a zero-carbon economy. Beagel (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Sculptures by Louis-Philippe Hébert. — ξ^xplicit 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louis-Philippe Hébert ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No main article for Louis-Philippe Hébert. If there's no article, there shouldn't be a category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this one: a category, but no article?!? So of course I had to see if there really and truly wasn't an article about him. And sure enough, there isn't. But I discovered that the mysterious M. Hébert was apparently an eminent sculptor -- credited with all four of the monuments that are listed in this wrongly-named category. The real solution is two-fold: somebody should start an article about Hébert; and more immediately, this category should simply be renamed to Category:Sculptures by Louis-Philippe Hébert -- no need to wait for an article. (The new category should be parented under Category:Sculptures by artist.) Cgingold (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – it would be easy enough to write an article: see fr:Louis-Philippe_Hébert_(sculpteur). It should really be renamed to something like Category:Works by Louis-Philippe Hébert. (There are several Louis-Philippe Héberts, all from Quebec.) Occuli (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. Looks like we're basically on the same page! (We were even editing at the same time.) Cgingold (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sculptures by Louis-Philippe Hébert is an even better name. (Odd that your comment was saved after my comment but has preceded it above.) Occuli (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wondered about that, too. That's how it popped out when I saved my edit. Maybe the software takes account of when a preliminary save is entered (using the "Show preview" button)? Very strange. Cgingold (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jean Dubuffet ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edgar Degas ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thomas Cole ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If all artist categories are being reduced like this, it makes sense. dm (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2010 (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 as proposed. Ruslik_Zero 13:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of climate ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Climate history. The current name just isn't grammatically correct. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if there are articles covering the history of the concept/science of climate, then the name is fine for those articles. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What you're talking about would be the history of climate science. There are perhaps a couple of articles that meet that description (Historical climatology and History of climate change science), but the vast majority of the articles that are in this category clearly pertain to "Climate history". Cgingold (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by school in Los Angeles, California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no category tree Category:People by school. The prevalent pattern is to cat alumni/former students and academics/faculty separately. Mayumashu (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- This is an aberrant category name, but it is combining alumni and faculty. The concept is clearly not stupid. How do we ensure that these are linked? Perhaps this shpould be done through the school articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2010 (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. A global nomination would be a good idea. Ruslik_Zero 13:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Categories named after populated places to Category:Eponymous categories for populated places

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These categories are better described as being for their corresponding populated places rather than named after them. (I will submit the subcategories for speedy rename should this nomination go through.) Mayumashu (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The subcategories of Category:Eponymous categories are all titled "Categories named after (X)".--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This nom could 'reset' that precedent. Mayumashu (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable enough. I'm fine with that if there's a global nomination to that effect.-Mike Selinker (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. What is the purpose of this category? Category:Porto Alegre is for the city of Porto Alegre and its subtopics. Isn't it obvious that a category for a city is eponymous with the city? Or is it simply a tool for an alternative grouping (i.e. raising a category buried deep in Category:Populated places in Rio Grande do Sul up to ...in Brazil)? East of Borschov 06:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally the categories named after are used when the contents are so diverse that they no longer correctly roll up into other categories. Parent categories should basically be inclusive of the contents of the children. So if a category includes buildings, people and transportation, finding a 'correct' parent is difficult and since all categories should really have a parent, this solution provides a home. Generally, but not always, categories like these will have no other parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't get it, perhaps an example could help? All I can think of are curiosities like Category:Moose Jaw ("named after the animal Moose" or "named after the body part Jaw" or?). East of Borschov 11:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • An example would be Category:Michael Jackson should not be included as a subcategory of Category:2009 deaths and the numerous other categories that apply to Michael Jackson. Rather the category is just made a subcategory of Category:Categories named after American musicians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such confusion / lack of self-evident meaning is exactly why the current name doesn t work well semantically. A better definition of eponymity or eponymous is to 'share a name', not to 'be named after' - there is no before and after here, as there is with Moose Jaw being named after the jaw of a moose. Mayumashu (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, if the nominator agrees to work on implementing this for the other subcategories of Category:Eponymous categories. I think either name is fine, but do agree that matching the name to Category:Eponymous categories is probably better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People from Mendoza (city), Argentina. — ξ^xplicit 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Mendoza to Category:People from Mendoza, Argentina

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article name. TM 12:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People from Mendoza (city), Argentina to, in addition, disambiguate from the Argentine province and department. Mayumashu (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me.--TM 20:39, 2 August 2010 (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: Category Speedy Deleted per creator's request. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Delete category.

Reason: I just created this category, but determined that the existing Category:Palaephatidae category will work just as well. Dawynn (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In a case like this all you, as the creator, have to do is post {{db-author}} on the category page to get it Speedy Deleted. Glad you spotted the duplication -- an all too rare occurrence, sorry to say. Cgingold (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2010 (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: self-withdrawal. No one seems terribly interested in this, so I'll try moving them to the proposed category name and seeing if anyone objects. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:MEPs representing the French constituencies before 2004 to Category:MEPs for France (constituency)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is really a "by constituency" category, because prior to the creation of several French constituencies in 2004, all MEPs for France were elected in France (European Parliament constituency). There were no "French constitutencies" (plural, as this category puts it), there was only one, and the constituency was called "France". This one will require the disambiguator "(constituency)" to make the meaning of the category clear. The "before 2004" thus becomes redundant and unnecessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:MEPs for France before 2004. I see no need to add "constituency" (as redundant), but the date should be retained so as to retain its purpose. We have UK MPs by Parliament, and this should probably be split by Parliament, but this can be retained as a paretn category after that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter, I think you may have misunderstood its purpose. (Or perhaps I have misunderstood your rationale.) Prior to 2004, there was only one constituency in France, and it was called "France"—see France (European Parliament constituency). Today, there are multiple constituencies in France. This category groups those MEPs together, regardless of which term they served in (the possible terms are 1958–1979; 1979–1984; 1984–1989; 1989–1994; 1994–1999; 1999–2004—these are subdivided in the subcategories). Thus, this is a category for people elected in the France constituency. I'm sorry this was not clear in the nomination. It makes more sense to group MEPs by constituency than merely by country and arbitrary year cut-off, especially since we have the subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 28 July 2010 (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the next stage in a continuing series of nominations to clean-up the MEPs categories. Now that the MEPs by French constituency categories and the general MEPs by-term categories are renamed to a specific standard, I'm nominating the MEPs for French constituencies by term for renaming to the same basic formats. (Another option would be to upmerge these to Category:MEPs for France 2004–2009 and Category:MEPs for France 2009–2014 as appropriate, but it is a valid distinction and someone has bothered to go through and divide them by constituency so I'm just as inclined to keep this division intact, but I could agree to do either.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but I have not checked whether the constituency names should be in French of English. As they have been split, I see no good reason for merging them, but am uncertain whether this split should become the standard. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP uses the English names for the articles about the constituencies so that's what we've gone with. If that ever changes, so too can the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Mountaintop removal mining to Category:Surface mining

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This comes across as another splinter category to focus on this form of surface coal mining. It is not clear how involved the articles included are with this topic. Better to upmerge and then look and see if there are logical groupings like Category:Organizations opposed to coal mining. By the way, this is not the only way that material is removed to expose coal seams, so I suppose that a rename to include the broader topic may be possible. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - do not merge - Mountaintop removal mining is a very notable topic in its own right, and after a quick look thru the articles it looks to me like they are valid inclusions in the category. Cgingold (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Cgingold. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've checked all the included articles and they do relate specifically to this very controversial practice. Mangoe (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Jersey education templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete – This category is obsolete. It was created well after Category:New Jersey universities and colleges navigational boxes, which is both more comprehensive and is part of a larger group of similarly-themed categories for navboxes. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Transparent plastics to Category:Transparent materials

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category the probably hinders navigation rather then helping. The articles have ample plastics categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Telematics to Category:vehicle telematics

Nominator's rationale: Rename. At present all of the entries are vehicle related. Telematics is not restricted to vehicles as I read the article, so this would be a very reasonable rename to limit this to vehicle applications. This could be recreated if there is a need. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 2#Category:Kit vehicles. — ξ^xplicit 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Kit vehicles to Category:Kit cars

Nominator's rationale: Merge or the reverse. Kit vehicles is a redirect to kit cars. While there is one in the category is there much chance for growth? Presents an interesting question. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The text implies that the single article currently in this category is in fact a car anyway. However, Autogyro#US certification refers to "kit-built aircraft", so this category has scope to be populated. Miracle (dinghy) and other boats could probably populate a new sub-cat. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea read the article again and did not see that this was car. Looking at the external link and the picture there says it is a car so I moved it to the more specific category. Removing this does not impact the points you are raising about the possibility of more subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Droughts in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Droughts in North America. As suggested in the related CFD (below), droughts do not respect national borders -- a fact which is borne out by two of the articles in this very category, Dust Bowl and 1988 North American drought. Cgingold (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and the other four articles are United States unique. There is no reason to dump more articles directly in the Category:Environment of the United States which already needs more subcategorization, not less. The other parent is Category:Droughts by country, into which the newly named cat would not fit and orphaned out of that tree. Hmains (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a problem once someone creates and populates Category:Environmental organizations in the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2010 (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) 15:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Droughts by country to Category:Droughts

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Provides an unnecessary extra level of navigation. I'm also wondering if we need the subcategories since this tree is not well populated. Droughts, including one listed in the US category, are not always constrained by boarders. It is common for them to cross boarders so where do we classify US/Canadian droughts? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the nominator's rationale, both that the layer is unnecessary given the rather sparse number of links, and that dividing droughts by country is less effective than by continent or perhaps continental region Mayumashu (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Droughts by region, removing the US cat (unless we rename to Category:Droughts in North America (see related CFD, above). The other existing sub-cats for individual countries make pretty good sense as regional categories, IMO. Cgingold (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is. The subcats by country, and can then be put into their countries parent categories as they are now. No valid reason to change anything. Hmains (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Research and development in the United States to Category:Research and development

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Right now this parent is not well populated and splitting this topic by country may not serve navigation. As to the second parent, I don't see a need for this at all based on the parents on the proposed merge target. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What - no DARPA?!? (I just added it.) But seriously, this category looks just fine to me. It always helps to separate out the US articles, which makes it easier to find both those articles and of equal (if not greater) importance, the non-US articles -- which are often swamped by the sheer number of US articles. So Keep - do not merge. Cgingold (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep do not merge. This is a proper subcat of Category:Science and technology in the United States. The fact that other countries have no categories of this kind because no has yet to work on them is no excuse to delete this one. We are to improve things, not degrade them to the lowest common denominator. The US has many articles and it needs its categories to organize things. Hmains (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Many countries not just USA do R&D. If there is a lack of population then tag to be populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sport in the Philippines to Category:Sports in the Philippines (over redirect)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Because it was administered by the U.S. for many years, American English predominates in the Philippines. The main article is Sports in the Philippines. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the use of U.S. English here Mayumashu (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sport in Palau to Category:Sports in Palau

Propose renaming Category:Sport in the Federated States of Micronesia to Category:Sports in the Federated States of Micronesia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Both of these countries were under U.S. administration from 1947 until 1986 (FSM) or 1994 (Palau), and both currently remain in free association with the United States. American English predominates in both places. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the use of U.S. English here Mayumashu (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sport in the Northern Mariana Islands to Category:Sports in the Northern Mariana Islands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a U.S. territory. As such American English predominates. Compare other subcategories of Category:Sports in American dependencies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the use of U.S. English here Mayumashu (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2010 (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 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russia intelligence operations to Category:Russian intelligence operations

Nominator's rationale: to fix Russia to Russian. Perhaps this is speediable? Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 01:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The other by-country subcategories of Intelligence operations use the name of the country: Category:United Kingdom intelligence operations, Category:Soviet Union intelligence operations, Category:United States intelligence operations. This one probably should not be changed in isolation of the others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• do not rename keep to match its present sibling articles. Hmains (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Shouldn't these be named Intelligence operations in Russia, Intelligence operations of Russia or something to that effect? — ξ^xplicit 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Frontier rebellion 1897-1899 to Category:Tirah Campaign

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe the main article is Tirah Campaign. (There is presently no article or redirect of the same name as this category.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (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.