Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 10

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Central African Republic footballers to Category:Central African footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although the term

Snocrates 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Rename per nom and the fact that Central African footballers would be consistant with the other football categories eg. Category:English footballers. Kyriakos (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. By a simple vote count, there is not a consensus to delete. In actually reading comments and taking into account the possibility of socks to swing the vote, the rough consensus here is clear. As pointed out, the place for this information is in the article, not a category. The question of whether or not this is even defining was not sufficiently answered by those wishing to keep. Kbdank71 15:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location of burial is rarely, if ever, defining. This cemetery doesn't even seem to have an article, so being buried there is certainly not a defining characteristic of these people. None of the bios I have looked at mention this cemetery. LeSnail (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree that final resting place is in most cases not defining.
  talk) 00:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - This is my category. Couple of points related to what's written above. (1) The idea for creating this category came to me from similarly-named categories that already existed on Wikipedia, such as "Burials at Arlington National Cemetery" and "Burials at Green-Wood Cemetery" and "Burials at Gate of Heaven Cemetery" and "Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery (The Bronx)." Even the explorer Francis Drake is listed in the category "Burial at sea." (2) A number of St. Ray's bios DO mention internment in the cemetery, such as those of Billie Holiday and Mary Mallon (Typhoid Mary), and those comments did not come from me. (3) Wikipedia DOES have an article on St. Raymond's, again, not of my doing. I'd like to keep these "Burials at . . . " categories. They are very handy for cemetery research. Thanks for your time. BobJones77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobJones77 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That other categories on burial places may exist has no bearing on whether this one should. It's likely that those categories are not defining of their members also. If anyone actually researches who's buried where, a list article would serve them better than a category would.
  talk) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. If the category is included in an article and there is no obvious reason mentioned in the article for that category, then the category should be removed from the article. How many articles currently in this category really belong? Would we need the category after a cleanup? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (There is an article for the cemetery.) I agree that the resting place of X should be mentioned (and sourced - eg from here) in the article for X if X is to be put in the category. We have plenty of categories which are not in any way defining (eg year of birth, death, 'from' categories, nationality categories, alumni categories) and this is a nice factual unambiguous one. (We have had cfds before on place of death cats, eg here.)
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And again, the fact that any other category exists has no bearing on whether this one should.
  talk) 17:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Also, I would deny your statement that year of birth, death, and nationality categories are not defining. If I were giving a very brief summary of who Albert Einstein was, for instance, I would include that he was born in 1879, that he died in 1955, that he was German, that he was Jewish, that he lived in the US, that he was a physicist, and that he won the Nobel Prize in Physics. Those are the things I would use to define who he was. I would not mention where he was buried. LeSnail (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This brief obituary for James Ganly does mention where he was buried (St. Raymond's Cemetery (Bronx)). The article for

-- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep It may be of use in specific searches Travtim^(Talk) 16:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need a category to do searches. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would also like to direct people to this discussion, which I think clarified consensus on what it takes for a characteristic to be defining and worth categorizing by. LeSnail (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - these are often a matter of happenstance of where the person died or what his/her relatives decided to do with the body. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I was going to add a listify, but
  Saint Raymond's Cemetery, Bronx already has a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A person's resting place is, of course, a defining feature. This piece of information is just as important as a person's birth place or any other biographical detail that should be included in a wikipedia entry. This category is also crucial information for those who are interested in cemetery research. It should be included. Rubylashs (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment1 This person has made no edits, except to this nomination.
  • Comment2 No one is saying that this information should not be included in articles, the matter at hand is whether is it should be used as a basis for categorization. LeSnail (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Part of a useful, established, defining scheme.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree; similar cemetery categories appear to have been established for years now; the precedent is set. -- JamesGothMog13 (talk)

• talk) 14:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. per Selinker above WillieBoy01 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, empty.

Category:Star Wars ranks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category has only one article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, with the added observation that this is a subject that is properly dealt with in a single article, as to my knowledge, there is not enough to say about any one particular Star Wars rank (except Jedi Knight, if that is even considered a military rank) to merit a separate article. Furthermore, the category is now empty. --7Kim (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, empty.

Category:Hong Kong NGOs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Basically a duplicate of the correctly named Category:Non-governmental organizations in Hong Kong. I moved the only entry in the nominated category to the other one while doing some cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Lquilter (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Discontinued Windows software made by Microsoft to Category:Discontinued Microsoft software

Nominator's rationale: merge:Nearly all discontinued Microsoft software belongs in both categories. There is little reason to put Windows software lower down in the category heirarchy. Also, Category:Discontinued Windows software made by Microsoft currently only contains one article, so this merge would be much easier than moving all appropriate articles from Category:Discontinued Microsoft software - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think you're forgetting about something called DOS. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not forgetting about other operating systems. It's just that there's nothing important about software being both discontinued Microsoft software and Windows software. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete.

Category:New articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Template no longer used (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New&action=edit ) , so this is a remnant that can be deleted. Guroadrunner (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom as obsolete Travtim^(Talk) 16:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge to Category:Organizations. Kbdank71 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Voluntary organisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Proposing for discussion; consider merging to Category:Organizations. The main problem with this category is that it is basically a categorization by name, and not even that. The category definition includes two to three different definitions: "Voluntary organizations are defined, by some, as organizations which are mainly run by volunteers, or which rely on volunteers in order to carry out significant portions of their work. Others define them as organizations which are non-statutory and independent of state control, and which do not distribute profits for private gain. Often voluntary organizations are also charities. See also: Category:Non-profit organizations and Category:Philanthropic organizations.

My general concern: Are there one or more specific kinds of entity that this category is capturing and if so, how can we name the category in a way that clearly captures that? Specific concerns:

1. The category head article redirects to "voluntary association" which is more a philosophical concept than a type of organization. It can have specific legal meanings, but I'm not sure if any of them are useful as categories for organizations.
2. On the first definition ("run by ... or rely on volunteers"), many, many organizations use volunteers; I am not convinced it is a defining attribute. This would include churches, PTAs, public libraries, political parties, schools, bookstores -- heck, pretty much everything.
3. The second definition ("non-statutory and independent of state control") basically overlaps with "non-profit organizations" and "non-governmental organizations".
4. Please note that this is distinct from organizations (like the Peace Corps or Habitat for Humanity whose activity is to coordinate volunteers; those are "volunteer organizations"; see, e.g., Category:International volunteer organizations. (There may be a better way to phrase that one, too.)
5. Are there any culture-specific usages to be aware of? I think it is a phrase more in England; if so, is there any terminology that would capture that meaning that wouldn't be ambiguous?

My general assessment from looking at the organizations included is that they are basically all non-profit organizations that could be merged to that category; most of them also include some subject organization already (Category:Organizations by subject) which would pick up any particular charitable purposes (e.g., healthcare, poverty relief). Other thoughts?

Lquilter (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Would it be better to layout how to reorganize this mess before doing individual categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the subcategories of this one? I'm not tackling all of Category:Organizations or the Non-profit orgs/Charities/NGOs problem. This one seemed a bit more one-off than the others, and the category trees aren't extremely built up in this one yet. --Lquilter (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So we still will have the bigger mess to cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the meaning time. At
  WP:ORG they are working on the whole categorization of orgs, lets give them a chance to do their thing without adding new changes. This can be reviewed at a later time. Travtim^(Talk) 16:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Not that I have noticed. Are you sure about this being discussed at
    WP:ORG? Can you provide a specific pointer to the discussion? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • He may mean
      WP:ORGZ which is the Organizations WikiProject. I've been the major person working on these lately, and this nom is part of that work. Relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations/Taskforce-Categorization and Category_talk:Organizations. --Lquilter (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Merge per nom - apart from the army in some countries and taxpayers in all, most organizations are volunatary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If merging, the target should rather be Category:Non-profit organisations - there would be an unnecessary loss of info in merging this to the top cat. However, I would prefer keep and repurpose with the emphasis on volunteers, as follows:

"Voluntary organizations are defined, for the purpose of this category, as organizations which are mainly run by volunteers, or which rely on volunteers in order to carry out significant portions of their work. For organizations which are non-statutory and independent of state control, and which do not distribute profits for private gain, please use Category:Non-profit organizations. See also Category:Philanthropic organizations [and Category:Charities].

It may be best to leave out Charities, as there was something approaching consensus to abolish this at CFD Dec 31.- Fayenatic (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Category:Volunteer organizations to clarify intent. I completely agree with Fayenatic. --Eliyak T·C 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that "volunteer organizations" as fayenatic defines it (orgs run by volunteers) is different from the use at "international volunteer organizations" (orgs that coordinate volunteers, like the peace corps). If we go this route (I'm not personally convinced that it's a defining feature to be run by some random percentage of volunteers) then I'd suggest "Category:Volunteer-run organizations". --Lquilter (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge using a category redirect, as I can foresee this one being recreated otherwise.

Category:People from Fort Lauderdale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:People from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to match Fort Lauderdale, Florida. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. LeSnail (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge well deserved. Unfortunately, there are thousands of such city based categories to rename. Hmains (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vampires by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Serbian vampires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Vampires are mythological creatures and it's silly to include them in the "Serbian people by occupation" subcategory. There were people accused to have been vampires, but for this, they could be be added to Category:Vampirism (crime). bogdan (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary Travtim^(Talk) 16:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Jamaican-American singers to Category:Jamaican American musicians

Suggest merging Category:Jamaican-American singer-songwriters to Category:Jamaican American musicians

Suggest merging Category:Jamaican-American rappers to Category:Jamaican American musicians

Nominator's rationale:

talk) 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete all unnecessary ethnic/race category but no doubt the retention of some of these categories leads others to create more of them when we should delete the lot of them, but alas that's a one-by-one chore. Here, too, there is an intersection between the race/ethnicity and an occupation without any indication that Jamaican American musicians perform differently than non-Jamaican Americans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Carlossuarez46. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per nom and Carlos.
  talk) 00:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• merge per nom. This is part of a well established consensus-approved pattern of categories for ethnic groups and occupations as anyone could tell who reads WP. Hmains (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It may lead to a large diversity of categories about hybrid nationalities Travtim^(Talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment There is nothing to be afraid of. WP can technically handle a large number of categories. The only problem is some WP editors who want to get rid of ethnic categories--which is against WP consensus. Hmains (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Someone who understands the history - please remove or update the obsolete CFD labels on Category:American singers by ethnicity and Category:American singers. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Double merge, as nominated and also to Category:American singers and Category:American rappers as appropriate. The middle one has already been emptied (not by me). - Fayenatic (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Double merge per Fayenatic, but see
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sicilian mob bosses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant,

Mafia Expert (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment This category has not been properly tagged yet.
  Snocrates 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• OK now? -
  Mafia Expert (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just to add another element to the discussion. Organized Crime categories suffer from a lot of double categorizing. They need to be trimmed down. This is a very clear case of an obsolete category that is already provided for and does not add anything but confusion. -
  Mafia Expert (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• merge get rid of the 'delete' word that loses WP content; merge contents their proper category. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The items listed in
  Mafia Expert (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Incorrect definition Travtim^(Talk) 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 15:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Laguna to Category:Laguna (province)

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency. The article is at Laguna (province) so the category and its sub's nominated below should be as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating to rename:

• Category:Municipalities of Laguna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Municipalities of Laguna (province)
• Category:People from Laguna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:People from Laguna (province)
• Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is there a separate Laguna place that needs a category? If there's another Laguna that needs categorization, I'll support a rename to Category:Laguna, Philippines, but if there's no other place that'll need categorization (the Laguna dab page says this is the only character with the name of "Laguna" per se), I'd rather leave it where it is now. --Howard the Duck 12:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at present, but if we are so sure that Laguna is the place to put the category, the article should be renamed accordingly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd recommend not to do that since Laguna should be a dab page. However, since it makes no sense to create a dab page for categories then I think the present setup for Category:Laguna referring to the Philippine province would be fine, unless another place with a "Laguna" (without other words) name crops up. --Howard the Duck 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename all per noms above. They pertain to the Philippine province of Laguna. Rename will be clear Hmains (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it quite silly to have Category:Laguna, Philippines but no Category:Laguna? --Howard the Duck 07:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No less than having various Category:Foo city, state but no Category:Foo city for hundreds of US cities, and various of the ilk Category:Steve Jobs, but no Category:Steve. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is quite a silly analogy. --Howard the Duck 05:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per noms Travtim^(Talk) 16:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I would really prefer to see Category:Laguna, Philippines used. However this gets into the whole issue of place names which is always a hot topic. The issue for categories should be what is the best choice since there is no disambiguation nor should there be. Using the parens is not the best choice, but currently may be the only choice that would get consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Consequence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category named after musician, with only subcategory of his albums; the consensus last time I checked is to delete these. Rigadoun (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unnecessary eponymous cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of University of Alaska Fairbanks people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:University of Alaska Fairbanks people, convention of Category:People by university or college in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for vagueness. What does "X people" mean? Full-time students? Alumni? Former students who didn't graduate? Professors? Trustees? Donors? Recipients of honorary degrees? People who once took a summer class there? The narrower the group to include, the more specific the name should be. The broader it is, the less point there is to having a special category. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. X people is widely used and not generally thought to be vague. (I would say that someone goes in this category if the University of Alaska Fairbanks is mentioned (and sourced) in the article, not likely if say the person merely attended a summer school.)
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syllaboliks crew members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Certified Wise crew members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Australian hip hop crews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Non-notable Australian hip hop "crews" (their articles have already been deleted)—not a musical group but a loose association of artists. All members of both categories are already categorized as "Australian hip hop musicians" or "Australian hip hop groups", so there's no need to re-categorize. And if the two sub-categories are deleted, there is no need for the parent category. Precious Roy (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 15:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Defunct pulp magazines to Category:Pulp magazines

Nominator's rationale: Merge, All pulp magazines are now defunct, making this separate category redundant. AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, per nom.
  talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment if merged, please move Category:Pulp magazines into Category:Defunct magazines. LeSnail (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Have there been any CFD discussions of the "defunct" categories? Because frankly I've wondered about them. We usually have X disestablishments which can take care of that and I'm not sure what the point of "defunct" would be, otherwise. --Lquilter (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rivers of the District of Columbia to Category:Rivers of Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent category, Category:Landforms of Washington, D.C.. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom and consensus pattern for Washington, D.C. articles and categories. Hmains (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Law schools in the District of Columbia to Category:Law schools in Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category, Category:Washington, D.C. and category introduction. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom and consensus pattern for Washington, D.C. articles and categories. Hmains (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gladiators to Category:Gladiators (British TV show)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article

Gladiators (British TV show), because the current content is certainly not what I would expect at such a category. Spartacus, I would expect... The article Gladiator is in another category . 70.55.87.75 (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom. AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename You know it makes sense. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prefecture-level divisions by province and autonomous region to Category:Prefecture-level divisions of the People's Republic of China by province and autonomous region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Country was not specified.

Snocrates 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• rename per nom very needed Hmains (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Good callTravtim^(Talk) 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Are "praefecture-level divisions" not called "praefectures"? I do not know, but the proposed renamed makes a horrible mouthful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of them are, but others are "leagues", "prefecture-level cities", and "autonomous prefectures". The general name for all of these is "prefecture-level division".
    Snocrates 22:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename to Category:Sub-provincial cities in the People's Republic of China. Kbdank71 15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Subprovincial cities to Category:Sub-provincial cities (China) or Category:Sub-provincial cities in the People's Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity; either should be fine. Add a hyphen to match main article, which is at

Snocrates 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• rename to Category:Sub-provincial cities in the People's Republic of China to match main article name. I renamed the article to match the contents of the article which is about the PRC Hmains (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Hmains. LeSnail (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above Travtim^(Talk) 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Hmains. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local civil rights history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Local civil rights history in the United States.
• Rationale: As it stands, this category is used for articles about local civil rights history in the United States. Name should reflect actual use of category. Notified creator with {{
  cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• rename per nom very needed Hmains (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plantation pioneers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Overcategorization. Small category with little potential for growth -- still has only one article after 10 months. Notified creator with {{
  cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - no objective criterion as to what constitutes a "pioneer."
  talk) 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as limited and unnecessary Travtim^(Talk) 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to parent category "Pioneers by Field" which still has a number of articles for potential one-article categories. AS a result that is an unsatisfactory category, as is another category for the article - plantations. However until categories can be populated, such unsatisfactory things have to remain. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to parent category. As original creator I do feel more content articles are desirable without which the category will not be sustainable. I support Peterkingiron's views above -Deepraj | Talk 12:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pioneers of photography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Photography pioneers, consistent with other related subcategories. Cgingold (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no objective criterion as to what constitutes a "pioneer."
  talk) 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The nom is to rename, not delete. Do you mean rename per nom or delete per me?
  talk) 15:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep as is - the present title is better grammar. Photography is not an adjective and the present title is bnetter than "photgraphic pioneers". this is a well-populated category, so that del;etion on the grounds that "pioneer" cannot be defined precisely seems unjustified. If necessary, the scope of the category could be defined by a headnote, but my guess is that that is unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pioneers of rail transport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Rail transport pioneers - consistent with other related subcategories. Cgingold (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no objective criterion as to what constitutes a "pioneer."
  talk) 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• rename per nom. The common and understood dictionary meaning of pioneers will do just fine for a WP for the common people. Hmains (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And what objective criteria shall we common folk use to decide whether or not someone belongs in the category, without resorting to POV or original research?
  talk) 17:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete no objective criteria for "pioneer". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is The present title is satisfactory. Several of the people included made important contributions to the development of railways. This is thus a legitimate category. Of course there may be marginal cases, where it is arguable whtrher a person should or should not be included, but that does not seem a good reason for deletion. |If there is a problem in that area it can be dealt with in a head note to the category to provide a more precise definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge per discussion. Kbdank71 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Has one article in it Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Battles in the Star Wars films, as the only article is a Jedi-Sith duel. AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per AdamBMorgan. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Futurama races (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: One article in category. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The only article isn't even a Futurama race. AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad news, nobody! Delete. Lugnuts (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, empty.

Category:Ray Brown, (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Same problem as the one below. Not sure what User:Mylyricalsoul was thinking. Odd. LeSnail (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete, empty.

Category:Ray Brown, Jr (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category empty, was strangely created as a redirect to

talk) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete --very odd. LeSnail (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Court of Appeal (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, No contents except main article. See related nomination below.

Snocrates 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - at least for now. If we started getting biographies of Justices of the court, or important cases decided there, its recreation might be warranted. the article is already in the parent category so there is nothing to upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 15:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chief Justices of the Court of Final Appeal to Category:Chief Justices of the Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)

Category:Court of Final Appeal to Category:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)

Category:Justices of the Court of Appeal to Category:Justices of the Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Names could use a disambiguating term added. For #1&2, the current names are the "official" names, which is why I've suggested adding "Hong Kong" in parentheses instead of adding "of Hong Kong" to the name. For #3, although there is a "Court of Appeal" in Hong Kong that is lower than the Final Court of Appeal and a

Snocrates 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename all per nom. LeSnail (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename - much better to disambiguate here. --Lquilter (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - clearer Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada to Category:Chief Justices of Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The chief justice sits on the Supreme Court of Canada, but the proper title is

Snocrates 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom. for consistency with main article and official name (and it's shorter!) LeSnail (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can someone verify that other Canadian courts use different terminology? --Lquilter (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See

Federal Court of Appeal (Canada) which lists a "Chief Justice". --Lquilter (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The title for this position is "Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal"; see HERE. The Chief Justice of the

Snocrates 23:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! --Lquilter (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, consistency, and authoritative title. --Lquilter (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 15:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Education in Byblos to Category:Education in Lebanon

Nominator's rationale: Merge, premature to split the parent by city for this 1 article category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I agree with the nominator that this category should be merged with Category:Education in Lebanon due to it's small size. Kyriakos (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Yes, it is small, but I'm sure it has room for growth, and it hasn't even been around for very long. Also, the parent is already split by city, as we have Category:Education in Beirut. LeSnail (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:E-learning standards and specifications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for 1 article here; found this in the orphanage so parent cats need to be found if kept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not needed. LeSnail (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.