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:The Doon School alumni to match the convention of Category:Alumni by secondary school in India. Consensus to use the "The" form to match the current article name and the school's usage (per this, among other places on their website). If this changes, feel free to nominate for a speedy rename. - jc37 02:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Doscos to Category:People educated at the Doon School

Nominator's rationale: This is exactly the same as the recent discussions that have taken place on renaming "Old Fooians" to "People educated at Foo". This is an encyclopaedia. There is enough reference to Doscos in the main school article. Categories are there to assist in grouping and organising articles. Any reader seeing "Doscos" at the bottom of a biographical article is unlikely to understand what it means (especially as the bio is likely to mention the Doon School), but they are certain to understand what "People educated at the Doon School" means at first glance without having to click through the category to find out. I think that not having to click through is the acid test of whether a category is correctly named. Bob Re-born (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:Doon School alumni per convention in sibling categories. Even the most ardent Old Fooian would be baffled by Doscos. Oculi (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Or Category:The Doon School alumni – take the article title (which was Doon School on 2 March). It looks to me as if The Doon School is correct. Oculi (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to either of the proposed names. My personal preference would be Category:People educated at the Doon School, as it's my belief that all the "Alumni" categories should eventually be changed to that format and it should start somewhere. But if consensus is that Category:Doon School alumni is preferable to fit with the current format, that's OK too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but such a change cannot start with a single school in India.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity to match the title of the head article. The current category name is slang which conveys nothing about what the category is for.
  I would prefer that the new name was to Category:Doon School alumni per convention of Category:Alumni by secondary school in India, but the main thing is get rid of the slangy term, so the nominator's proposal is a big improvement on the status quo, so that is my 2nd choice. (If editors want to change the convention of Category:Alumni by secondary school in India, that should really be done by a separate group nomination). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the head article has been renamed to The Doon School, I would be happy with Category:The Doon School alumni. I would also be quite happy with just about any descriptive format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Doon School alumni but anything with the school's actual name in is preferable. For the record the non-Fooians categories for India were standardised on "Schoolname alumni" in this CFD last September. The general outcome of CFDs and the RFC over the past year has been that whilst categories should be clearly named using the name of the school, different formats can be used for individual countries appropriate to the local terminology. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Category:The Doon School alumni as the school article now has "The" in it, but the crucial point is clarity. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Doon School alumni (possibly with a "The" at the front). This may be the least "I am a category which contains attendees of a school" category I've seen.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• REname -- too obscure to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi -- I apologise for this random intrusion but I, as a Dosco, think it is a sound suggestion by Bob. No one would know what a Dosco is? I don't even know if I'm allowed to comment here, where I'm surrounded by all Wiki biggies, whereas I'm just a newbie (2-days old). But I'm thoroughly enjoying editing and have created 5 articles already (Doon headmasters). Sorry for rambling so much (just excited) and to come back to the topic yes it'll be apt to name it something like Category:List of Doon School alumni OR whatever else you gentlemen (&ladies) think. I apologise if I've made a mistake by commenting in this hallowed portal but just wanted to share my opinion:)
  P.S:- I assure you there'll be no conflict of interest regarding Doon on my part. And no puffery or advertisement like edits. You can inspect my 5 articles if you like. thanks very much sir! DoscoinDoon (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are most certainly allowed, and most certainly welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The main page is now at The Doon School, not sure if the category should have capitalised "The" or not....? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Doon School alumni. This is the name that reflects the choice of name in the country parent category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment List of Doon School alumni says that the "Old Boys" (that was their term not mine) would be correctly know as ex-Doscos, not as Doscos, so the common claim that this name is correct would fail. On the other hand this school is prestigious enough in India that it would be inconsistent for those who want an old fooian exception for the most presitgious schools to not apply it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Except it is not 'Old Doscos' (which would suggest a school to me, whose name I would be unable to guess) but just 'Doscos' (which could be anything: one of the Greek islands maybe, or a wholesome but unexciting salad). Oculi (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional life forms (and subcats)

Category:Fictional creatures is a redirect.

Basically wanted to discuss two main things dealing with this tree:

a.) Getting rid of the word "species" from all the subcats. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_17#Category:Fictional_species, I think most use that term because that was the former name of the parent/container cat. But using it suggests a scientific designation where none likely exists. This might even be speediable, but as there's no rush, posted here.

b.) Using Category:Fictional creatures as a container for the creatures. Trying to call some of the things under Category:Fictional life forms, alive, is dubious at best. Undead and vampires and the like come immediately to mind.

That said, I'm concerned about the semantics of creature meaning "that which creeps or crawls upon the earth" (earth intentionally uncapitalised). It might tend to disinclude plants, for example.

And I'd like to avoid naming which leads to multiple trees of nearly the same thing. Navigation would be hindered by complex multi layers of subcats, I would think : ) - jc37 22:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'm going to give User:J Greb a ping about this, due to Template:Infobox comics species... - jc37 22:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Having looked at the 2008 CfD, the current category, and the category tree...
  1. I agree with the 2008 reasoning: "species" as a container can be problematic. It implies that all things in a sub category are of a specific type. That may or may not be the case. "creatures" and "life forms" are better fits since they by-pass the scientific baggage "species" has. And as jc37 points out, "life form" has an edge since most perspectives have "creature" default to animal or animal like things, leaving fictional sedentary, non-active plants out.
  2. As for the undead... I really can't see a problem. In general use, both terms would wind up catching them. That should be good enough. And to be frank, they are a type of "life" with in the works of fiction and hit most if not all of the definitions generally used to describe life forms - they consume, react, adapt, grow, and reproduce.
  3. Using "species" in sub-categories is a case by case thing. There are times where it can be justified - Category:Star Trek species for example. Within that set of fiction works, "species" is used to describe different types of life forms, making it reasonable to use as a category title in this case.
  4. As for the category tree structure... wow. There needs to be work done untangling sections of it.

- J Greb (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose i see your point about undead being "life forms", though it does just seem wrong to me to call them "alive" (from a mythological perspective, for example).

And agree with species being a case-by-case thing. Though honestly there's a decent chance that only start trek (and maybe dr who) would be appropriate.

So withdrawing for now. I'll see about some more specific noms then based upon this. - jc37 20:19, 9 March 2012 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nazi SS to Category:Schutzstaffel

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article, pages and subcategories may stay as the context is given. Brandmeister t 20:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - concerns were raised at the previous speedy nomination that Schutzstaffel wouldn't be as clear as the current name; however, it seems that it's a well-enough known term to be recognised, at least IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think it was me that opposed the speedy, and I still maintain that in English this operation is known as "the SS". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NCCAT suggests matching the name of an article and advises against descriptive adjectives. Otherwise technically we should move Schutzstaffel to Nazi SS then, which isn't the best solution imho. Perhaps a gulp of fresh air is needed. Brandmeister t 11:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Titles in article space work differently, because links to articles are not constricted to displaying the title of the article. They can use the pipe trick or redirects so that readers sees the SS or Nazi SS.
  However, categories cannot do that; the category name is displayed without obfuscation at the bottom of articles and in the contents of its parent categories. For those reasons, it is best to have a category name which is unambiguous and which clearly conveys the contents of the category to the non-specialist reader. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• rename the main article to match the category 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See previous discussion here. Lugnuts (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is. In Englsh, the proposed name means nothing to most people, while SS is well known and used at every level of writing to name this organization. Category:Schutzstaffel amounts to obscuration. Hmains (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. If it's good enough for the article name it's good enough for the category name in this case. Category redirects can be used for the various different names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I concur with BHG's assessment that the organization is more commonly referred to as "the SS", but we can't use that title because SS by itself is highly ambiguous. The current category title, "Nazi SS", is the worst of all options, in my opinion. It is not common and makes little sense in the absence of a contrasting non-Nazi SS. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• so rename to Category:Schutzstaffel (SS) for clarity without being ambiguous. Hmains (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That name violates the naming conventions. There are no other Schutzstaffels for which (SS) would be needed to disambiguated it from. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (second choice) or Rename (first choice) to Category:SS. (Note that that category doesn't exist.) This shouldn't be any more an issue than using US (which is NOT the US (disambiguation) page). We name based upon WP:COMMONNAME. If disambiguation is needed in the future, we can deal with that then. I note that the subcats use the format SS as well. - jc37 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I've read and reread each of these !votes. And while I first thought Jc37's idea was the worst, I've turned nearly 180 and think it's one of the better options. The biggest issue I see is that the main article doesn't match most of the related articles. The overwhelming majority of the related articles use "SS" in the name; a significant number don't mention "SS" or "Schutzstaffel" at all, and the smallest number use "Schutzstaffel". I would rank the options as follows: oppose (first choice - "Nazi SS" is completely descriptive), rename to "SS (Schutzstaffel)" or "SS (Nazi)" or "SS (Nazi organizations)" or something along these lines (second choice - since even though there is no SS category, SS itself needs disambiguating), rename to "SS" (third choice, as per Jc37). - UtherSRG (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:The SS. I know that's far afield, but it's extremely clear.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. SS is only used in the literature because it is a convenient abbreviation for an intimidating-looking German word, though it should be said that German sources frequently use the SS abbreviation as well. Additionally, English sources often introduce the term as "The Schutzstaffel (SS)…" or something similar. Also, though it is an OTHERCRAP argument, Category:Einsatzgruppen is not called "Category:Nazi Death Squads". Also on that note, Category:Neurology, SS, and psychiatry disease and disorder templates—SS clearly has other uses. Continuing in the same vein, Category:Lysergic acid diethylamide is not Category:LSD, even though most people likely do not recognise the proper name; those who know about the topic, however, will recognise it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Should Category:Nazi SA be up for discussion on similar grounds? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland)
• Nominator's rationale This category consists of the article on the school and a wikimedia commons file for the school. There is no reason to have such a small category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- effectively no content, apart from the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2012 (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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles by manufacturer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Category:Boeing unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:Boeing aircraft

Propose merging Category:British Aerospace unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:British Aerospace aircraft

Propose merging Category:Dassault unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:Dassault aircraft

Propose merging Category:Interstate unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:Interstate aircraft

Propose merging Category:Lockheed Martin unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:Lockheed Martin aircraft

Propose merging Category:Lockheed unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:Lockheed aircraft

Propose merging Category:Martin unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:Martin aircraft

Propose merging Category:McDonnell unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:McDonnell aircraft

Propose merging Category:Northrop Grumman unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:Northrop Grumman aircraft

Propose merging Category:Northrop unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:Northrop aircraft

Propose merging Category:Ryan unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:Ryan aircraft

Propose merging Category:SAGEM unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:SAGEM aircraft

Propose merging Category:Sikorsky unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:Sikorsky aircraft

Nominator's rationale: This set of categories was created without prior discussion awhile back, disruptingdeviating from the long-standard scheme of aircraft categorization by manufacturer. The long-standing, and reaffirmed through discussion after these were created, consensus is that aircraft-by-manufacturer is categorized as Category:Aircraft by manufacturer > Category:Foocorp aircraft, with no further discrimination by UAV, helicopter, glider, tiltwing, with ballistic parachute, light blue, etc. done. This proposal would restore that consensus status to the categorization. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support one deletion and the rest merged as per nom and long standing category convention for aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge it it Make sure everyone checks with you before doing anywork in future. The creator should be perma-banned for disrupting the long-standard scheme of aircraft categorization by manufacturer. Thanks for your support. Mddkpp (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that members of 'wikiproject aircraft' or whatever it is called like to spend their time undoing good faith, and reasonable categorisation work so that can conitnue owning a tiny corner of the encyclopedia. Take a good look at these people.Mddkpp (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint this has nothing to do with good categorisation, and everything to do with WP:OWN Mddkpp (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might want to read WP:NPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 2 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Luangmaul F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Simla Youngs F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two more categories which were created not long before an initial bulk nomination of similar categories that were deleted at CfD (see WP:CFD/2012 Feb 24). No content other than the eponymous article and an image file. Suggest the same outcome with no prejudice against recreation when appropriate content exists to populate them. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See previous debate. Pichpich (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British American Football League teams to Category:BAFA National League teams

Nominator's rationale: The BAFL ceased to exist a few years ago, and has since been replaced by the BAFA National Leagues. ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 11:38, 2 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs remixed by Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for songs by remixer and I'm not convinced this is a defining characteristic. Content like this should just be a list within a biographical or discographical article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trivial and non-defining to the song. Lugnuts (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per nom. I am wary enough about producer categories as often the person credited as "producer" wasn't actually the true producer of a song, but the CEO of the record company, the artist, the money man etc; also linking redirects to producer (and remixers as is contained in the category) is misleading. That's not to say some of these categories wouldn't make a nice article where in depth explanations are possible. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, the fact that a given person remixed it at one point is not notable to a song.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Redlink music genre —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:04, 2 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SONET to Category:Synchronous optical networking

Nominator's rationale: Rename. SONET redirects to Synchronous optical networking. Nomination is based on the guideline which states that article names and category names should usually correspond: see here. This was an opposed speedy nomination. I don't agree that the rename would change the scope of the category as the objector has stated, since SONET is just the shorted name of Synchronous Optical NETworking. A category redirect could be retained. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - No reason for the cat not to match the article here, and avoiding acronym/abbreviation-only cat names is almost always a good thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent article. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "SONET" is a specific protocol called "Synchronous Optical NETworking", "synchronous optical networking" can be seen as the generic topic concerning all communications that involve synchronous networking on optical circuits. This greatly expands the scope of the category. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it also matches the scope of the article that the category serves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The protocol is covered in the article, but the article covers more than just that protocol, so the scope of the article is greater than the scope of the category. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is part of the problem. The category should match the scope of its article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the category should cover the scope of the category. There is no policy anywhere that says the category scope should be the same as the article scope. Look at "Chararcters of X" where the main article is the article is "X" (that contains a character list) since there's no separate character list article. That SONET redirects to a more general article does not mean that the category was created to cover the scope of the more general article, only that the article that covers the category is more general than the scope of the category. However the article that covers SONET is the main article for SONET, so the description works fine. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's nothing but confusing to have a category narrower in scope than the article that the category name redirects to in article space. Just describing it in that sentence is confusing enough: to see it in practice is worse. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's already common practice to do so with character categories, where there is no parent subject category... and no character list article either... so I don't see why it would be different here. Or with song by artist categories, where there is no separate discography article, and no parent artist category. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not convinced that's a comparable situation because the name of the song category would not redirect in article space to the article about the singer. Bob Dylan songs would not redirect to Bob Dylan, whether or not there was a discography article. It just wouldn't really be a very useful redirect to have. But here there is a very good reason to have SONET redirect to Synchronous optical networking. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The concern above is valid, in part at least. There are two possible solutions: Create "SONET" as a subcategory of "Synchronous optical networking". Or subsume "SONET" under "Synchronous optical networking" as suggested. Personally, I am fine with either. Nageh (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Synchronous optical networking to match head article, as per nominator. Yes, this does slightly widen the scope, but the category does not seem to be in danger of becoming overloaded, and as other editors have pointed out there will be great scope for confusion if the category and its eponymous article have difft scopes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 9 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Emmy Awards footer templates to Category:Primetime Emmy Awards footer templates
• Category:Emmy Awards for Comedy navigational boxes to Category:Primetime Emmy Awards for Comedy navigational boxes
• Category:Emmy Awards for Drama navigational boxes to Category:Primetime Emmy Awards for Drama navigational boxes
• Category:Emmy Awards for Miniseries navigational boxes to Category:Primetime Emmy Awards for Miniseries navigational boxes
• Category:Emmy Awards for Variety navigational boxes to Category:Primetime Emmy Awards for Variety navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: This part of an ongoing larger effort to diffuse, disambiguate, and separate those categories pertaining to the Primetime Emmy Awards from those pertaining to the Daytime Emmy Awards – especially if Category:Daytime Emmy Awards navigational boxes also gets diffused to similar subcategories in the near future. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Seems speediable under C2D.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 3 March 2012 (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:Car-free zones as the term that covers all the points raised. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Car-free areas to Category:Car-free places

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The putiative main article is...well, not. The "main article" referred to is, I assume, List of car-free places. Which is fine as far as it goes, as it's the "|*" piped article in the cat. But the lede of that list says "This is a list of noteworthy car-free areas." With 'car-free areas' being a piped link to Auto-free zone, which is itself a redirect to Pedestrian zone, which kicks off by saying "Pedestrian zones (also known as auto-free zones and car-free zones)...". It seems zone is the preferred phrasology here, and that List of car-free places should be renamed to List of car-free zones, as a "car-free place" could describe a backyard, the Bradwell Bay Wilderness, the bottom of the Marianas Trench...so rename to Category:Pedestrian zones. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to Category:Pedestrianised areas or Category:Pedestrian areas -- In UK we talk about "pedestrianised areas". This is a street or two in a town centre, not the whole town (i.e. place). Calling it a zone is I suspect an Americanism. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the article claims that "The term "pedestrianised zone" is used in British English". And since the actual main article is at Pedestrian zone at least at the moment... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Pedestrianised areas or Category:Pedestrian areas or Category:Pedestrian zones. Not sure if wp:ASTONISH applies to categories, but I'd certainly assume that car-free areas were National park, Wilderness, Fell etc. --Northernhenge (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Pedantic comment' a "car-free zone" is not necessarily a "pedestrianised zone". Some zones are reserved for pedestrians and bicycles, so a "pedestrianised zones" are actually a subset of "car-free zones". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, not pedantic. We also have dedicated tram lanes and most of the links from busway. (I was looking for the Runcorn busways that are car-free roads for standard buses.) Are we moving towards delete? --Northernhenge (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case shouldn't the article name be changed to car-free zone? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, given that the context is urban, zone makes more sense to me than area or place. How about rename Category:Car-free areas to Category:Urban car-free areas (or ...zones or ...places)? --Northernhenge (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Car-free zones. Not all are neccesarily "urban", but the "zones" will indicate that wilderness areas aren't included. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - rename to Category:Car-free zones. --Northernhenge (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_10#Category:Car-free might be worth a look, since this category's creation stemmed from that discussion. - jc37 00:25, 8 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public transit executives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Replaced by Category:Public transport executives. Plasma east (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please do not manually move articles from a long-established category to one you've just created and then nominate the original category for deletion. A move like this must be discussed at CfD itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 2 March 2012 (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.