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. — ξ^xplicit 01:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Knots/Most useful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category expresses a point of view on the 'usefulness' of certain knots. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete per above and the naming also implies a hierarchy - we don't use forward-slash in categories unless it is specifically part of the category subject's name. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Articles are already properly categorised. Debresser (talk) 11:42, 29 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Lifestyle centers in Quebec to Category:Lifestyle centers (retail)

Nominator's rationale: Only one member in category. Upmerge to parent category Category:Lifestyle centers (retail), a legitimate (and freshly-created) subcategory of Category:Shopping malls. The (retail) part is also needed in the parent since there are two different types of establishment called a lifestyle center. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:41, 28 October 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: KEEP, particularly given that its two subcategories were not listed for deletion or merger, and this category is merely the way in which those are grouped within Category:Sportspeople by century. The reasons given for deletion here seem to be actually aimed at the two subcategories, which should themselves be listed for deletion or merger if that is the intent (and this close should not be viewed as precluding such a CFD). postdlf (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Racecar drivers by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unusual and arbitrary. A very large percentage of articles under Category:Racecar drivers will fall under both sub-cats and category can never consist of more than two sub-cats. Requesting deletion of sub-cats as well. Drdisque (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what about its supra-cats? A delete would 'strand' the links. Mayumashu (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? Category:Sportspeople by century and Category:Racecar drivers don't depend on this category. -Drdisque (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the ones I looked at are already in Category:Fooian racecar drivers and nth century fooian people so these categories are redundant. (The subcats are not tagged.) Occuli (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Sportspeople by century is divided by sport, and we're a decade into the new century, so more and more drivers no longer fall under the other category, further, there were racecar drivers of the 19th century that we don't seem to have a category for. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:00, 29 October 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 15:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Rendered useless: Has been so emptied out over the past two days that only two entries remain, both dealt with in the main article on the Bahá'í Faith. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --NotedGrant Talk 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've restored those articles; they were removed without consensus to remove them. This has been debated before with no consensus, which is not a rationale to empty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware of that - I've been observing the silent edit-war. I am trying to force a decision. Either the category exists, then it needs to be as "complete" as possible, or it is facing deletion. If it survives this CfD, the debate will be over since it will have to be complete. (Any removal of entries will thenceforth be vandalism.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agreed. Obviously, I want the category to exist (I created it), but if the consensus is to delete it, then it should go. There is no point in having some rump category with only the main article and two instances. For what it's worth, if Jesus can be in Category:People in Messianic Judaism and John the Baptist is in Category:Prophets in Mandaeism (far more obscure groups), then I see no problem with (e.g.) Muhammad being in this category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep No different from Category:Buddhas or Category:Prophets in Islam. I see no reason for this to be deleted or emptied whatsoever. Zazaban (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very different from Category:Prophets in Islam. Islam is 1400 years old, has a billion people, and significantly influenced the course of world history. The Baha'i Faith is 150 years old, has 6 million, and does not even have name recognition with the majority of the world. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, your issue is with notability and you should consider nuking the Baha'i Faith-article entirely. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the Baha'i view of Jesus is far different from the notability of the Baha'i Faith. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the az86556 comment above shows disconcerting lack of understanding of WP:DUE. Notability is relative. Baha'i topics are relevant with regard to Baha'i. If, say Krishna is relevant to the topic of Baha'i, it is very far from clear that Baha'i is also relevant the topic of Krishna. There are altogether too many comments by editors who fail to understand WP:NOTE in deletion discussions. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE - "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles"; WP:DUE - Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". I can see no evidence that editors taking part in this discussion have failed to understand either of these points. The issues would seem to be whether the (small) Baha'i faith should be regarded as a distinct/small/tiny minority - I do not think it should; and whether a cat and perhaps one-or-two sentences to explain why the cat is there and to hang a reference on would constitute undue weight in Krishna, Jesus, etc. - I do not think they would. Declan Clam (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Bahá'í is a significant faith and this is a way of showing the position of significant individuals in relation to it. Even allowing for indivuals being more commonly associated with other faiths, I don't think that briefly mentioning a person's status as a MOGITBF and providing a cat is enough to trigger WP:UNDUE, for that I'd expect to see a significant shift in the text of an article, and I doubt editors would let that happen to Jesus, Muhammad, etc. Declan Clam (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm the one who's been removing this category from articles like Jesus and Muhammad. WP:CAT says "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." Being considered a prophet in the Baha'i Faith (a very small religion) is not a defining characteristic or even useful. The fact is not mentioned in the article, and a list of who is or isn't regarded as such is on the page Manifestation of God. WP:OVERCAT says "not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant." How many categories could be applied to Jesus? Definitely hundreds. Use some common sense and delete this category. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that the cat is not useful, as aids to navigation I think both list and cat are appropriate here. Disagree that it's overcat - religious figures should be defined on religious grounds. Further, I rather doubt that you could put Jesus (say) in hundreds of categories without resorting to the silly ("people who have never been to Disneyland") or the very very broad ("Vertebrates", which probably he is included under somewhere on the cat tree), neither of which this cat is, even if it is ultimately found to be inappropriate. The point about (essential) defining characteristics is rather better, though the trouble is you can probably make that mean whatever you wish. Declan Clam (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to name a few for Jesus... Category:Forms of Vishnu, Category:Bodhisattvas, Category:Esotericists... A similar category to the one under debate is Category:Prophets in Mormonism, which could be included in pages like Noah but is only used for people unique to Mormonism. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're struggling by the time you get to the third one out of hundreds, aren't you? Anyway, Category:Prophets in Mormonism has subcats that allow non-mormon-exclusive people (though not Noah) to be included, and while it's true that Category:Prophets in Mormonism does not directly contain non-mormon-exclusive figures (off-topic: I don't know if there are many others who are not prophets in the Hebrew Bible, which is a subcat of Category:Prophets in Mormonism) I'd be more tempted to revoke my "keep" if I knew the reason for that, rather than simply being shown the precedent. Declan Clam (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion says "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BOLD Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Response Sure, but there is no way that you are going to get consensus for ignoring that clear instruction from CfD. If you go around deleting articles from CfD'ed categories, you will get a friendly note from an admin and if you don't stop, you will get an unfriendly one. One of the ways of judging the validity of a category is by how many articles it contains (e.g. this is precisely why this was nominated for CfD) and since categories don't have a history to display what used to be in them, deleting articles from it is a serious no-no. Again, I really recommend you do not do this, because it will certainly be viewed as disruptive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable in most of the articles it would be included in. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as UNDUE category. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be kept, if only to punish the guy who emptied it out of order. Debresser (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Delete ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. I agree that UNDUE probably applies here. This should be a list. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 7 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. — ξ^xplicit 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New religious movement related media to Category:New religious movement-related media

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is an adjective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Good grammar is hot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we using good proper English in the cat names now? OK, works for me! Rename.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:37, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

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 01:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Metal groups to Category:Heavy metal musical groups

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge to the full name of the music genre. Tassedethe (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The pages in this category were Breach (band), Conscript (band), Delian League (band), Drive By Audio, and Millennium (band). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I would have expected to see light metals, ferrous, transition, etc.- choster 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator. Metal music is a redirect to Heavy metal music. Debresser (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom, so that groups of metal companies cannot inadvertently be added, such as Imperial Metal Industries which was clearly a metal group of companies. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:22, 29 October 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: Upmerge all into Category:Australians of Black African descent. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Afro Australian musicians to Category:To be determined by consensus

Propose renaming Category:Afro Australian sportspeople to Category:To be determined by consensus

Propose renaming Category:Afro Australian boxers to Category:To be determined by consensus

Propose renaming Category:Afro Australian television actors to Category:To be determined by consensus

Propose renaming Category:Afro Australian television personalities to Category:To be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: I see three options for these categories. One, they are renamed to Category:African Australian foo to match the main article African Australian. Two, they become Category:Australian foo of Black African descent. to match the parent cat Category:Australians of Black African descent. Three, they are all upmerged into Category:Australians of Black African descent. I recommend option three as this would be in line with other national subcategories in Category:People of Black African descent which are further subcategorised by country of origin. E.g. Category:Norwegians of Black African descent has Category:Norwegians of Ghanaian descent. Tassedethe (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• option 3, upmerge to Category:Australians of Black African descent and the appropriate "Australian foo" occupation categories. I think this is overcategorization by ethnicity and occupation, which in general is avoided. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 The Black African community in Australian, unlike the one in America, does not have its own WP:Notability, so sub-catting is inappropriate. Mayumashu (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 – the article African Australian includes J. M. Coetzee who does not seem to be Afro in the usual sense (and is not categorised as such). It might be worth checking that the inmates of the category are of black African descent (rather than white South African etc). Occuli (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename First two to "Austrialian foo of Black African descent" . Upmerge boxers to sportspeople and Upmerge rest to Category:Australians of Black African descent. Each of these three has one article (for only two people). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:28, 29 October 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. — ξ^xplicit 01:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Take 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous cat not required to hold a template. Tassedethe (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Would it not make sense to categorize the entries this template holds into this category?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:39, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply The template lists albums and band members. Those articles should be separately categorized; I would have no problem with anyone creating Category:Take 6 members (Category:Take 6 albums already exists). That would still not require this parent category. Tassedethe (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense; thanks for the explanation. Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:31, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Punk-pop singers to Category:Pop punk singers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent cat is Category:Pop punk so these should be "Pop punk singers". Tassedethe (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. To correspond with parent article, pop punk. — ξ^xplicit 05:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose. Since "pop punk" is a unified adjectival phrase the hyphenation is appropriate when it's used as an adjective. No hyphen is appropriate when used as a noun. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:20, 6 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 (not opposed). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Russia to Category:Inhabited localities in Russia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A "settlement" in Russia can be a number of different (and very specific!) things. Some examples include urban-type settlements, settlements of rural type, and rural settlements (the latter aren't even "settlements" in the sense of the word this category name uses). An established term for the "settlements" of Russia is "inhabited localities", as the title of the main article (types of inhabited localities in Russia) would attest. Note that Israel, in which the term "settlement" also bears a designation incompatible with the name of their "settlements" category, uses Category:Cities, towns and villages in Israel, not "Category:Settlements in Israel". Russia is a similar case where insisting on enforcing consistency jeopardizes the accuracy and adds significant confusion ("a village, a settlement, and a town are all types of settlements in Russia, which municipally are grouped into urban or rural settlements" anyone?).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

• Rename. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:27, 1 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: delete (the category only contains two subcategories, and it's relatively clear that this is an inappropriate term for the country). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neighbourhoods in Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A nonsensical name which has no exact definition and is used in a very, very, very broad sense of the word. The category currently only includes the subcategories on the administrative divisions of Moscow and St. Petersburg, neither of which can exactly be called "neighborhoods".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:54, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. This is ridiculous. Imagine Category:Neighbourhoods in the US... Debresser (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that one also exists (under the US spelling): Category:Neighborhoods in the United States. Check out Category:Neighbourhoods by country, too. My immediate concern was Russia, but perhaps the rest of this stuff needs a close look as well (I can imagine some could even be valid).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:35, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
• keep part of an established pattern with many countries. There is no reason not to have WP articles on neighborhoods and therefore no reason not to have categories to contain them, including this one. In some cases, the neighborhoods are informal; in other cases, they are governmental entities. Read around in the parent category: Category:Neighbourhoods by country to see. Hmains (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, would you, perhaps care to explain us what a "neighborhood in Russia" actually is? Maybe list some articles that qualify for inclusion? Heck, I'll take even red links! Because, you know, there is no way "administrative divisions of Moscow/St. Petersburg" can be called "neighborhoods", and withouth those the category is essentially empty. All in all, just because some countries have areas that can easily defined as "neighborhoods" (albeit even that is yet to be demonstrated), doesn't mean this category should be created for all countries.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:57, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

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 for now, pending future developments in official and popular usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Indian state of Orissa has been renamed Odisha. The main article has been moved. This category should be renamed, just as various subcats. Soman (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Move the article back. The province is known internationally in English as Orissa and was reported sas such when the Hindus conducted a genocide on their Christian neighbours recently. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I already moved the article back (before I saw this discussion). The various categories and articles should not be renamed yet because, (1) the renaming is not official (it has got cabinet approval but is yet to pass through parliament), (2) wikipedia uses common names in English for article titles, and that is not necessarily equivalent to the GOI nomenclature. Please also see (and participate in) discussion at INB. Abecedare (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now: Until it is confirmed formally, no need of change. After formal change, a name change is neccessary. HT says "To formalise the changes, the Centre is expected to introduce a bill to amend the Constitution in the winter session of Parliament. “The new name will be effective once the approved amendment bill is notified,”"--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The name change is in process and even after that we need to wait for it to become the generally acceoted/common name, for the Wikipedia change. -SpacemanSpiff 02:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Name change is only a proposal now. Yet to be passed and accepted. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:32, 7 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: upmerge as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Security and Automation Businesses to Category:Information technology companies and Category:Security companies

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is no article on Security and automation so appears to be a non-notable intersection. Upmerge to both parent cats. Tassedethe (talk) 11:08, 28 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Small Business Innovation Research Program to Category:Small Business Administration

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge small category to parent. Tassedethe (talk) 11:01, 28 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Scaffolding contractors of the united kingdom to Category:Construction and civil engineering companies of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge single article to parent. There are unlikely to ever be multiple articles about notable scaffolding contractors. Tassedethe (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. as per nom. The article itself Brogan Group is probably debatable (promotion). Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:54, 28 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Descent to Category:Descent (video game)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename ambiguous category to match parent article Descent (video game). Tassedethe (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per nom. Declan Clam (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. To disambiguate and match parent article, Descent (video game). When I looked at the table of contents, I honestly thought this category was related to genealogy. — ξ^xplicit 05:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:36, 29 October 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 all. — ξ^xplicit 01:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename:

• Category:Garbage albums to Category:Garbage (band) albums
• Category:Garbage concert tours to Category:Garbage (band) concert tours
• Category:Garbage members to Category:Garbage (band) members
• Category:Garbage songs to Category:Garbage (band) songs

To go along with the already renamed Category:Garbage to Category:Garbage (band) from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 21#Category:Garbage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename all. These now come under speedy criterion #6. Such changes have now been opposed in speedy. But I still say rename in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:36, 29 October 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 all. — ξ^xplicit 01:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:National Express Bus Operations in the UK to Category:National Express Group companies

Suggest merging Category:National Express bus operators in England to Category:National Express Group companies

Nominator's rationale: Merge. National Express is a UK company so doesn't need to have an "in the UK" sub-category. Subcategorising further to "in England" is not necessary for such a small category. Tassedethe (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merges to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:05, 28 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1989 Tamil Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Tamil films are not subcategorised by year. Article already correctly categorized in Category:Tamil-language films and Category:1989 films. Tassedethe (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly redundant. — ξ^xplicit 05:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 29 October 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 01:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spinal Tap to Category:Spinal Tap (band)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Spinal Tap (band). Spinal Tap is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 29 October 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. — ξ^xplicit 01:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Senate of France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We have Category:French Senators (the only subcategory contained by the category I'm nominating for deletion); I don't quite see the need for this one.. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Not sure which one into which, but it's ultimately irrelevant. Dahn (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Nothing to merge here. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This will have the same effect as upmerging, so do the simple thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 29 October 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 all per nom. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Redirects from Telegu words/names to Category:Redirects from Telugu language terms

Category:Redirects from Scottish Gaelic words/names to Category:Redirects from Scottish Gaelic terms

Category:Redirects from Latin words/names to Category:Redirects from Latin terms

Category:Redirects from Greek words/names to Category:Redirects from Greek language terms

Category:Redirects from Persian words/names to Category:Redirects from Persian language terms

Category:Redirects from Punjabi words/names to Category:Redirects from Punjabi language terms

Category:Redirects from Chinese words/names to Category:Redirects from Chinese language terms

Category:Redirects from Japanese words/names to Category:Redirects from Japanese language terms

Category:Redirects from Russian words/names to Category:Redirects from Russian language terms

Category:Redirects from Hindi words/names to Category:Redirects from Hindi terms

Category:Redirects from Urdu words/names to Category:Redirects from Urdu language terms

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In an attempt to 1.) remove forward slashes from names and 2.) rename categories per their main article (e.g. "Korean language" rather than simply "Korean.") See also —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renames for greater clarity and to to match titles of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per both arguments of nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Proposed names are missing the hyphen between Fooian and language. "Fooian-language terms". It could be added now or they could be speedily changed later. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per nom. -- œ^™ 07:15, 8 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.