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: do not rename. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Companies of the People's Republic of China to Category:Companies of China

Nominator's rationale: Merge. PRC is the successor state of ROC (1911-1949), except some defunct company before 1949, all Chinese company refer to PRC company. Matthew_hk tc 22:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated:

Propose merging Category:Companies of the People's Republic of China by industry to Category:Companies of China by industry

Propose merging Category:Airlines of the People's Republic of China to Category:Airlines of China

Propose merging Category:Defunct airlines of the People's Republic of China to Category:Defunct airlines of China

Propose merging Category:Banks of the People's Republic of China to Category:Banks of China

Propose merging Category:Financial services companies of the People's Republic of China to Category:Financial services companies of China

Propose merging Category:Law firms of the People's Republic of China to Category:Law firms of China

Propose merging Category:Manufacturing companies of the People's Republic of China to Category:Manufacturing companies of China

Propose renaming Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of the People's Republic of China to Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of China

Propose renaming Category:Video game companies of the People's Republic of China to Category:Video game companies of China

Propose merging Category:Media companies of the People's Republic of China to Category:Media companies of China

Propose merging Category:Oil and gas companies of the People's Republic of China to Category:Oil and gas companies of China

Propose merging Category:Power companies of the People's Republic of China to Category:Power companies of China

Matthew_hk tc 23:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, unless we are going to umperge all the sub-cats of Category:People's Republic of China. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way some cat is already empty of just the parent cat of PRC. Matthew_hk tc 05:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- "China" is ambiguous as it could also refer to Taiwan. I know that the independence of Taiwan is not recognised, but it de facto exists. Categorisation of a Taiwanese Company in one of these categories with be mis-categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "Companies of China" presumably means companies registered under Chinese law, i.e. the law of the People's republic, therefore it is appropriate to use the name of the legal state where ambiguity may exist. If we were discussing Flora of China, Climate of China, etc, I would agree with removing the state name. Sussexonian (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose China is ambiguous, per One China and Two Chinas. Further, there exists older Chinas. The main article is also called People's Republic of China, and it recently failed a rename to China (see Talk:People's_Republic_of_China). 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose That the PRC is the "successor state" to the Republic is laden with POV. (Don't believe me? Try making that argument to people that live in Taipei. I've seen someone try it, and it wasn't pretty.) The Republic of China still very much exists, and the PRC is more attached to that name than many people may realise. (I read a paper that a formal declaration by the ROC to change the name of the country to the "Republic of Taiwan" could be seen as a casus belli by Beijing for destroying the One China policy.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:16, 29 March 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums produced by Supa Dave West (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category for a redlink producer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If he does not have an article, he is presumably NN. If so, we do not need a category for his work. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it. He had an article, it got deleted in 2008. The first step in this was to establish the notability of the producer, and then consider a category. I can't see any benefit to categorising things by relation to a redlink- what are our readers supposed to learn from this category? Likely the same thing I did- nothing. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ^xplicit 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Warped Tour Compilations to Category:Warped Tour compilation albums

Nominator's rationale: Per caps and parent category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While music is my weakest field, I do wonder about this one, due to the fact that, ex. [Warped Tour 2004 Tour Compilation]], "Compilation" appears to be part of the full name of everything categorised here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. All music compilations are albums so an addition of album in the title is unnecessary. A change to Category:Warped Tour compilations would be sufficient to correct the caps. Cjc13 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to Category:Warped Tour compilation albums for consistency with Category:Compilation albums. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 4#Category:Compilation albums. gidonb (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename per nom for consistency. No good reason exists for this one to be different. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Woodworking hand tools. I will manually add File (tool) to Category:Metalworking hand tools. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files, rasps, and similar tools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcat. There are only 5 articles, with not much room for expansion. The current parent cats can be applied to the individual articles. Wizard191 (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to either Category:Files (tool) or Category:Filing tools (metalworking). Both of those have articles and this is a well defined class of tools in this area. So one could argue that these are part of a series of articles on metal working by type in Category:Metalworking. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You really think that 5 articles need a cat? Only the file is a metalworking tool, the rest are woodworking or others, so the parent cats of this category are not a fit to begin with. Wizard191 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Woodworking hand tools (but they are probably all in it already). Remove File (tool), since it is primarily a metalworking tool. We do not need this category. Do not keep a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:County Kilkenny. I will manually remove the two articles per Peterkingiron's suggestion, as both are already in the 'County Kilkenny' category tree via at least two other categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Landmarks in County Kilkenny to Category:County Kilkenny

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Vaguely-titled container category, with no parallel elsewhere in Ireland (there is no Category:Landmarks in Ireland or Category:Landmarks of Ireland), and few parallels anywhere else in the world. Navigation of categories is much easier if consistency of structure is maintained, and this category breaks that consistency. (It was created as Category:Landmarks of County Kilkenny by a prolific creator of Kilkenny categories, and then speedily renamed to change "of" to "in"). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Creator may have been unaware of the stalemate over the terms "Landmark" vs. "Visitor attraction."- choster (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe, though this editor created a lot of new Kilkenny categories. Personally, I'd delete both the "landmarks" and "visitor attractions" tree as a vague and subjective mess, but that's another day's work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  PS There is already a Category:Visitor attractions in County Kilkenny. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as nom. The two articles might possibly be recategorised into a daughter category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 25 March 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 07:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hip hop compilations to Category:Hip hop compilation albums

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The change is unnecessary as Hip Hop compilations are always albums and there is no ambiguity with the current title. Cjc13 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency with Category:Compilation albums. If the "albums" is unnecessary, then a top-down rename of the entire 'Compilation albums' category tree should be implemented. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 6. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ambient albums to Category:Ambient music albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article and category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support makes perfect sense to me: get everything consistent. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This does not make everything consistent. It is normal in subcategories like this not to include music in the title, as all ambient albums consist of music. If you rename this category than you should also rename all the other categories in Category:Electronic albums by genre as well as many other similar categories. Cjc13 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cjc13 as the proposed rename conflicts with the convention of Category:Albums by genre. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:14, 5 April 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 and leave category redirects. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Ojibwa to Category:Ojibwe
• Category:Ojibwa people to Category:Ojibwe people

Nominator's rationale: for consistency. both spellings seem valid but the article page is named Ojibwe Mayumashu (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but leave category redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but I like the idea to leave redirects in their place. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge as proposed. Ruslik_Zero 08:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:CFA Charterholders to Category:Financial analysts

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This appears to refer to Chartered Financial Analyst, but there are no sub-cats of Category:Professional certification in finance for holders of the many other types of professional certification in finance. This appears to me to be a similar issue to WP:OC#Award_recipients; people can and do receive professional or academic throughout their lives, but the defining characteristic of them is their occupation, not what particular qualifications they hold in that area. A useful parallel is Category:Accountants: we do not have a sub-cat for Category:Chartered accountants. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. If a D.Phil or Ph.D. isn't defining, I doubt even a level 3 CFA would be. That's not to trivialize the accomplishment, but most people advanced enough in a profession to have a WP article probably have some sort of certificate in that profession. If anything, what would be interesting is a list of people who lack such credentials in high-profile positions.- choster (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, expanding ititials I can't see any reason to delete this, given we have various medical & legal etc "by qualification" categories. Nor would I see any objection to splitting the accountants in this sort of way. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure about the legal and medics? The only such categs I can see for medical doctors are for the learned societies, such as Category:Fellows of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, which is part of the wider categorisation of learned societies: Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United Kingdom, subcat of Category:Members of learned societies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A glance at Category:Professional certification indicates that it is not the norm to classify individual people by professional qualification, although qualification/certification/licensure often overlaps with occupation and we do categorize by occupation. The achievement of a qualification may or may not be defining depending on the era and location, and indeed the criteria for becoming a Professional Engineer vary from state to state within the U.S.- choster (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Bar of England and Wales anyone? Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which should be renamed to match Barristers in England and Wales, a name which reflects a natural overlap between licensure and occupation. If someone has not been admitted to the bar in this jurisdiction, presumably s/he could not be called a barrister.- choster (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a "qualified in" category, capturing people admitted to the E&W bar, many of whom, like Ghandi, then go or return elsewhere. Apparently the CFA operates in the same way, with many foreign students. There is also Category:English barristers. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Bar of England and Wales does seem a bit superfluous to me, because there must a very high level of overlap between that and Category:English barristers+Category:Welsh barristers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Category:Members of the Bar of England and Wales is really a parent category for barristers divided by membership of their Inn of Court; there were a few people in there, but I've tidied them into their appropriate sub-categories leaving just one name I can't place at present. Bencherlite^Talk 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Chartered Financial Analysts to match main article Chartered Financial Analyst. Category:Financial analysts appears to be a large category covering both qualified professionals, journalists (probably often unqualified), and mere pundits, e.g. David Koch (television presenter). The category should survive, but as a sub-cat of the suggested target. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Profession almost always is defining, but this accomplishment may or may not be. In any case, the existence of categories for professions renders unnecessary this category: people for whom having a CFA certification is not defining should not be placed into a category for CFAs; people for whom having a CFA certification is defining (because of the nature of their work) can be placed in an appropriate category for financial services professionials. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:28, 5 April 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. I think it's indisputable that the category has potential problems, as do many of the subcategories of Category:War crimes. It would indeed be ideal if users would stop creating categories with names that contribute to a battleground atmosphere. But I don't see a consensus here to delete or rename in this case. From some of the comments by participants, a broader nomination might be appropriate, which could be started at any time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War crimes of the Second Chechen War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is a very subjective one, in which mainly articles relating to Russian actions in Chechnya are added based purely on editorial POV; Chechen atrocities are not added. None of the articles in the category have sources which fit a wide POV that the actions were war crimes. Yes, some of these incidents have resulted in cases which have gone to the European Courts - but who has made the European Courts the determiner on what does or doesn't constitute a war crime - which is completely different to violation of human rights, or even so called international crimes. Of course there are some interest groups which call some of the incidents war crimes, but then so too are there many groups which call the Bombing of Dresden a war crime - yet that category is not present on that article. Take for example, Novye Aldi massacre which is present in this category - it led to two cases in the European Court of Human Rights - Estamirov and Others v. Russia and Musayev, Labazanova and Magomadov v. Russia, yet neither judgement mentions that these were war crimes. But rather humans right abuse cases. Talk:Bombing of Katyr-Yurt will also demonstrate how the addition of this category to articles is problematic, for they are not internationally recognised as war crimes. There are other categories available into which such articles can belong, but as the category as it stands is one which content is determined purely by editorial POV, it should be deleted. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename. Any better category for the summary executions of civilians and bombings of a refugee convoy (with white flags) by military forces during war? Biophys (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should also be noted that by using the definition that some editors are using to add articles to this category, Beslan school hostage crisis, Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, 2004 Russian aircraft bombings, etc could also be added to the category, and Shamil Basayev could be added to a war criminal category. To answer Biophys' question, Category:Massacres in Russia already exists and can be utilised, rather than this category which often is used based upon editorial POV only, rather than solid sources. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 04:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge into Category:Massacres in Russia seems reasonable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 24, 2010; 13:38 (UTC)

If it helps to reduce battleground attitudes in this project, I agree. But one could upmerge the entire Category:War crimes based on precisely the same arguments.Biophys (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only voting on the merits of the category being nominated. If Category:War crimes is nominated (which I believe it should be), I'll consider it separately. Hope this clarifies my vote above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 29, 2010; 14:51 (UTC)

• Keep, and do not rename. This category is blatantly POV, but so is most of the Category:War crimes, particularly Category:War crimes committed by country. I would support deletion of the whole, but I oppose cherry-picking one part of this category tree while keeping the others. Similarly, I would support renaming all these categories to a descriptive term (e.g. attacks on civilians), but renaming just one of them ... and I would not support renaming any of them to an emotive POV term such as "massacre". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an emotive POV term such as "massacre" is actually worse. But we need some category here. Unless something better can be suggested for the entire Category:War crimes, this should be kept.Biophys (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument essentially. What you have failed to cover is the mere fact that not a single one of the articles in the category have a single reference (let alone those from a scholarly source) which would demonstrate that they are widely regarded as war crimes. In essence, you are arguing to retain a category for which there are no references for any of those articles belonging in it. It would be advisable to take some time to review the articles in question before arguing to keep or delete the category. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles are incorrectly categorised, then deal with that on the articles. But while war crimes categories exist in relation to other countries and other conflicts, the only grounds for deletion of this one would be underpopulation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to do as you suggest, then I would remove them all from the category as there are no references for it, and then I would be accused of emptying, and then deleting, categories out of process. So I throw back the original argument - no sources, no category. It's as simple as that really. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or rename: Category:Massacres and killings of the Second Chechen War. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:28, 11 April 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; doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm for this move, though participation was light and the opposition was not too fierce. Thus, I've closed this as a "no consensus" rather than a "do not rename" so that the nomination could be made again in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by country and city to Category:People by city by country

Nominator's rationale: listed are not people by country and city, but people by city and city by country Mayumashu (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – 'by A by B' does make more sense but the standard is 'XXX by A and B' (see eg Category:People by occupation). There was an extensive discussion about this somewhere, probably not at cfd, within the last year or so. (It is actually 'Afghan people by city' etc, which is '(People by nationality) by city'; so it should be 'People by nationality and city'. Compare Category:People by nationality and occupation: we see subcats all named 'Fooian people by occupation'; in Category:People by occupation and nationality we see 'Booers by nationality'.) Occuli (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??It s not 'Afghan people by city' but Category:People by city in Afghanistan, and individuals are listed as Category:People from Kabul, not 'Afghan people from Kabul' Mayumashu (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a subcat of Category:Afghan people, so the people are Afghan. We don't have a 'People in Afghanistan' scheme. Occuli (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a Category:People in Afghanistan, because Category:Afghan people is not a neutral term. Per Demography of Afghanistan, "Aghan" is historically a synonym for Pashtun people, one of the larger of several ethnic groups in Afghanistan. It's one of the many non-neutral consequences of the mistaken convention of demonyms for nationality categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only picked Afghan because it was the first. Please change the example to 'Category:People by city in Canada', and side-step an Afghan impasse. ('People in England' and 'English people' are not the same thing.) Occuli (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'People by country' does not presume that the people are citizens of that country (as 'People by nationality' does), only of that country in some manner, anyway. The matter of improving upon 'Cat:Fooian people' for people of Fooian citizenship is a matter that needs to be addressed, I agree too, but is hardly one that should hold up this nomination. Mayumashu (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is parent only category, a parent for "people by city" categories for many countries. I do not think the precise form matters unduly. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 25 March 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 all. — ξ^xplicit 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming the following:

• Category:Actors from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Category:Actors from Pennsylvania and Category:People from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area
• Category:Artists from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Category:Artists from Pennsylvania and Category:People from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area
• Category:Musicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Category:Musicians from Pennsylvania and Category:People from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area
• Category:Religious leaders from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Category:Religious leaders from Pennsylvania and Category:People from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area
• Category:Writers from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Category:Writers from Pennsylvania and Category:People from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area

Propose renaming:

• Category:People from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Category:People from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: At present there are no trees Category:Actors by city, Category:Artists by city, Category:Musicians by city, Category:Writers by city (perhaps there should be?), and the convention is to cat (general) occupations by state, province, etc. In addition, listed are not just those from the city of Pittsburgh but from the wider metro area. (There is the tree Category:People by metropolitan area in the United States.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Content of the encyclopedia needs to be verifiable. As an editor who's added many of the entries to Category:Musicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and other of these categories, I have seen almost no sources using "from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area". The "metropolitan area" is almost always assumed by sources when using the term "Pittsburgh" as the technical geographical city is quite small. I further oppose a move to the "from Pennsylvania" category as they've already been diffused into subcategories, because the main categories were becoming large enough not to be useful. dissolve^talk 16:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If/since the sources aren t clear, we need to, by default, cat to the metro area (as, obviously, the city is within the metro area and not the other way round), which is what this nomination suggests. Mayumashu (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like complete justification for the proposal. Since the media uses one term to describe two areas, one that overlaps the other, we should use the broader area since that would always be accurate. We have been down this road before and found that it can be the correct way to categorize. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment -- I assume that the "metopolitan area" extends beyond the legal boundary of the city. If so, those from beyond the "legal" city shoudlbe categorised in the place they are actually from. If the metropolitan area can be precisley defined (without POV-issues), it might be a parent category. No vote - as I do not know the area. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Lack of uniformity in definitions of metropolitan areas (both throughout space and time) and hence likely source of arguments, fussiness, and POV traps. gidonb (talk) 01:21, 12 April 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Langemark-Poelkapelle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small with no potential for growth. Langemark-Poelkapelle is a municipality of 3 towns. 195.177.83.221 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Langemark-Poelkapelle is rather a small municipality, population nearly 8000. Occuli (talk) 15:57, 23 March 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: do not delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places of worship in Antwerp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small with no potential for growth. Entries were easily relocated in corresponding 'xxxx in Belgium' categories. 195.177.83.221 (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – part of Category:Places of worship by city (and the relocations should be reversed). Occuli (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repopulate. The nominator depopulated the category before making this CFD nomination: see e.g.[1]. [2]. There are plenty of notable places of worship in Antwerp with which to populate this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repopulate per Bhg. Nominator please don't do this again! Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep category is part of an overall structure and has ample room for growth. Alansohn (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repopulate -- A city the size of Antwerp will have many places of worship, some of which will be notable. Upmerging to the whole country (as the nom appears to intend) ought not to be an option. At worst, it should be by province, but for a great city better not at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 25 March 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: do not delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in Antwerp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small with no potential for growth. Maybe if Category:Churches in Belgium ever gets too confusing they can be split up. 195.177.83.221 (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the corresponding cat on nl-Wiki contains 12 articles, so there is potential for growth here, and this cat forms part of the already existing Category:Churches in Belgium by place, which is populated and will also grow further, so is part of an existing tree. Also, the nominator, doubtless in good faith, has just emptied the cat (admittedly containing so far only one article, which pro tem I've replaced). HeartofaDog (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - also part of Category:Church buildings by city. Occuli (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repopulate. The nominator depopulated the category before making this CFD nomination: see e.g. [3]. [4]. There are plenty of notable churches in Antwerp with which to populate this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repopulate per Bhg & Heart. Nominator please don't do this again! Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the overall structure and repopulate. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repopulate -- A city the size of Antwerp will have many churches, some of which will be notable. Upmerging to the whole country (as the nom appears to intend) ought not to be an option. At worst, it should be by province, but for a great city better not at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why place in the same category the churches of Antwerp with churches of Brugge? Churches in Antwerp can be a subcategory of churches in Belgium.User:Lucifero4

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 delete, C1: empty category for 4 or more days. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plays by Weberty Moreira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category for plays about a playwright whose main article has been deleted as the result of an AFD discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – its contents were deleted by the same afd so this (an 'in-process emptying') is probably a speedy. Occuli (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete C1 or G6, this needs to go after the AfD. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:36, 29 March 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 Category:BMS-affiliated unions to Category:Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh-affiliated unions; Category:HMS-affiliated unions to Category:Hind Mazdoor Sabha-affiliated unions; Category:HMKP-affiliated unions to Category:Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat-affiliated unions. — ξ^xplicit 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BMS-affiliated unions to Category:Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh

Propose renaming Category:HMS-affiliated unions to Category:Hind Mazdoor Sabha

Propose renaming Category:HMKP-affiliated unions to Category:Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat

Nominator's rationale: expand abbreviations per main and consistent to the other subcategories of Category:Trade unions in India (see this CfD). I understand that these names don't say "union" for an English-speaking user, so I'm certainly open to alternative proposals. The acronym, however, is cryptic. PanchoS (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Unfortunately, the acronyms are less cryptic than the proposed new names, and I can't see any better alternative: Category:Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat-affiliated unions is a bit of mouthful, and for an English speaker it is no more informative than Category:HMKP-affiliated unions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand abbreviations along the lines suggested by BHG Category:Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat-affiliated unions. The abbrevations are incomprehensible to non-Indians, like me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand abbreviations per Peterkingiron. I think that Category:Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat-affiliated unions is, in fact, more informative than Category:HMKP-affiliated unions. I agree that the category title is still likely to be less-than-clear for most readers, but at least they will know to search for the article Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat for more information rather than wondering who or what "HMKP" is. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand abbreviations per above suggestion of Peterkingiron. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's probably better than what currently exists, and it would be in line with our standard practice to avoid all but the most well-known acronyms and abbreviations in category names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:59, 12 April 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: renamed all. All categories have been switched to the new titles, which was mostly done automatically by Mono, old ones deleted per G6. JamieS93^❤ 13:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Wikipedia:WikiProject Google, which was renamed earlier this month. I plan to take care of the needed follow-up cleanup once the new categories are created. (WikiProject Google notified) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume most, if not all, of these are populated by a template. Isn't it easier to fix the template and then delete the old categories as G6 housekeeping / G8 populated by a retargeted template? Still, no harm done if approval given here for a non-controversial change, so rename all. Bencherlite^Talk 14:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to match changed name of the project. In practice, this change can only be implemented by changing the project's banner template, but if Black Falcon is willing and able to do that, then the resulting empty categories can be deleted per this CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename automatically or not at all using AWB or something. It took a while to create those categories and it doesn't really matter.--mono 04:51, 3 April 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:National Recording Corporation artists. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NRC Records artists to Category:National Recording Corporation artists

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, National Recording Corporation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 23 March 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:Topics in popular culture. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:In popular culture to Category:Subjects in popular culture or Category:Topics in popular culture or something else

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It seems to be that the current name is a bit incomplete. One is left wondering what "in popular culture"? There is no subject in this category name, just a dangling prepositional phrase. We need a noun as a subject in the phrase—it could be "topics", "subjects", or something else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename "Topics in popular culture As the nominator pointed out, this is ungrammatical and confusing. I'm basically indifferent to "topics" versus "subjects", so I will happily go along with a majority if they favor "subjects." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - "topics" seems a bit better, but whatever consensus decides. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Topics in... Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:51, 29 March 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:Live at The Fillmore albums, without prejudice against considering deletion of the live albums by venue category structure. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Live at Fillmore, San Francisco albums to Category:Live at The Fillmore albums

Nominator's rationale: Caps, per main article, The Fillmore. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – should we categorise albums by where they were recorded? If so, rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These categories all existed prior to this nomination as well as Category:Albums recorded at Electric Lady Studios (a redirect from Albums recorded at Electric Lady Studios. Note that I created that first category last night. Whether or not they should be is probably a good question and I don't necessarily have an answer, but I simply figured I would point out the preexisting scheme that was emerging. I'm kind of surprised that Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios doesn't exist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 23 March 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:Yngwie Malmsteen albums. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yngwie J. Malmsteen albums to Category:Yngwie Malmsteen albums

Nominator's rationale: per main article, Yngwie Malmsteen —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 23 March 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: renamed by creator and speedy deleted by JoJan (talk · contribs). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Die Ärzte videos to Category:Die Ärzte video albums

Nominator's rationale: Per parent cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As pointed out below, this has already been done. I will tag the category for speedy deletion and post on that user's talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – although someone has already done it. Occuli (talk) 16:03, 23 March 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: do not rename. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pixies (band) album covers to Category:Pixies album covers

Propose renaming Category:Pixies (band) live albums to Category:Pixies live albums

Propose renaming Category:Pixies (band) compilation albums to Category:Pixies compilation albums

Propose renaming Category:Pixies (band) songs to Category:Pixies songs

Propose renaming Category:Images of Pixies (band) to Category:Images of Pixies

Propose renaming Category:Pixies (band) audio samples to Category:Pixies audio samples

Propose renaming Category:Pixies (band) albums to Category:Pixies albums

Propose renaming Category:Pixies (band) video albums to Category:Pixies video albums

Propose renaming Category:Pixies (band) EPs to Category:Pixies EPs

Propose renaming Category:Pixies (band) members to Category:Pixies members

Propose renaming Category:Pixies (band) to Category:Pixies

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Pixies. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous cfd which changed the name from Pixies to Pixies (band), arguing that Category:Pixies is ambiguous. (There is Pixies but also Pixie, which makes Category:Pixies ambiguous.) Occuli (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is to avoid the obvious confusion of not using a dab word e.g. category:Images of Pixies. This is one of those cases where following the main article name is not the best solution, as was agreed (despite Justin's objection at the time) in 2008. Bencherlite^Talk 11:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous CFD as an ambiguous name. However, I'd also recommend that "pixies" be redirected to "pixie" and the current article be moved to Pixies (band) to avoid further ambiguity. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment That can be done at Talk:Pixies with {{Move}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and rename article to match). However do this band really need so many categories? Could not most be merged to Category:Pixies (band) and Category:Pixies (band) recordings? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 25 March 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.