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. --Xdamr^talk 00:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who want Rock Hero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category not in compliance with WP:USERCAT as it does not support collaboration. — ξ^xplicit 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No harm. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a category that groups users on the basis of a desire that has absolutely no relation to encyclopedia-building (some precedents: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). The userbox is fine for expressing the sentiment, but user categories should not be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices. A grouping of users who want to be rock stars does nothing to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - silly, and of no use for collaboration. Feel free to make a userbox instead. Robofish (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Robofish. Debresser (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2009 (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:The United States of America songs to Category:The United States of America (band) songs. --Xdamr^talk 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The United States of America songs to Category:The United States of America (band) songs

Nominator's rationale: I'm well aware that these types of nominations are under dispute, but this one just screams ambiguity. I found this category while patrolling new categories, thinking it contains songs about the United States. I believe this category should be renamed with the addition of the "(band)" disambiguation to avoid this unclarity. — ξ^xplicit 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename in line with other "Category:<Artist name> songs" and especially potentially ambiguous ones such as Category:Propaganda (band) songs. Arguably Category:The Presidents of the United States of America songs should be made similarly specific? AllyD (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename – I'm not sure what the basis for a dispute with this one would be. Occuli (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I find myself intrigued by the idea that people patrol new categories. Out of curiosity, how did you resolve what the category was for? Also, is the dab phrase too entrenched on Wikipedia for us to consider a "songs by the band" format? My main reason for asking is that I just can't help but feel using proper English wherever possible is more accessible than using parentheses. I just can't help but wonder if we're making things a little too impenetrable to newcomers. Hiding T 20:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. This is still a speedy. And I don't think that unnecessary Rfc will change that. Debresser (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we seem to be forum shopping, the unnecessary Rfc seems to be moving towards the merging of G6 into G4, since no-one can work out what G6 adds that G4 doesn;t already do. Hiding T 09:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this wouldn't meet the traditional criteria of G6 anyway. There is no disambiguated parent category named Category:The United States of America (band) that we would be matching this category to. G6 has never applied to matching a category to a disambiguated article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:45, 1 December 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 00:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saw actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is overcategorization of performer by performance. See similar nomination. — ξ^xplicit 21:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OVERCAT. Lugnuts (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Classic instance of cited overcategorization guideline. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 2 December 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipinos of Mixed Foreign Descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per long-standing consensus that categories of people of mixed ethnicity is overcategorization. These individuals should be categorized by ethnic or national origin. — ξ^xplicit 21:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - specific categories should be used instead. Robofish (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Did you notice the capitalisation? Debresser (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2009 (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: Restored. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrative nomination

Further to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_14#Category:Analysis, Category:Analysis was deleted. After representations from User:Mion at User_talk:Xdamr#Analysis, I am relisting this category for fresh consideration, with the presumption that No Consensus will, as per usual contrary to the usual convention for deleted content, default to Keep (or, in this case, Restore). [1] indicates category contents as of 21/11/09.

I am Neutral.

Xdamr^talk 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "No consensus" defaults to keep for content that currently exists, not to recreate content that has been previously deleted. Particularly not for a CFD that was closed less than a week ago. If you want to make an exception in this instance, I don't think anyone will object, given that you had closed the CFD, which also had very little participation. But I just don't want that being taken as a statement of general policy and procedure. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely. Basically, for the sake of being equitable, this is a rerun of the original Cfd, only with the category already deleted; hence the setting aside of what, as you say, is the usual rule re. 'No Consensus' and deleted categories. Sloppy wording on my part, now amended. --Xdamr^talk 20:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a mishmash category of articles with the word "analysis" in them. I'm open to arguments that there is more to it than that, but so far I haven't heard any. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually, having read Mion and Debresser's contributions to the previous CfD I had been about to change my Delete to a Keep but by the time I got there the discussion had been terminated, as had the category. That said, it was going to be a Weak Keep, merely on the formal basis that the category contents matched the content of the Analysis article; I still think it is a mishmash of much that humans do (and could ultimately stretch all the way from Aristotle to football pundits like Alan Hansen). But if people feel that the category really adds to human knowledge, then maybe it should be reinstated. AllyD (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep (restore) I can't imagine what use it would be to most users, but there seems to some coherence in the contents. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (restore The given rationale: Analysis is a philosophical method which was applied later on in different sciences, which explains the different fields in the cat[2] is a nice start on its origins, but the article is not complete, "The supplementary document, Modern Conceptions of Analysis, outside Analytic Philosophy is not yet available.", the same with the wiki article .Mion (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ctageory that unites common articles by a defining characteristic for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I also see some order here, and at least a valid definition. Debresser (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2009 (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:Adoptees adopted by relations. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Adoptees adopted by family to Category:?

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how this should be renamed. All I know is the current title is confusing; before I looked at the contents, I thought it was somehow for grouping adoptees by what family adopted them. Perhaps Category:People adopted by family members?

But I also question whether this should be maintained as a separate category within Category:Adoptees. I can see there being a real difference between people adopted by complete strangers (i.e., people given away by their biological parents) and people adopted by family members (such as by an uncle or grandmother after being orphaned). But that would seem to either minimize the adoption status of those within this category as being less significant than those who are adopted by strangers (who are just included in Category:Adoptees, without such qualification), or it would beg the creation of Category:People adopted by non-family members. There is also the beginnings of adoptees by nationality, with Category:American adoptees, so we would either eventually intersect this with that (Category:American adoptees adopted by family members and Category:American adoptees adopted by strangers), or not intersect them and thus have adoptees categorized as such both by nationality and by who adopted them. Thoughts? Just rename, or merge? postdlf (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, rename to Category:Adoptees adopted by relations; neutral on the need for it. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Adoptees adopted by relations. A bit of an odd category, but I think it's probably acceptable. Robofish (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2009 (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. — ξ^xplicit 01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Mario baseball games to Category:Mario sports games

Nominator's rationale: Only two entries, upmerge/delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom, no need for a category yet. Robofish (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (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/2009 December 6#Category:Industrial design examples. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Industrial design examples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: The category is not defined, and there are no clear requirements for inclusion. Whilst a few examples may be obvious examples of Industrial design examples, in many cases it is a matter of opinion. Articles may be added because an editor favours a particular product, but there is no overall consistency. It seems to serve no purpose - we cover this much better at Industrial design, and at least there, examples that are added can be discussed, and references requested. The main purpose for a category as well as an article is if we want to list every possibility, but trying to assess whether every product on Wikipedia counts as an "Industrial design example" or not seems unfeasible, given the amount of articles, and the lack of any criteria. The category has been around for years, and shows no signs of going anywhere, beyond a pick-and-mix selection of 50 articles. I raised this at the talk page, and got one comment in agreement, but no suggestions for improvement. Mdwh (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see the problems - really this is "notable or famous examples of industrial design", which isn't allowed, but we should have a category for actual examples rather than just designers etc. Looking at the category quickly all do seem worth including, and if the category has worked long-term on a "self-selecting" basis, it's best to leave it alone. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But do you have an answer to the question of what the criteria should be, or do we just let anything go in there if someone adds it? What use does a category with either a random selection of products (as it is now), or a very large selection of uncategorised products (if it's updated) serve? We already have category hierarchies for listing hardware products (e.g., see Category:Manufactured_goods) that do allow finding of products much more effectively. Mdwh (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Industrial designs (pluralising it) to match how many other instances of 'examples' are currently handled in WP in many difference subject areas Hmains (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or that. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Industrial designs which captures the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that we already have Category:Industrial design (which is fine, as that's topics about industrial design), so I'm not sure how this category would be different? Mdwh (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2009 (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 12:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia sportspeople to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. And the same for the related nominations below, which should have been made as one group nomination. The can still be grouped now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The correct English title of SFRY is Socialist Federative Republic, not Federal. So some day the main article will get renamed. I don't get why an unambiguous category name needs to be lengthened just to match a 'main' article. Sussexonian (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2009 (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 01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia politicians to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia politicians

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (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: Already emptied so delete and it can be created under the new name if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia international footballers to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia international footballers

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it should merge into Category:Pre-1992 Yugoslavia international footballers, itis because the kingdom and its successor SFRY is one state, but not be link to FRY. Matthew_hk tc 03:52, 1 December 2009 (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 01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia footballers to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia footballers

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (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 01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia expatriate footballers to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia expatriate footballers

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (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 01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SFR Yugoslavia expatriates to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia expatriates

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (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 01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military of FR Yugoslavia to Category:Military of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Nominator's rationale: Full name, per main category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Converts to Scientology from Protestantism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one member currently. Considering how few Scientologists there are in sum, this might not be a useful category. If it can be populated with enough articles to justify its existence, this is a different story. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and put the member in Category:Scientologists, Category:Former Christians and Category:Converts to new religious movements. Not every intersection of categories need be a separate category, since a page can be in many categories at once. NeonMerlin 00:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can show that there is a need for this category (i.e., more than one article that belongs in it). Robofish (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2009 (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:Communities in Dutchess County, New York to Category:Settlements in Dutchess County, New York. --Xdamr^talk 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Dutchess County, New York to Category:Settlements in Dutchess County, New York

Nominator's rationale: All sister categories were renamed a while ago (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_29#Communities_in_New_York) but this was somehow missed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2009 (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 Category:Dungeons & Dragons symbols to Category:Dungeons & Dragons images. --Xdamr^talk 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Dungeons & Dragons symbols to Category:Dungeons & Dragons images

Nominator's rationale: Only has one member. Alternately, could rename to Dungeons & Dragons logos or Dungeons & Dragons fair-use images and move in other images from Category:Dungeons & Dragons images. NeonMerlin 04:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. A fair use images cat would also be acceptable. Robofish (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Logical proposal. These symbols are also images. Debresser (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Debresser. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:52, 2 December 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greyhawk symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only had one member, and it is unlikely that other items will ever be added. NeonMerlin 04:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as an empty category (WP:C1). Robofish (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as empty and overcategorisation. Debresser (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Debresser. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (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:Indian Emergency (1975 - 77) to Category:Indian Emergency 1975-1977. --Xdamr^talk 00:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian Emergency (1975 - 77) to Category:The Emergency (India)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article The Emergency (India). If current name is preferred, I don't think the date disambiguation is necessary, since Indian Emergency redirects to the main article; thus Category:Indian Emergency would probably suffice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Indian Emergency 1975-1977. Retaining the years clarifies that this applies to a particular period in the history of India, and not to a TV show or to emergencies in general or the various states of emergency declared in the colonial era. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename to Category:Indian Emergency 1975-1977 per Bhg. I think the extra clarity is justified in a category name, that is included in international categories. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. If the article title is inadequate, change it, rather than create a deliberate discrepancy between the article and the category.Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename to Category:Indian Emergency 1975-1977 as above. This is clearer than the nominated rename. Also rename main article as per Alansohn. Both need to be consistent (and clear). Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep renamedas suggested. This is a general encyclopedia; to people who know about the history of modern India the dates may seem redundant, but not to the general reader in the English-speaking world. I must confess i had not come across the term before. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 2 December 2009 (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 Category:Newcastle Knights Articles to Category:Newcastle Knights. --Xdamr^talk 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newcastle Knights Articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be an unnecessary second level of the Newcastle Knights category, especially as it includes templates as well as articles, I'm not sure what purpose it has. Incorrect capitalisation if it is to be kept. The-Pope (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Newcastle Knights per nom. NeonMerlin 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, if you want to delete it or merge it, go ahead. Josh the newcastle fan 4:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Newcastle Knights per nom. (Some of the pages are added by templates.) Occuli (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Newcastle Knights per nom. Category:Newcastle Knights is effectively a "category for Newcastle Knights articles".--Jeff79 (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2009 (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.