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 delete. However, I do see a consensus to changing the inclusion criteria for the category, since no one seems to think 'at least once' is a good criterion. So I will have a go at changing the wording myself: This page lists people who have notably been victims of persistent school bullying. I invite others to help change the wording if they want to. Also, I think it would be a good idea for victims currently listed in category:school bullying to be moved to this category, and any articles that no longer meet the new criteria to be removed, so I will list this page at WP:CFDWM for people to check out. delldot ∇. 19:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Victims of school bullying
• Nominator's rationale The category is defined as including people who have been "victims of school bullying at least once" this sounds like a trivial way to classify people. One incident of being bullied while in school is not a defining characteritic of a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This might make some sense if it was categorizing only students who committed suicide because they were being bullied (as with Nicola Ann Raphael), but rather it includes mostly people who perpetrated school shootings. It seems a bit WP:POINTy, like someone is wanting to make the connection between bullying and perpetrating school shootings. Anyway, as defined, it's certainly overcategorization. Category:Bullycide seems to be enough, here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Silly idea. Open to OR and speculation. --Marco (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep i was just about to shunt the suiciders in Category:School bullying into this category until i noticed it was up for deletion. All the suicider articles mention school bullying so it wouldnt have been OR to include them here. --Penbat (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—"at least once" is too general. Very few people make it all the way through 12 or 13 years of school-based education without being bullied at least once. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - School bullying is specifically mentioned as relevant to the suicide in the articles for the suiciders in Category:School bullying.--Penbat (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there is always a pattern of bullying that is relevant to the self-harm episodes. Kids don't get pushed around once or receive a single text and then self-harm. (Note that suicide is just one outcome and that other forms of self-harm are also outcomes that are of equal importance.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only people who got severe school bullying with severe consequences would qualify for this category but that doesnt mean they necessarily have to kill themselves.--Penbat (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but that's not what the category definition says. If you can come up with a succinct and clear definition that covers this more restricted intention, then I could be persuaded to change my !vote. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (With some regret) Keep and populate -- I think (an unpleasant subject though it is), we do need this category. We have a number of articles on individuals in Category:School bullying, which would be better limited to articles about the subject, as opposed to victims. I would also suggest that Category:Bullicide should be merged here. That word is a neologism: by analogy with fratricide, parricide, and homicide, it should mean the killing of a bully, not by a bully. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - i dont support merging with Category:Bullycide one reason being that bullycide wouldnt necessarily have to be for school. The argument about whether bullycide is a valid word has already been thrashed out ad nauseum at bullycide and isnt worth going into here.--Penbat (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as is Since it is a recognized fact that such bullying is common and harmful and that some number of the victims go on to suicide or murder (while other do not of course) this category is a good article navigation aid--the purpose of categories. Hmains (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the fact that we are only requiring the person has been bullied once makes it so we can catch in this lots and lots of people for whom it is not at all defining. This is just a bad way to define a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2013 (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:Wikipedia hoaxes. delldot ∇. 18:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overly small category, and it looks ugly with the two colons. The suspected hoax category does the job just fine. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it looks ugly with the two colons." I don't get your point.

"The suspected hoax category does the job just fine." What about the categorization of proven hoaxes? "Overly small category" In this case we can merge Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles and Category:Wikipedia:Hoaxes. There is no reasaon not to reflect, in the categorization system, the link between proven hoaxes, suspected hoaxes, and administrative pages or templates about hoaxes. Apokrif (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedia hoaxes to correct the "ugly" fact. Otherwise, I see no reason to do anything here. There's a difference between suspected and proven. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Don't see the point (unless it's a hoax!). --Marco (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, rename to Category:Wikipedia hoaxes per the naming convention: "Categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word 'Wikipedia' (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories." I've no opinion on keep vs. delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, rename to Category:Wikipedia hoaxes -- However, I am not sure what the purpose of the category is intended to be. If an article is a hoax, it should deleted. If a suspected hoax, it should be in Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles and its status should be tested via an AFD nomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  This category is not used to categorize articles about hoaxes, but to categorize metacontent about hoaxes (which is not the same as pages in article space which are suspected hoaxes articles). Apokrif (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & rename to Category:Wikipedia hoaxes -- It merely helps gather WP policies & essays on hoaxes in one convenient spot--75* 17:34, 10 January 2013 (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 as nominated. The longer name "hotel buildings" provides clarity for those buildings that have had other uses, and is distinguished from Category:Hotels by year of establishment. The parent Category:Hotels by year of opening is misleading as it contains the nominated category and others by year of completion, not opening ( = establishment) as a hotel; this CFD should suffice for a WP:C2C speedy merge of its sub-cats into the corresponding sub-cats of Category:Hotel buildings by year of completion, after which it can be deleted. – Fayenatic London 18:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hotels completed in the 19th century to Category:Hotel buildings completed in the 19th century

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The proposed targets exist in many cases and provide a clearer name. There was another discussion that changed the parent of these to hotels opened in.... I started this duplicate branch when I got a new computer and lost my browser history. When you are working with 'Industrial buildings', 'Commercial buildings', 'Government buildings', 'Masonic buildings', 'Religious buildings' and the like it is easy to say 'Hotel buildings'. Having gone through several thousand 19th century articles, I have seen a good deal of what exists out there. In some cases the buildings used for hotels are converted from other uses, so opened and built are different dates. In other cases they are shared use. Then you have hotels when buildings are added over time including some with thousands of rooms. So listing the building component itself is logical. When the company that runs the hotel opens it, that is listed as being established in many articles. When the building ceases to function as a hotel it is disestablished and the building is converted to a different use, commonly a 'Residential building'. When the building is torn down, we have the demolished building tree to match the completed one. The hotels completed categories have additional parents, a function of different timing rather then simple copy and paste. I suppose that another option would be to split these into both completed and opened categories. However, after looking at the contents, there are a number of these where those two dates are not the same, even for purpose built buildings. One additional point, again based on the article content. In the vast majority of cases, these buildings are notable as a result of listings on historical registers. As such, virtually everything is about the building and little if anything is about the operation of the company or service. So making this clear seems to be reasonable. Of course, some will point out that there are exceptions where the articles cover the operation of the hotel. Those are easily addressed by the 'Hotels established' tree. Articles can be in multiple trees. I know there are cases where the building was completed in year 1, opened as a hotel in year 2, the hotel shut down later and the building was converted to another use in year 57. We also have buildings that were built for another use and opened later as a hotel and clearly these can not be classified in the hotels completed tree but go in the established tree. If this passes, the 'by year categories' and the next two centuries will need to be processed, probably by speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Hotel buildings completed in the 19th century into Category:Hotels completed in the 19th century. Hotels is the more common usage, so we should follow WP:COMMONNAME here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However in this case, the articles are about the building and not the operation contained within the walls of the buildings. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually I think most articles are at least as much about the operations as about the buildings themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I have looked at hundreds of these and the many are strictly about the building. One other observation that I can not offer firm numbers on. I have only been concentrating recategorizing from the buildings and structures completed by year categories. If you find articles that are not classified in that tree, then it is more likely that they discuss the operation. In these cases the articles may be in the hotels established by year tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if a building later converted to a hotel in the 21st Century were completed in the 19th Century, would it be a member? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It would be in whatever building category it was when built. I think most of the conversions to hotels that I have seen were houses (palaces, castles or whatever). Vegaswikian (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Architecture outweighs ownership here. --Marco (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both as Category:Hotels opened in the 19th century. The grandparent to this is Category:Hotels by year of opening. This avoids the problem of the gentleman's mansion of 1830 that became a hotel in 1830, converted to a hotel in 1995. This will belong in "hotels opened in 1995" and "buildings and structures completed in 1830". We have a whole tree of "hotels completed in xxxx", they all need renaming to deal with this issue. I thought we had had this discussion at least once before. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This tree has absolutely nothing to do with when the building opened, other then generally a building does not open until you completed the building. {{infobox building}} has two parameters of interest here, completion_date and opened_date. This clearly shows that the two are not the same. When talking about when the establishment opened, then these are classified in the establishments tree. These three events are not the the same and trying to the mix them up does not help. I have to wonder if establishment means something different in other variations of English and that is the cause of the confusion here. A building is completed and opened. A business is established and opened. A hotel as a business occupies a building and is established and opened. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One additional point that I noticed cleaning up categories today. Opened is completely misleading when you have a hotel that opens in say 1961 in a building built as a house in 1879. Opened in Category:Hotels opened in 1961 is a duplicate of Category:Hotels established in 1961. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 04:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:A. R. Rahman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Potential for growth and has enough articles already. --Marco (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: How is presence of 6 articles, 2 sub-categories with 30+ articles each "too little content"? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:51, 10 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 04:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Film soundtracks by nationality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:American film soundtracks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:British film soundtracks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Canadian film soundtracks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:New Zealand film soundtracks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Pakistani film soundtracks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Indian film soundtracks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Confusing and not useful scheme. This is not Category:Soundtracks by artist nationality, which is implied by the name, but soundtracks by the film's country of origin (that is, the country in which the film was produced). How is this a useful scheme for navigation? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not convinced anyone has figured out how the categories are really divided. I am less than convinced that sound tracks have clear nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I too am not convinced that categorizing a soundtrack this way is meaningful. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The correct scheme would be Category:Film soundtracks by country as a child category of Category:Films by country and Category:Film soundtracks. Category:American film soundtracks should be then be in Category:Film soundtracks by country and Category:Soundtracks to American films (or "of"). While that's how I would do it, I am also unsure of these categories worthiness. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Do you suggest keeping/renaming then? Do you think this is a meaningful scheme? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Marco (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2013 (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/2013 January 23#Category:Persistent organic pollutants. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Persistent organic pollutants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The definition of this category is ambiguous. We have Category:Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention that is clearly defined. Leyo 16:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: split and repurpose as disambiguation page for Category:Ecclesiastical provinces, Category:Christian church councils and Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Synods to Category:Ecclesiastical provinces, Category:Christian church councils and Category:Legislatures of non-governmental organizations

Nominator's rationale: The category contains three types of things, and the articles only share the fact that they are called synods: territories of church denominations (such as members of Category:Evangelical Lutheran Church in America synods) which belong in Category:Ecclesiastical provinces, church councils which belong in Category:Christian church councils and it's subcats, and governing bodies of Christian denominations (such as General Synod of the Church of England), which seems to be the purpose of Category:Legislatures of non-governmental organizations, which will probably be renamed (see discussion below). JFHutson (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly needs splitting, but I am not sure about the targets. OED gives the primary definition as an "ecclesiastical council". Presumably the Lutheran cases are actually "provinces governed by synods", and need to be split out. I am not sure that the rest need division. The General synod and below it diocesan synods are governing bodies, quite as much as legislatures. The general synod of Church of England has a legislative function, but this is technically delegated from Parliament, which subsequently has to approve its legislation. Some synods are about formulating doctrine; others about determining how the church should be governed. I very much dislike the whole concept of legislatures of NGOs, as this is an oxymoron, but that is for another discussion. If the leglislatures cat is to become Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations as appears probable (see discussion below), I think the answer is to purge the present category of the Category:Ecclesiastical provinces and Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations, and see what is left. Category:Christian church councils seems to be largely about doctrine formulation by Ecumenical Councils, though synods is within it. I would therefore refer to keep synods but with some kind of hatnote for the other uses of the term for Governing assemblies. The synods with a place that I checked appeared to be more local in function than Councils. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge per PK's recommendation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per nom/ get rid of the current name. The fact that the article on Synods mentions all three of these meanings (actually, with the various Lutherna meanings, especially with Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod it may come to four) seems to suggest that there is no one clear meaning for synod. I think we would be much better moving all the contents to category names that have a clear connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• split as described using Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations for the third case. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• purge and split per Peterkingiron & Mangoe. Agree with JPL that the original category needs to disappear. However, if it does it is likely to be re-created, so it either needs salting or making a redirect to the least problematic of the multiple meanings. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we make it a disambiguation category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think of that. Yep, that would work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2013 (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:Members of the Orange Order. delldot ∇. 04:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Orangemen to Category:Orange Order people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Orangemen is ambiguous, but this category is for people who are in the Orange Order. (Category format matched from Category:Knights of Columbus people, which is also in Category:Fraternalists.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Members of the Orange Order. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Members of the Orange Order per Peterkingiron. --Marco (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to either. As is, the name is too ambiguous. Mayumashu (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Members of the Orange Order. The current name is unclear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 19:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Kyoto to Category:Kyoto (city)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I lived in Kyoto and certainly within Japan anyway 'Kyoto' refers equaly to both the prefecture (Category:Kyoto Prefecture) and city - people almost never say simply 'Kyoto' but either 'Kyoto-fu' or 'Kyoto-shi' . Mayumashu (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, since the article is at Kyoto. If what the nominator says is accurate, then that would be an argument in favour of renaming the article, but that should happen before the category is renamed on such a principle. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having just now put it forward, though it means challenging suggested naming convention for Japan (as a number of the larger cities share names with 'their' prefectures). Trouble is there is both local common usage and Western common usage (from afar) - locally people don't use simply 'Kyoto' as it utterly ambiguous but anglophones and likely most other westerners use the word with just the city in mind, as its more famous. Anyway... Mayumashu (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting dilemma when there is a local usage and a non-local usage. I suppose one needs to focus in on what is the English common usage for the English WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that English common usage should trump, and 99.999% I wouldn't know of the local usage, so it wouldn't 'get to me'. Well, my rename of the article to Kyoto (city) has survived a day now without being reverted! Mayumashu (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there is a discussion now to have it moved back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just got the news. I still think category names should have an extra layer of clarity and not be subject to WP:Commonname, but that's a minority view, I know. Mayumashu (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article is Kyoto. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per name of article. --Marco (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Categories should not be overly ambiguous. Primacy can figure into article naming, but that still means that other topics will be categorized incorrectly by people just adding category names due to the ambiguity. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Mayumashu (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The primary usage is Kyoto and the article should not have been moved to Kyoto (city) by the proposer per WP:MOS-JA.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:MOS-JA for designated cities in Japan. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category names have more need to be unambiguous than article names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The main article of the category is Kyoto. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:17, 17 January 2013 (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: someone has gone ahead and created Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations, and it seems like that is where consensus was headed. However, since this process was somewhat short-circuited by the early creation, if someone would like to nominate this new category for a rename, feel free to do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Legislatures of non-governmental organizations to Category:Legislatures of religious organizations I am making this proposal because all the articles placed in this category are related to the legislative bodies of religious groups. --Devin Murphy (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Rename to omit the word legislatures -- I do not think most of the things categorised make laws, so that they are not legislatures. Possibly "General assmeblies of religious bodies". Alternatively, we could purge World Zionist Council, and make it "Governing assemblies of Christian denominations". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

revoted below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Peterkingiron you make a good point, these articles are not in the strictest scene really about legislatures of religious bodies but rather governing assemblies of varying kinds of religious bodies. So I would be happy to go with "Category:Governing assemblies of religious bodies" or even "Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations" for the new name of the category. But I think "Governing assemblies of Christian denominations" is to narrow a category as it would require we remove both "World Zionist Congress" and "General Assembly (Unitarian Universalist Association)" from this category and this category is rather sparsely populated at the moment. That being said, I do think it has the potential to be widely populated and of great use. --Devin Murphy (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisting so rename proposals mentioned above can be considered.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations, but you'll need to remove Category:Synods as it contains territories and one-time church counsels. --JFHutson (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Downmerge To Category -> Synods. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations per above comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• agree with Category:Governing assemblies of religious organizations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Governing bodies of non-governmental organizations. One problem with the proposal to add "religious" is that the World Zionist Congress is not a religious organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2013 (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.