Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 28

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. Kbdank71 14:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Democratic Labour Party (Barbados) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale:

Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. There are a ton of these for political parties that contain nothing but the main article and a politicians subcategory. They should all be nominated and deleted. (See here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on Dec 13. Kbdank71 14:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-free Wikipedia files to Category:Wikipedia non-free files

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Category names#Special conventions, "[c]ategories used for Wikipedia administration" should be "prefixed with the word 'Wikipedia' (no colon)"; see, for example, Category:Wikipedia non-free content. The scope of the category is "non-free files", and the prefix "Wikipedia" is needed to indicate that this is a "category used for Wikipedia administration". The current title suggests that the category contains non-free files related to Wikipedia or non-free files belonging to Wikipedia. There are a handful of categories which follow the same naming style, and I will list them for renaming if there is consensus to rename in this discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Earthquakes in Pichilemu per WP:Overcategorization. If all towns in Chile had a category for earthquakes that affected them there would be hundreds of categories. There is no reason to do an exemption with Pichilemu. Dentren | ^Talk 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the category is not to include articles about every earthquake that affected the city (yes, you don't like it, but it is a city according to the Chilean law, in addition to being the capital of a province). The category currently includes only articles about earthquakes that occurred in Pichilemu, so nominator's point here (If all towns in Chile had a category for earthquakes that affected them there would be hundreds of categories. There is no reason to do an exemption with Pichilemu.) is moot. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, neither earthquake seems to have occurred in Pichilemu. The

1985 earthquake, for instance, took place 50 km northeast of the city. I don't see how the nom's point is moot, and I think he or she actually understated: thousands of cities and towns across the globe have experienced multiple notable earthquakes. More to the point, what is gained by having a category for just two articles which can be (and are) in Category:History of Pichilemu? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. Categorization in
  Pichilemu-Vichuquén Fault is miscategorized since it is not an article about an earthquake; the article already is in Category:Pichilemu and Category:Seismic faults of Chile. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've proceeded to remove
    Pichilemu-Vichuquén Fault from the category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tailsitters to Category:Tailsitter aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Rename. When I created this category awhile back, it didn't really sink in that the "Aircraft by configuration" tree, as a rule, uses "Foo aircraft" as its naming structure, and this category is a subcat of

Flank speed 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support per reasoning of objection at Speedy. 76.66.194.128 (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on Dec 13. Kbdank71 14:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Substituted templates to Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates

Nominator's rationale: This category serves the same purpose as Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. Even though Category:Substituted templates has been around longer than the other cat, the "substituted templates" is an ambiguous category title. For example, it could also refer to templates that must be substituted, or pages with templates that have been substituted. My third reason to merge this category into Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates is that many templates that should be transcluded have code in them that will add the page on which they are substituted to Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. (Explanation fail.) cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:XD5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:XD6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:XD7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These categories were intended for use during an experiment that has been inactive for more than 4 years. I considered proposing a merge of all four categories to

Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion was not a process, proposal, or suggestion, but simply a project for experimenting. The main project page is already in Category:Inactive project pages, and the subpages are all linked from the main page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Let's Experimentally delete these, so we can both be rid of these useless categories while also staying within the spirit of the original Wikiproject. VegaDark (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim districts in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The scope of this newly created category is extremely vague. It seems that the primary purpose is to categorize Muslim majority districts in India but if that really is the case, then there are some issues which need to be sorted out -- first, the title should change to "Muslim majority districts in India" and secondly, all the articles in this category need to be backed by official sources affirming that these districts are indeed Muslim majority. Besides, this also opens doors for other categories of similar scope -- such as Hindu-majority districts in India and Christian-majority districts in India. India has an extremely diverse population and categorization of hundrends of India's districts on the basis of religion, culture and linguistics is definitely a concern. Lastly, I haven't come across any category of similar scope on Wikipedia. --King Zebu (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this category. 20 of 604 districts in India have Muslim majority. Please have a look at districtwise data Affirmative action schemes for them have been planned by the government after the release of the Sachar Committee Report. See page 296 for district-wise populations.Katheeja (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the argument of "opening the door" to many more categories. There could be a list of muslim majority districts in India. Dentren | ^Talk 22:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is certainly defining, so OCAT is not a worry. Hindu majority districts would not be defining, I think. If kept should be renamed with "majority". A sample I looked at had census figures. A list might be enough. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Consider Rename What the category is grouping is a defining characteristic and it is appropriate to group articles by this common characteristic for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete India doesn't have Muslim districts, any more than Jain, Jat or Rajput districts, even though the boundaries often take into account ethnoreligious divisions. If the creator of the category is correct, then List of Indian districts with a Muslim majority is more than welcome, or Indian districts with a Muslim majority as an article outlining any peculiarities of electoral behaviour, sociology etc. and a synopsis of the report he/she has quoted. Even Category:Indian districts with a Muslim majority would open the floodgates, per King Zebu's comments above Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not every factoid needs a category. And I don't see how this is defining (merely stating "it's a defining characteristic" doesn't make it so; how is it defining?). Per Crusoe8181, I would rather see a list, or even better, an article. --Kbdank71 15:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The category creator is a sock of a POV pusher and sockmaster. He has been indef blocked - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas/Archive--Sodabottle (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on dec 13. Kbdank71 15:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parent categories to Category:Container categories

Nominator's rationale: The current title of this tracking category, which is populated by transclusions of {{Container category}}, is misleading. On Wikipedia, the term "parent category" denotes a category which contains one or more subcategories ("A is said to be a parent category of B when B is a subcategory of A"); the term "container category" denotes a category which contains only subcategories (and possibly a limited number of directly related pages). All container categories are parent categories, but not all parent categories are container categories.

What is being categorized by this category is container categories, so the title should be renamed to reflect this. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Background note: The template that populates this category originally was named {{
  Parent category}}, but it was renamed one year ago per a TFD discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question - Is there maybe a better word? "Parent" at least gives the suggestion of a bracketing hierarchy of some kind (similar to a family tree). And, AFAIK, is a common term for this. "Container" suggests encapsulation, or worse, enclosure. See also: Parent (disambiguation) as opposed to Container. - jc37 19:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps there is a term that is more intuitive and descriptive than "container", but "parent" is much too broad. For instance, Category:Swiss artists is a parent category of Category:Swiss painters, but it would not belong in the category we're discussing. I am not too worried about "container" being confusing since the text of {{Container category}} clearly explains the meaning of the phrase and this is a hidden tracking category not intended for readers. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I see what you're saying. So we retain the term "parent" category, but use "container" for this specific type of "parent" category. (Aren't semantics fun? : ) - jc37 20:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, essentially. :) If I'm not mistaken, the current usage of the phrase "container category" was coined by

  Container-cat}} (currently a redirect). There are a few uses of the phrase prior to 2008, but they seem to relate to eponymous or disambiguation categories. Another option, of course, would be to just delete the category, as you suggested in the 2009 discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks for reminding me : ) - jc37 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So you;'re saying that "container category" has onterh uses as well as the one being considered here? Doesn't sound like a good thing to rename this to, then! Grutness...wha? 23:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - I'm still hoping that we can find a better/closer term : ) - jc37 20:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category. Special:WhatLinksHere should accomplish what little need there may be for this category, since it's solely template-populated. - jc37 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Question. Will the deletion of this category in any way affect the display of the container/parent category banner? JackJud (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It shouldn't. The template (banner) would remain, even if this category is deleted. - jc37 22:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess the question with deletion is, Is there are reason to specifically group parent categories together like this? I'm not sure. The reason for keeping would be systematic review of all the categories therein to see if they were improperly populated with individual pages. This could potentially be accomplished by looking at what links here on the template to see all the pages that transclude the template, however. Assuming a bot would go through this, my hesitation to delete would be if it being a category would make such a bot task easier than it having to go through transclusions. Additionally, any category that improperly subst'd the template wouldn't show up on the transclusions list, while a category would remain on the page if this happened. As for renaming, I've grown used to calling them parent categories, and don't really like container categories as a name for this. I wouldn't be opposed to something else though...top-level categories? Supercategories? VegaDark (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that bots should have any problem using WhatLinksHere. If they do, it's easy enough to grab the list (using AWB) from WhatLinksHere and generate a bulleted list. Incorrectly substituted instances of the template could be detected and fixed by adding the code provided at Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates.

  "Top-level category" brings to mind the likes of

  Simulation video games and Krugosvet). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Absent a compelling reason to keep, I will support deleting this tracking category. The "systematic review" to which VegaDark refers (and that appears to be the only potential use for this category) almost certainly could be achieved via Special:WhatLinksHere and/or a database report for container categories (or whatever we choose to call them) which contain non-category pages. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming if the category is kept. The new name will match the name of the template that populates it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Parent-only categories. There's no point in having two names for the same thing, and I'd wager good money that the term "parent" is far more widely used on Wikipedia for the upper level categories with subtypes than "container" is. In any case, both have the same linguistic problem, since all categories are containers -they all contain either subcategories or articles. Calling them "Parent-only" gets around this problem by making it clear that they only serve as holders for subcategories. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they're not "parent-only". Container categories can contain some articles. And "parent-only" sounds like it means they're top level categories, which most are not. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the way the term "parent-only" is used on WP. It doesn't suggest anything about whether it's top-level (a category that's parent-only may still have parents of its own). "Parent-only" means that it only contains subcategories (i.e., what you call a "container category"). BTW, re-the comment about "the category which feeds it", it's fed by both {{Container category}} and {{Parent-only stub category}}, though i'll admit that the latter template is new. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks for clearing that up, but not all container categories are parent-only. Some are just large topic categories that are mostly divided into subcategories but contain a few articles, usually an eponymous article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm. Okay - I hadn't realised that, sorry. Back to the drawing board... Grutness...wha? 09:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Infamous Records artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Article of Infamous Records has been deleted. Karppinen (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American schoolteachers convicted of sex offenses against students to Category:Schoolteachers convicted of sex offenses against students

Nominator's rationale: Either Rename or Delete. In this case, a broad category is better than one subdivided by nationality. However, I am not sure whether this kind of category is even necessary. Karppinen (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep An existing and proper parent is Category:American sex offenders which would not be tenable if this were renamed. Hmains (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Saves having to rename everything later. Student7 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:How-to essays to Category:Wikipedia how-to essays

Nominator's rationale: The category relates to Wikipedia essays having how-to suggestions. Categories without the "Wikipedia" such as Category:How-to and Category:How-to websites are for article space. Renaming this category will make it clearer that the How-to essays category is about Wikipedia how-to essays rather than article space how-to essays and be more consistent with other such subcategories:

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for clarity per nom, and per the convention of Category:Wikipedia essays. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity per nom, and per Black Falcon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian convicted child sex offenders to Category:Australian people convicted of child sexual abuse

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the pattern found in Category:People convicted of child sexual abuse. Karppinen (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Taiga and boreal forests in the United States. There's no consensus on a conceptual rename, but there is on grammar and capitalization.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Taiga and Boreal forests in the the United States to Category:Taiga and Boreal forests in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Redundant "the" in spelling. LilHelpa (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy rename C2A -

• Why is Boreal capitalized? East of Borschov 17:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason why it should be, and the main article reads: "Taiga, also known as the boreal forest...". But note the parent category, Category:Taiga and Boreal forests. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The parent was renamed to Category:Taiga and boreal forests via speedy rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Taiga and boreal forests in the United States per nom and to fix capitalization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Good Olfactory. -
  Flank speed 00:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Rename to Category:Taiga and Boreal forests in the United States, WWF vertical biome sidebar in Taiga capitalizes both Taiga and Boreal.---Look2See1 t a l k → 03:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why in the world would we follow that capitalization when it's clearly not a proper noun? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why are we using both names for this in the name? Isn't Category:Taiga forests in the United States sufficient? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like the creator was just copying the WWF biome naming system, which uses both. But if we omitted one of them, it would be Category:Taiga in the United States or Category:Boreal forests in the United States, but not "Taiga forests", which is a redundancy, I believe. I always thought it was called "taiga" in Asia but "boreal forests" in North America. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Boreal forests in the United States. No reason has been provided to require the use of both names in the category name. This option removes the issue of capitalization. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Taiga and boreal forests in the United States. Reason for both names is international recognition, this is one of the 14 terrestrial biomes in the parent Category:Terrestrial biomes under Category:Biomes. Seeing taiga or boreal forests singly used in different articles was confusing to me when first learning. With both in cat. at least readers can see synonyms at bottom regardless of article's local term. Intention when created this cat. and any of the 13 others was to complete the "terrestrial biome categories set" (with my apologies for spelling and cap. errors). I continued using the WWF terminology, as that was already done in existing biome cats., and it also has well done side and bottom info-bar templates with 'same terms' inside links (and seen in many biome and ecoregion articles, ie: {Terrestrial_biomes}} template). In North America-U.S. the ecoregions level options increase beyond Global 200-List of ecoregions (WWF), with differing 'local terms-boundaries' used in List of ecoregions in North America (CEC) and List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA). The Category:Taiga and boreal forests in the United States seems free of these choices, operating at the higher biome level.---Look2See1 t a l k → 02:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is it common usage in the US? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Boreal forests in the United States per Vegaswikian and above discussion. It is very uncommon to refer to "taiga" in the United States, and the two terms are synonymous. I don't see a need to necessary comply with the WWF biome-naming system in subcategories, as long as the parent category remains Category:Taiga and boreal forests. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. I will need someone else to remove the tags, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Reason: Delete - per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:TV stub templates - We don't use special categories for stub templates in specific areas. For example, {{France-stub}} belongs in Category:Stub message boxes and Category:France stubs, and there is no need to create Category:France stub templates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Has this been brought up with the
  Flank speed 17:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. This really ought to be discussed first at
  WP:SFD, and so far I see no evidence that it has been. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I posted a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose some I really don't see why WikiProject categorization is bad, as it helps them organize the stub templates they help maintain. I think that all the WikiProject categories should be renamed with "WikiProject" attached, for those that don't currently have them. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Category:Stub message boxes and the April 29 discussion. --Kbdank71 15:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - there are so many food stub templates, we need to organize them more efficiently. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Get a consensus from the stub people. In reply to the nom's example, Category:France stubs is for articles and Category:France stub templates is for administration of the article. Articles (article space) and administration (project space) are two different things. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jeremy. Unless someone else knows a better way of organizing these stubs, I'm all ears. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pro 7 shows to Category:Pro 7 television series

Nominator's rationale: To match parent and sister categories. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename per creator's request. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Right Organizations (United States) to Category:New Right organizations (United States)

Nominator's rationale: capitalisation per convention -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• support as creator who capitalized it wrong. Could this be a quick change? Hmains (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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