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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hungarian politicians by political party to Category:Hungarian politicians by party

Propose renaming Category:Polish politicians by political party to Category:Polish politicians by party

Nominator's rationale: per naming scheme of Category:Politicians by party. In this context, "party" is unambiguous, so we don't need to add "political" for clarification. PanchoS (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I created the Hungarian category but I think I'm fine with this change if it has general support. I guess I confused similar categories "people by political party" with "politicians by party". Both of these make more sense than "politicians by political party." - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Even though "party" is an ambiguous word, there's no possible confusion here. Jafeluv (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 24 February 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 Category:Figure skaters by century, merge the rest. — ξ^xplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

• Category:Figure skaters by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Propose merging:

• Category:20th-century figure skaters to Category:Figure skaters
• Category:20th-century female figure skaters to Category:Female figure skaters
• Category:20th-century male figure skaters to Category:Male figure skaters
• Category:21st-century figure skaters to Category:Figure skaters
• Category:Female figure skaters by century to Category:Female figure skaters
• Category:20th-century female figure skaters to Category:Female figure skaters
• Category:Male figure skaters by century to Category:Male figure skaters
• Category:20th-century male figure skaters to Category:Male figure skaters

Nominator's rationale: Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consensus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstrated at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).

This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of figure skaters, but retains the categorisation by gender. Editors may prefer not to create the Category:Male figure skaters and Category:Female figure skaters, by indicating upmerge all to Category:Figure skaters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, upmerge to category:Figure skaters not necessary, because they're already in a relevant subcat. I do not support creation of categories for male and female figure skaters. Kolindigo (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to deletion, if that's what other editors prefer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support -- the 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" categories which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- figure skating has only really been contested in the 20th and 21st centuries, and there is a great deal of overlap. By having these two categories, we would have 95% of skating bios in the 20th century category. We may as well not have a distinction.

And I don't understand your point about current and former skaters. Why is there a need to distinguish between skaters who currently compete and skaters who don't currently compete? Category maintenance on moving from current competitors to former competitors would be a pain in the neck, especially since a lot of competitors don't so much publically retire (with useful references that they've retired) as fade away. It may be better in a list; 2008-2009 in figure skating includes the name of every skater who competed in an event that registered a season's best score, and there is an article in progress on 2009-2010 in figure skating (the current season), which will probably grow to include the season's best list once the season is over. Would that kind of list be good enough for your "current vs. former" purposes? Kolindigo (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kolindigo, I think you have misread Peterkingiron's comment. He supports merging the categories, and is not advocating the creation of current/former categories; on the contrary, he pointed to them as another example of ill-conceived and deprecated categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* Yes, I did. Sorry! Kolindigo (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully upmerge appropriately This nomination, while making some appropriate upmerges, ignores others, namely Category:20th-century sportspeople, Category:20th-century people by occupation, Category:People by occupation and century, etc. etc. Justification for deletion here likely applies to these supracats too. Lets go about this the right way, by upmerging to existing cat pages in turn and/or nominating supracats for deletion first. (i.e. establish first if the line for catting by century is to be penciled in between the 19th and 20th centuries.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 3 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting:

• Category:Gridiron football players by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Propose merging:

• Category:20th-century American football defensive linemen to Category:American football defensive linemen
• Category:20th-century American football quarterbacks to Category:American football quarterbacks
• Category:20th-century Canadian football defensive linemen to Category:Canadian football defensive linemen
• Category:20th-century Canadian football kickers to Category:Canadian football placekickers
• Category:20th-century Canadian football offensive linemen to Category:Canadian football offensive linemen
• Category:20th-century Canadian football quarterbacks to Category:Canadian football quarterbacks
• Category:20th-century gridiron football kickers to Category:Gridiron football kickers
• Category:20th-century gridiron football offensive linemen to Category:Gridiron football offensive linemen
• Category:20th-century gridiron football players to Category:Gridiron football players
• Category:20th-century gridiron football quarterbacks to Category:Gridiron football quarterbacks
• Category:20th-century players of American football to Category:Players of American football
• Category:20th-century players of Canadian football to Category:Players of Canadian football
• Category:21st-century American football defensive linemen to Category:American football defensive linemen
• Category:21st-century Canadian football defensive backs to Category:Canadian football defensive backs
• Category:21st-century Canadian football kickers to Category:Canadian football placekickers
• Category:21st-century Canadian football offensive linemen to Category:Canadian football offensive linemen
• Category:21st-century Canadian football receivers to Category:Canadian football wide receivers
• Category:21st-century Canadian football return specialists to Category:Canadian football return specialists
• Category:21st-century gridiron football defensive backs to Category:Gridiron football defensive backs
• Category:21st-century gridiron football kickers to Category:Gridiron football kickers
• Category:21st-century gridiron football offensive linemen to Category:Gridiron football offensive linemen
• Category:21st-century gridiron football players to Category:Gridiron football players
• Category:21st-century gridiron football receivers to Category:Gridiron football receivers
• Category:21st-century gridiron football return specialists to Category:Gridiron football return specialists
• Category:21st-century players of American football to Category:Players of American football
• Category:21st-century players of Canadian football to Category:Players of Canadian football
• Category:American football defensive linemen by century to Category:American football defensive linemen
• Category:American football quarterbacks by century to Category:American football quarterbacks
• Category:Canadian football defensive backs by century to Category:Canadian football defensive backs
• Category:Canadian football defensive linemen by century to Category:Canadian football defensive linemen
• Category:Canadian football kickers by century to Category:Canadian football placekickers
• Category:Canadian football offensive linemen by century to Category:Canadian football offensive linemen
• Category:Canadian football quarterbacks by century to Category:Canadian football quarterbacks
• Category:Canadian football receivers by century to Category:Canadian football wide receivers
• Category:Canadian football return specialists by century to Category:Canadian football return specialists
• Category:Gridiron football defensive backs by century to Category:Gridiron football defensive backs
• Category:Gridiron football kickers by century to Category:Gridiron football kickers
• Category:Gridiron football offensive linemen by century to Category:Gridiron football offensive linemen
• Category:Gridiron football quarterbacks by century to Category:Gridiron football quarterbacks
• Category:Gridiron football receivers by century to Category:Gridiron football receivers
• Category:Gridiron football return specialists by century to Category:Gridiron football return specialists
• Category:Players of American football by century to Category:Players of American football

Nominator's rationale: Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consesnus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstrated at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).

This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of players of gridiron football, but retains all the other aspects of the triple-and-quadruple intersections in these categories. There may be other flaws in this compliacted category structure, but to keep things simple I suggest that this nomination focuses solely on whether to retain or upmerge the by-century aspect of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Category:19th-century players of American football already exists, but is not parented under Category:Players of American football by century and has not been included in this nomination. Previous discussions of sportspeople-by-century, there seems to be a consensus that there is a better case for retaining 19th-century categories of sportspeople; I'm not sure whether there is a consensus to keep, but they are definitely regarded as a separate issue, so if anyone wants to consider deleting Category:19th-century players of American football, that's a matter for a separtae nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Support all, but also support retaining Category:19th-century players of American football. For me, it's quite a different thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all, but also support retaining Category:19th-century players of American football Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 2 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:Hartford-New Britain Busway to Category:New Britain–Hartford Busway. --Xdamr^talk 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hartford-New Britain Busway to Category:New Britain–Hartford Busway

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, New Britain–Hartford Busway. — ξ^xplicit 21:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question -- Is this the correct name for the proposed system? If so, then I'll throw in my support for the renaming. ----DanTD (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The official website lists it as New Britain–Hartford Rapid Transit, but I'm not sure if the current title of the article reflects a naming convention I'm not aware of (not my area of editing). — ξ^xplicit 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I doubt that empty entries on nonexistent bus stops on a nonexistent bus track warrant separate articles... should someone care to take it to AFD and have it deleted, there's no need for a category. P.S. Is the traffic there as bad as the town's bureaucrats present it? I lived in West Hartford in '92-93 and as I recall the interstates were always empty. NVO (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wikipedia naming conventions would suggest that Category:New Britain – Hartford Busway would be more correct. However, when proper names are involved, I have no problem with slight deviations from the norm, as in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 2 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: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Image-Class articles to Category:File-Class articles

Nominator's rationale: Both categories pretty much cover the same scope, but Category:File-Class articles encompasses non-image type files as well. I don't see the point of keeping these two separate when one category can keep the file namespace neatly organized in one. — ξ^xplicit 20:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep. I don't have strong views either way on the merger, but Category:Image-Class articles has nearly 700 sub-categories, all of which are populated through wikiproject banners, and this structure is standardised through use of the {{WPBannerMeta}} template. The merger cannot be done without a change to {{WPBannerMeta}}, and it will involve nearly 700 WikiProjects, so I suggest discussing this proposal at Template talk:WPBannerMeta and/or WT:COUNCIL to find out what the rationale is for keeping the categories separate. I will oppose this change unless prior discussion indicates that it can be done without arousing the wrath of hundreds of WikiProjects who discover that their assessment category structure has been rejigged behind their backs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Both WPBannerMeta and WikiProject Council have been notified. For those interested, a centralized discussion can be found here. — ξ^xplicit 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, although I second BHG's call for caution. This is a perfectly good place to develop a momentum to complete a transition from "Image" to "File" that has been ongoing for over a year now; but the implementation requires careful planning and should most definitely not be undertaken hastily. The rationale for the persistence of Image-class is purely inertia: we haven't yet got around to completing the switch over, which would require substantial bot-work to create the hundreds of new categories required. If someone is prepared to ensure that this is done properly (unfortunately I really don't have the time to spare ATM); I fully support them in doing so. Happy‑melon 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as a bot creating the categories, Cydebot (talk · contribs) would be able to take care of this should the end result in all the subcategories of Category:Image-Class articles be renamed. — ξ^xplicit 06:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the bulk of the file categories will consist almost entirely of images, and not really worth splitting out many of these. It might be worth it for the music projects to have separate file and image categories since they'll likely have a lot of non-free album covers as well as audio samples that won't be commons eligible and will need to be tracked, but better to move these out and correct the exceptions. As noted above though, this will require some planning to successfully pull off. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The music projects categorize audio files under Category:Non-free audio samples. — ξ^xplicit 06:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: what exactly is being proposed here? Is it that
  • all categories of the form "Image-Class XXX articles" be renamed to "File-Class XXX articles", or
  • the parent category of categories of the form "Image-Class XXX articles" be changed from Category:Image-Class articles to Category:File-Class articles?

The latter can be achieved fairly easily, mainly with a change to Template:Cat class. The former is much more work. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the read, I hope it's both. This nomination only concerns the latter. — ξ^xplicit 06:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a well planned and executed implemention of the former, but the latter seems somewhat pointless and will introduce an inconsistency into the naming scheme. XXX-Class articles should probably contain only categories of the form XXX-Class PROJECT articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely nominated this sole category to see where it would head (I didn't want to waste my time tagging hundreds of categories should it fail). If there is consensus to implement this throughout the whole category scheme, I do plan to nominate all those categories after the closure of this nomination. The closing administrator may want to hold off getting this parent renamed so it can be easier to locate and tag the Image-Class categories. — ξ^xplicit 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating 696 categories for renaming will swamp the CfD system. And a group nomination is essentially what this is, so I can't really see the point of starting this discussion again! I think if the closing admin considers there is consensus for this, then we could find somewhere appropriate to discuss the technical details and then go ahead. I have one caveat though: WikiProjects have the right to decide their own classification systems, and while most will probably be happy enough to change Image-class to File-class, there may be some who reserve the right to continue to use Image-class. (One possible example is WikiProject Louisville which has Category:Audio-Class Louisville articles and seems to have decided to separate the different types of files.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment all the subcategories should have "WikiProject" attached to their names. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to ' Category:Wikipedia file-class pages - since (1) these are not articles (2) the template can be modified to make it not be "article" all the time (3) this is not a mainspace category, it is a project-based category scheme. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is totally inconsistent with the rest of the naming scheme that encompasses 13,000 categories, and would require a ridiculous amount of hacking with template code to achieve this special-casing. Are you going to code up the necessary changes? It would actually be easier to migrate the entire category system than to do it piecemeal like this. Happy‑melon 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the template should be made to show that everything categorized with WPBANNERMETA is not for use as mainspace categories, and should all have "Wikipedia" or "WikiProject" added to their category names. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  In principle, I support this: every articles sub-category of Category:WikiProject Foo should begin with the word "WikiProject": Category:WikiProject Foo articles, Category:WikiProject Foo articles by quality, etc. However, Happy-melon is right that this change should not be done piecemeal. It will be much more easily implemented if done globally, and greater consistency will be achieved in that way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point I would think it would be way too much hassle to append a tag to denote that it is a WikiProject, task force, workgroup, subproject, etc. tag, largely because there is a bit of inconsistency in those names. People will see and read the banner, and see the corresponding category at the bottom, especially on file and image class talk pages which are usually bare. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I currently have no opinion on this matter (haven't looked too deep into it), but an addition of a word to these categories should be set in a completely different nomination in order to avoid confusion and havoc. — ξ^xplicit 19:55, 2 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 Category:Professional wrestlers by century, merge the rest. — ξ^xplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

• Category:Professional wrestlers by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Propose merging:

• Category:Professional wrestlers by century to Category:Professional wrestlers
• Category:20th-century professional wrestlers to Category:Professional wrestlers
• Category:21st-century professional wrestlers to Category:Professional wrestlers
• Category:Male professional wrestlers by century to Category:Male professional wrestlers
• Category:20th-century male professional wrestlers to Category:Male professional wrestlers
• Category:21st-century male professional wrestlers to Category:Male professional wrestlers

Nominator's rationale: Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consesnus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstrated at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).

This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of professional wrestlers, but retains the categorisation by gender. Category:Male professional wrestlers seems to me to be a pointless category, because most wrestlers are male and per WP:CATGRS there is no need to create a corresponding male category just because a female category exists for a small minority. Editors may prefer not to create the Category:Male professional wrestlers, by indicating upmerge all to Category:Professional wrestlers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support -- the 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" categories which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but also upmerge Category:20th-century professional wrestlers to Category:20th-century actors, Category:20th-century sportspeople, and Category:21st-century professional wrestlers to Category:21st-century actors, and Category:21st-century sportspeople Mayumashu (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No no no! Please don't upmerge like that. It will only generate even more of a category-clutter problem on articles: a wrester notable for successes from 1995-2005 will then be in four of these wretched categories, and we'll have wrestlers in the same category as Johnny Depp as Ian McKellen; a thoroughly useless combination.
    Just get rid of these categories now, before they spread onto even more articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support/do not upmerge. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Upmerging these creates the similar overcategorization problem that this nomination was intended to solve. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upmerging all to Category:Professional wrestlers. I don't see the point of a category for male profesional wrestlers per nom. Upmerging to actors/sportspeople categories is not a good idea. Pro wrestling is a strange hybrid of acting and athleticism, but it doesn't fully come under the umbrella of either acting or sports. That's why we have a separate category for pro wrestling/wrestlers. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This nomination and other alike ones depopulates Category:20th-century sportspeople, Category:20th-century people by occupation, Category:People by occupation and century, etc. etc. Justification for deletion here likely applies to these supracats too. Lets go about this the right way, by upmerging to existing cat pages. Mayumashu (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 3 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 Category:Swimmers by century, merge the rest. — ξ^xplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

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

Propose merging:

• Category:20th-century backstroke swimmers to Category:Backstroke swimmers
• Category:20th-century breaststroke swimmers to Category:Breaststroke swimmers
• Category:20th-century butterfly swimmers to Category:Butterfly swimmers
• Category:20th-century female backstroke swimmers to Category:Female backstroke swimmers
• Category:20th-century female breaststroke swimmers to Category:Female breaststroke swimmers
• Category:20th-century female butterfly swimmers to Category:Female butterfly swimmers
• Category:20th-century female freestyle swimmers to Category:Female freestyle swimmers
• Category:20th-century female swimmers to Category:Female swimmers
• Category:20th-century freestyle swimmers to Category:Freestyle swimmers
• Category:20th-century long-distance swimmers to Category:Long-distance swimmers
• Category:20th-century male backstroke swimmers to Category:Male backstroke swimmers
• Category:20th-century male breaststroke swimmers to Category:Male breaststroke swimmers
• Category:20th-century male freestyle swimmers to Category:Male freestyle swimmers
• Category:20th-century male long-distance swimmers to Category:Male long-distance swimmers
• Category:20th-century male medley swimmers to Category:Male medley swimmers
• Category:20th-century male swimmers to Category:Male swimmers
• Category:20th-century medley swimmers to Category:Medley swimmers
• Category:20th-century swimmers to Category:Swimmers
• Category:20th-century synchronised swimmers to Category:Synchronized swimmers
• Category:21st-century backstroke swimmers to Category:Backstroke swimmers
• Category:21st-century breaststroke swimmers to Category:Breaststroke swimmers
• Category:21st-century butterfly swimmers to Category:Butterfly swimmers
• Category:21st-century female freestyle swimmers to Category:Female freestyle swimmers
• Category:21st-century female swimmers to Category:Female swimmers
• Category:21st-century freestyle swimmers to Category:Freestyle swimmers
• Category:21st-century long-distance swimmers to Category:Long-distance swimmers
• Category:21st-century male backstroke swimmers to Category:Male backstroke swimmers
• Category:21st-century male breaststroke swimmers to Category:Male breaststroke swimmers
• Category:21st-century male butterfly swimmers to Category:Male butterfly swimmers
• Category:21st-century male freestyle swimmers to Category:Male freestyle swimmers
• Category:21st-century male long-distance swimmers to Category:Male long-distance swimmers
• Category:21st-century male medley swimmers to Category:Male medley swimmers
• Category:21st-century male swimmers to Category:Male swimmers
• Category:21st-century medley swimmers to Category:Medley swimmers
• Category:21st-century swimmers to Category:Swimmers
• Category:21st-century synchronised swimmers to Category:Synchronized swimmers
• Category:Backstroke swimmers by century to Category:Backstroke swimmers
• Category:Breaststroke swimmers by century to Category:Breaststroke swimmers
• Category:Butterfly swimmers by century to Category:Butterfly swimmers
• Category:Female swimmers by century to Category:Female swimmers
• Category:Freestyle swimmers by century to Category:Freestyle swimmers
• Category:Long-distance swimmers by century to Category:Long-distance swimmers
• Category:Male backstroke swimmers by century to Category:Male backstroke swimmers
• Category:Male breaststroke swimmers by century to Category:Male breaststroke swimmers
• Category:Male butterfly swimmers by century to Category:Male butterfly swimmers
• Category:Male freestyle swimmers by century to Category:Male freestyle swimmers
• Category:Male medley swimmers by century to Category:Male medley swimmers
• Category:Male swimmers by century to Category:Male swimmers
• Category:Medley swimmers by century to Category:Medley swimmers

Nominator's rationale: Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consesnus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstrated at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).

This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of swimmers, but retains the categorisation by gender and style (and the combinations of those two, which appear to breach WP:CATGRS). I suggest that any consideration of whether to delete the gender and style categories be left until a later occasion, to avoid making this discussion too confusing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all – Category:20th-century synchronised swimmers is a good one. 2 articles, 2 red-linked parents, and a misspelling of the actual (grand)parent Category:Synchronized swimmers. Occuli (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• *Note. WP:SWIMMING has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all - However please ensure use of spelling synchronised as per the that used by the international governing body of the sport - FINA (Ref: FINA Constitution C5.4). Yboy83 (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Correcting spelling errors higher up the category tree is outside the scope of this nomination.
    This nomination includes an upmerger of Category:20th-century synchronised swimmers and Category:21st-century synchronised swimmers to the existing Category:Synchronized swimmers (with a Z). If you want the existing Category:Synchronized swimmers (with a Z) to be renamed to Category:Synchronised swimmers (with an S), that will require a separate nomination. Note that all the sub-categories of Category:Synchronized swimmers also use the Z, and that for consistency they should follow the pattern of the parent category, so a group nomination will be required. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS Note that the parent of Category:Synchronized swimmers is Category:Synchronized swimming (with a Z), and that it has lots of other sub-categories. However, the critical issue is that the head article is at Synchronized swimming (with a Z), and the convention is that category names follow the name of the head article. So if you want to change this, please start with a requested move discussion to rename the head article to your preferred spelling. Unless the head article has been renamed, it is unlikely that there would be consensus at CFD to rename the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support -- the 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" categories which we do not allow. I would prefer "s" to "z", but it would be necessary to rename the article: possibly the spelling used by the international body would warrant the change. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. But jeez, there are a lot of these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully upmerge appropriately This nomination, while making some appropriate upmerges, ignores others, namely Category:20th-century sportspeople, Category:20th-century people by occupation, Category:People by occupation and century, etc. etc. Justification for deletion here likely applies to these supracats too. Lets go about this the right way, by upmerging to existing cat pages in turn and/or nominating supracats for deletion first. (i.e. establish first if the line for catting by century is to be penciled in between the 19th and 20th centuries.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 3 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:German Pirate Party members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Sheer membership in a political party is rarely defining for people who are not politicians or political activists, created Category: Pirate Party Germany politicians instead to be selectively populated. PanchoS (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose many people have been persicuted for just being members of organisations, Communisty parties for one, to make the presumption that a person must be a politican to considered notable for their membership is unreasonable, artist are renowned for their membership of organisation and their drawing on that for inspiration. Gnangarra 10:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and per numerous precedents of not categorising people by party unless they are politicians or activist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, having categories for anyone who's a member is a bad idea. I'm a member of a political party, but if there were an article about me (which there shouldn't be; I'm definitely not notable), it definitely shouldn't be in a political party. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pcap ping 22:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I support categories for politicians by political party, but not for general membership. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 2 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:German Communist Party members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Sheer membership in a political party is rarely defining for people who are not politicians or political activists, created Category:German Communist Party politicians instead to be selectively populated. PanchoS (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, running for office or holding office under a banner is a suitably limited category of encyclopaedic interest, whilst simple membership is not. Orderinchaos 05:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose shouldnt be limited to politicians Hannes Wader wasnt a politician but was a member and his membership is notable in relation to his work and at the various time he came under suspicion for kidnapping, terrorism just for being a member. Gnangarra 07:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are numerous precedents of not categorising people by party unless they are politicians or activist. However in Germany the berufsverbot ensured that the German state treated membership of the communist party as a defining characteristic, so it seems to me that this a rare case where membership should of a party be categorised. (Note that this is a rare exception: in most European countries, membership of the CP was not explicitly and formally a ground for persecution.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was considered an extremist organization in West Germany, so mere membership is significant enough for inclusion in a category. Pcap ping 22:17, 2 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:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 00:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:SED members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Sheer membership in a political party is rarely defining for people who are not politicians or political activists, created Category:Socialist Unity Party of Germany politicians instead to be selectively populated. PanchoS (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose Reiner Kunze was writer not a politican but his writings are from the SED perspective and his works are notable for it. Gnangarra 07:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. In communist states, membership of the communist party was a defining characteristic, because the party's "leading role in society" under communism ensured that membership of the party was a significant factor in anyone's career. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the German Wikipedia, the SED had 2,3 million members of 8 million labor force or 16,8 million total population. This means membership wasn't unusual or particularly significant, neither was non-membership. However I admit that there are some cases where it was indeed significant. There are also enough cases where someone was listed as member without knowledge or consent. To me the question is: is it possible to come up with a rationale that embraces exactly these cases of significance but doesn't allow for tagging of random people who happened to be listed as a member? I'm a bit sceptic if this can be achieved with a category so broadly named. For people like Karl-Heinz Kurras it enough to categorize them in Category:East German spies, those who lost their SED-membership like Günter Kunert are more significantly non-members, someone like Erich Weinert could be better categorized in Category:East German communists if that existed. Many people are missing in this list. I just think it's not well enough conceptualized. PanchoS (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as we don't categorise by attributes solely because they are rare, an attribute doesn't have to be rare to be defining. It seems to me that the issue here is what difference being an SED member made to the life and/or career prospects of a citizen of the DDR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mere membership in a communist/socialist party in Eastern Europe before the fall of the Iron Curtain should not be a defining characteristic. For Romania we eschewed that nicely by having Category:Romanian communists and Category: Romanian Marxists for people who were actually ideologues, activists and/or in leadership positions. Suggest doing the same here. Pcap ping 22:27, 2 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 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NDPD members to Category:National Democratic Party of Germany (East Germany) politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename to expand NDPD to match the main article, National Democratic Party of Germany (East Germany), and to recharacterize as "politicians" rather than "members," as membership in a political party is rarely defining for people who are not politicians or political activists (all listed individuals would qualify as one or the other).- choster (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: However, the category should be deleted and recreated as an empty category instead, as it would encompass only a subset of the current listed members, and no - potentially living - person should be automatically moved to a more specific category. PanchoS (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the listed individuals are political figures.- choster (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for checking! Then everything is fine. PanchoS (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This is a good suggestion all around. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 2 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: Upmerge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

• Category:Basketball players by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging:

• Category:20th-century basketball centers to Category:Centers (basketball)
• Category:20th-century basketball guards to Category:Guards (basketball)
• Category:20th-century basketball players to Category:Basketball players
• Category:20th-century male basketball centers to Category:Male basketball centers
• Category:20th-century male basketball forwards to Category:Male basketball forwards
• Category:20th-century male basketball guards to Category:Male basketball guards
• Category:20th-century male basketball players to Category:Male basketball players
• Category:21st-century basketball players to Category:Basketball players
• Category:21st-century male basketball centers to Category:Male basketball centers
• Category:21st-century male basketball forwards to Category:Male basketball forwards
• Category:21st-century male basketball guards to Category:Male basketball guards
• Category:21st-century male basketball players to Category:Male basketball players
• Category:Basketball centers by century to Category:Centers (basketball)
• Category:Basketball forwards by century to Category:Forwards (basketball)
• Category:Basketball guards by century to Category:Guards (basketball)
• Category:Male basketball centers by century to Category:Male basketball centers
• Category:Male basketball forwards by century to Category:Male basketball forwards
• Category:Male basketball guards by century to Category:Male basketball guards
• Category:Male basketball players by century to Category:Male basketball players

Nominator's rationale: The sport of basketball was created in December 1891, so it is less than 119 years old. Dividing those 119 years of the sport into three 100-year blocks is not helpful for navigation, per the precedent of a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).

This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of basketball players, but retains the categorisation by gender and position (and the combinations of those two, which appear to breach WP:CATGRS). I suggest that any consideration of whether to delete the gender and position categories be left until a later occasion, to avoid making this discussion too confusing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but expect to rue this day when I can't remember the name of that really great 17th century point guard. And yes we should revisit the position categories at some later day, imoShawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support -- the 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" categories which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully upmerge appropriately This nomination, while making some appropriate upmerges, ignores others, namely Category:20th-century sportspeople, Category:20th-century people by occupation, Category:People by occupation and century, etc. etc. Justification for deletion here likely applies to these supracats too, so/but lets go about this the right way, by upmerging to existing cat pages in turn and/or nominating supracats for deletion first. (i.e. establish first if the line for catting by century is to be penciled in between the 19th and 20th centuries.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 3 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: Upmerge both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

• Category:20th-century divers to Category:Divers
• Category:20th-century female divers to Category:Female divers

Nominator's rationale: Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consesnus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstarted at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).

These 2 categories appear to be the only divers-by-century categories, and since Category:Divers by century does not exist, they are not even parented in Category:Divers. Of these two, Category:20th-century female divers is empty and could therefore be speedy-deleted, but I have included it in this nomination because a consensus to delete will allow any re-creation to be deleted on sight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the arguments given by BrownHairedGirl. These subdivisions by century make sense only in a few rare cases (for example philosophers) where Wikipedia biographies are at least to some extent evenly distributed between the centuries. In this case they are not helpful at all, especially as many divers having a WP article played in both the 20th and the 21st century. PanchoS (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, with relief. Thank you for bringing this up. I have never seen the need for these occupation by century categories, except as in rare cases as PachoS states above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; agree with all the above. In this particularly ill-constructed twig of the category tree, there are more red-linked parent 'categories' than there are articles. Occuli (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully upmerge appropriately This nomination, while making some appropriate upmerges, ignores others, namely Category:20th-century sportspeople, Category:20th-century people by occupation, Category:People by occupation and century, etc. etc. Justification for deletion here likely applies to these supracats too, so/but lets go about this the right way, by upmerging to existing cat pages in turn and/or nominating supracats for deletion first. (i.e. establish first if the line for catting by century is to be penciled in between the 19th and 20th centuries.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:57, 3 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 Category:Field hockey players by century, merge the rest. — ξ^xplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Category:Field hockey players by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging:

• Category:20th-century female field hockey midfielders to Category:Female field hockey midfielders
• Category:20th-century female field hockey players to Category:Female field hockey players
• Category:20th-century field hockey defenders to Category:Field hockey defenders
• Category:20th-century field hockey forwards to Category:Field hockey forwards
• Category:20th-century field hockey midfielders to Category:Field hockey midfielders
• Category:20th-century field hockey players to Category:Field hockey players
• Category:20th-century male field hockey defenders to Category:Male field hockey defenders
• Category:20th-century male field hockey forwards to Category:Male field hockey forwards
• Category:20th-century male field hockey midfielders to Category:Male field hockey midfielders
• Category:20th-century male field hockey players to Category:Male field hockey players
• Category:21st-century female field hockey goalkeepers to Category:Female field hockey goalkeepers
• Category:21st-century female field hockey players to Category:Female field hockey players
• Category:21st-century field hockey goalkeepers to Category:Field hockey goalkeepers
• Category:21st-century field hockey midfielders to Category:Field hockey midfielders
• Category:21st-century field hockey players to Category:Field hockey players
• Category:21st-century male field hockey defenders to Category:Male field hockey defenders
• Category:21st-century male field hockey midfielders to Category:Male field hockey midfielders
• Category:21st-century male field hockey players to Category:Male field hockey players
• Category:Female field hockey midfielders by century to Category:Female field hockey midfielders
• Category:Female field hockey players by century to Category:Female field hockey players
• Category:Field hockey defenders by century to Category:Field hockey defenders
• Category:Field hockey midfielders by century to Category:Field hockey midfielders
• Category:Male field hockey defenders by century to Category:Male field hockey defenders
• Category:Male field hockey midfielders by century to Category:Male field hockey midfielders
• Category:Male field hockey players by century to Category:Male field hockey players
• Category:Field hockey goalkeepers by century to Category:Field hockey goalkeepers (added 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Nominator's rationale: The sport of field hockey has existed on an organised basis only since the 1850s, and the Hockey Association was not founded until 1886. Dividing 150 years (or less) of the sport into three 100-year blocks is not helpful for navigation, per the precedent of a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).

This nomination removes all by-century categorisation of field hockey players, but retains the categorisation by gender and position (and the combinations of those two, which appear to breach WP:CATGRS), and I suggest that any consideration of whether to retain the gender and position catregories be left until a later occasion, to avoid making this discussion too confusing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the arguments given by BrownHairedGirl. These subdivisions by century make sense only in a few rare cases, for example with philosophers or other occupations that have been existing for centuries. In this case they are not helpful at all, especially as so many players having a WP article played in both the 20th and the 21 century. Agree on keeping the gender x position subdivisions for now. PanchoS (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, with relief. Thank you for bringing this up. I have never seen the need for these occupation by century categories, except in rare cases as PachoS states above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; agree with all the above. Occuli (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support -- the 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" categories which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully upmerge appropriately This nomination, while making some appropriate upmerges, ignores others, namely Category:20th-century sportspeople, Category:20th-century people by occupation, Category:People by occupation and century, etc. etc. Justification for deletion here likely applies to these supracats too, so/but lets go about this the right way, by upmerging to existing cat pages in turn and/or nominating supracats for deletion first. (i.e. establish first if the line for catting by century is to be penciled in between the 19th and 20th centuries.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:57, 3 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 Category:Badminton players by century, merge the rest. — ξ^xplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

• Category:Badminton players by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Propose merging:

• Category:Male badminton players by century to Category:Male badminton players
• Category:20th-century badminton players to Category:Badminton players
• Category:21st-century badminton players to Category:Badminton players
• Category:20th-century male badminton players to Category:Male badminton players

Nominator's rationale: The sport of badminton has existed on an organised basis only since the 1870s, and dividing 140 years of sport into three 100-year blocks is not helpful for navigation, per the precedent of a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).

These categories were created in July 2009, but after 6 months they contain only two articles, so it does not appear that any editors other than the category creator have any interest in populating them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the arguments given by BrownHairedGirl. These subdivisions by century make sense only in a few rare cases, for example with philosophers or other occupations that have been existing for centuries. In this case they are not helpful at all, especially as so many players having a WP article played in both the 20th and the 21 century. Being empty is an additional indication of lack of utility. PanchoS (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, with relief. Thank you for bringing this up. I have never seen the need for these occupation by century categories, except in rare cases as PachoS states above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; agree with all the above. Occuli (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support -- the 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" categories which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dividing these into centuries is not particularly helpful. I can't imagine why we would want to do so at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully upmerge appropriately This nomination, while making some appropriate upmerges, ignores others, namely Category:20th-century sportspeople, Category:20th-century people by occupation, Category:People by occupation and century, etc. etc. Justification for deletion here likely applies to these supracats too, so/but lets go about this the right way, by upmerging to existing cat pages in turn and/or nominating supracats for deletion first. (i.e. establish first if the line for catting by century is to be penciled in between the 19th and 20th centuries.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:57, 3 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:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: WP:NCCAT explicitely lists trade unions as example for categories that are named "... of country", though a reason for this is not given.

This stems from a discussion in 2006 where the previous naming scheme (e.g. "Chinese trade unions" or "French trade unions") was overturned in favor of the current naming scheme. While the nominator had proposed "Trade unions in country", a compromise was found at "Trade unions of country". The major argument at that time was:

“If there is a change it should be to "Trade unions of" in line with the convention used for companies and various other types of organisation. Organisations are and should be categorised by where they are based, as some of them operate in more than one country so categorisation by country of operation would lead to category clutter.” (CalJW)

However, the naming convention this argument refers to has changed in the meantime. The categories for most types of organizations, including companies, parties and much more are now following the "in country" convention. Only the parent categories are named following the "based in country" convention to avoid transnationally operating organizations to be listed in several countries. This convention was established shortly afterwards in this discussion. The nominators key argument for "in country" was there:

“In regard to "in country" or "of country", both options have merits and drawbacks. Sub-categories of Category:Organizations such as Category:Companies by country and Category:Trade unions by country currently use "of country", but "of country" can be misleading in regard to if the organization is an organ of the state, for example Category:Organizations of the People's Republic of China. "In country" does not have that confusion with the state, though it may also be slightly ambiguous as multinational organizations may operate within more than one, or in fact within several states. "Organizations headquartered in Foo" or "Organizations based in Foo" are also offered for consideration.” (Kurieeto, emphasis added by me)

Now in the case of trade unions we usually don't face the problem of transnationally active organizations. Trade unions are pretty much bound to their home countries' legislation and its specific labour structure and usually - like it or not - to the interests of their national economy. This is why even if they might cooperate with each other, they don't expand their own activities beyond their homecountry. This means, the "based in" naming scheme is not necessary here.

However, the argument that "of country" can be misleading in regard to if the organization is an organ of the state does apply here as well. While there might be countries where trade unions are monolithic and state-driven, this is certainly the exception. Even in countries with a few major unions there is usually also a multitude of minor independent unions, so there is not a single workers' representation body. So we need to treat trade unions like any other organizations, and not like a specific feature or facet of the country itself (such as "Economy of...", "Politics of..." etc.)

Finally, there's a plenitude of country specific articles on trade union, and all are consistently named after the scheme "Trade unions in..." (see on top of Category:Trade unions by country). Consistency to the corresponding categories would be worth striving for, and for the reason given above, the "Trade unions in" scheme is preferable.

Of course, the record in WP:NCCAT would have to be updated moving trade unions as the single last type of organizations (even more the last type of societal groups) down to the "in country" scheme.

PanchoS (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have looked at this several times over the last few day, but haven't reached a conclusion. I'm not sure that "Unions of country" actually poses any practical problems, and while I do take the point that as voluntary associations, unions are entities in a country rather than features of that country, I don't see that this a problem in practice. However, the national subcats of companies Category:Companies by country all use the format "Companies of country". Why treat the two differently? --20:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, the first comment after five days - my rationale was obviously too detailed, so I try to put it in a nutshell.
  Firstly, the naming does pose practical problems as most corresponding main articles are named "Trade unions in...", while some are named "Labor unions in...", however not one article is named "Trade unions of...". Now we can discuss how important consistency is or whether inconsistency might be acceptable to some extent. However, IMHO a naming scheme should be as consistent as possible for some good reasons. And in any case it needs to be obvious or at least understandable why we use "of" here and "in" there. There might be more drastic cases of misnaming, but the negative implications of this case are practical enough.
  Now we can discuss whether the categories are wrongly named or rather the articles. And yes, there is a slight but important difference to companies: companies are based in exactly one country but often operate transnationally, union's don't. And while I'd certainly prefer to use "based in" for companies as well, this is a different case. You correctly pointed to the fact that unions are "entities in", not "features of" a country. So let this be our guideline for the distinction in WP:NCCAT.
  To put it even more in a nutshell: there are some valid concrete arguments for the move, including trans-namespace consistency with the main articles and avoiding unions to be mistaken as "features of a country". Plus: there is the argument of consistency within the categorization scheme. On the other side there is only the argument not to change the status quo unless there are good arguments for a change. A clear case, IMHO — PanchoS (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanksfor the reply, PanchoS. I think I differ from you on several points: a) companies are also not "features of" a country; b) a company which wants to operate in another country has to open a subsidiary company, so it's not actually the same legal entity in both countries; c) quite a lot of unions recruit in more than one country (e.g. a lot of Irish journalists are in the UK-based National Union of Journalists, and some Dublin-based unions also organise in Northern Ireland), while other represent members who have been posted abroad.
  So I don't think that the distinction is as clear as you suggest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but your response again seems to me either inconsiderate or biased.
  ad a) Who said companies were "features of" a country? I certainly didn't. If you're building up a strawboard character just to have an easy time knocking it down, have fun, but don't expect it to be taken seriously.
  ad b) Yep, a company has its headquarter in exactly one country though it might have subsidiaries abroad. A fact I certainly didn't question and certainly no disagreement between me and you.
  ad c) I doubt that quite a lot of unions recruit in more than one country, with the National Union of Journalists maybe being one of the few exceptions. The central task of unions are wage negotiations, which are highly bound to national jurisdiction, minimum wages, the national health insurance system etc. Even if you came up with a few more exceptions, this wouldn't make a substantial difference to the overall picture. And for cases like the NUJ (just like with companies), it remains open whether the same legal entity operates in both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. So in any case this isn't considerably related to my argumentation.
  You're ending with the words "So I don't think that the distinction is as clear as you suggest." Sorry, but as I assume you read my argumentation, this really has a touch of a diversionary manoeuvre combined with FUD tactics. My argumentation doesn't even build on the distinction you're attacking, in the contrary I stressed the similarities in my argumentation.
  I'm perfectly fine with being overturned by good arguments. But if it's all about "I just don't like it" or maybe "I just don't like you", just say so and possibly tell me why you feel this way. Otherwise please answer to my arguments or bring up new ones. PanchoS (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• PanchoS, as I set in my first response, I am genuinely unsure about this one, and am trying to explore the issues by raising the questions which seem relevant. That's all.
  Accusing me of me of "building up a strawboard character", "diversionary maneouvres", "FUD" etc is misplaced and does nothing to help build a consensus. Would you like to reconsider that reply? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear BrownHairedGirl, my wording was certainly a bit harsh, finally we're not even dealing with a particularly controversial topic. On the other side I had the strong feeling that you were not interested in building a consensus. This is exactly because I respect you as an experienced and competent contributor, and you did write that you looked at this several times, so for me it's quite hard to come to a different interpretation. Now, I'm perfectly ready to cool down and get back to the arguments without any anger being left on my side. Finally, we're all human and not machines. And we will finally come to an authorative decision, whatever the decision will be. PanchoS (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppport in, to prevent association with governments. Unless the govt indeed runs the unions (in which case of becomes a subset of in). NVO (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note by the nominator: I'd ask for relisting this in order to invite the people of the WikiProject Organized Labour to contribute to this discussion (which I actually should have done earlier). PanchoS (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed this CfD on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour. PanchoS (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support relisting. This discussion needs more participants, esp those who bring some expertise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 1 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia noindex pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Redundant to Category:Noindexed pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, seems to be absolutely redundant. PanchoS (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, but re-create as a {{category redirect}}, since it seems to be an easy mistake to make. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This was closed last week at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_30#Category:Wikipedia_noindex_pages. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (changing my !vote), and no objection to a rename. Per the previous discussion, the two categories exist for different namespaces, and both should be retained. However, a rename might clarify the distinction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (changing my vote as well) and rename according to Enric Naval's proposal or something better. PanchoS (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:noindexed pages is the category that should be deleted or renamed, not this one. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:13, 24 February 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting:

• Category:Lacrosse players by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Propose merging:

• Category:20th-century lacrosse players to Category:Lacrosse players
• Category:21st-century lacrosse players to Category:Lacrosse players
• Category:Lacrosse defenders by century to Category:Lacrosse defenders
• Category:20th-century lacrosse defenders to Category:Lacrosse defenders
• Category:21st-century lacrosse defenders to Category:Lacrosse defenders
• Category:Lacrosse forwards by century to Category:Lacrosse forwards
• Category:20th-century lacrosse forwards to Category:Lacrosse forwards
• Category:21st-century lacrosse forwards to Category:Lacrosse forwards
• Category:Lacrosse goaltenders by century to Category:Lacrosse goaltenders
• Category:20th-century lacrosse goaltenders to Category:Lacrosse goaltenders
• Category:21st-century lacrosse goaltenders to Category:Lacrosse goaltenders
• Category:21st-century lacrosse midfielders to Category:Lacrosse midfielders

Nominator's rationale: The sport of lacrosse has existed on an organised basis only since the 1850s, and dividing 150 years of sport into three 100-year blocks is not helpful for navigation, per the precedent of a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).

This nomination removes all the by-century categorisation, by retains the categorisation-by-position, which will require the creation of two new by-position categories (Category:Lacrosse defenders and Category:Lacrosse midfielders), because the by-century categories for those positions had not been properly parented. The by-century categories for defenders and midfielders are not well-developed, and editors may prefer to upmerge them to Category:Lacrosse players, but for simplicity I suggest that be left to another occasion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the arguments given by BrownHairedGirl. These subdivisions by century make sense only in a few rare cases, for example with philosophers or other occupations that have been existing for centuries. In this case they are not helpful at all, especially as so many players having a WP article played in both the 20th and the 21 century. PanchoS (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, with relief. Thank you for bringing this up. I have never seen the need for these occupation by century categories, except in rare cases as PachoS states above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; agree with all the above. Occuli (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Yarnalgo _talk to me 03:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support -- the 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" categories which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 25 February 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. --Xdamr^talk 16:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hotel chains in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Hotel and leisure companies of the United Kingdom. Hotel chains are better organized by type of hotel rather then where they operate or are based. The existing company categories serve us well for organization by country. This is the only category of this type with significant entries. Two smaller categories were deleted in this discussion. I'll add that one of the two parents is Category:Brands by product type and that shows that this is intended to list these as brands. I see little if any value in breaking out brands by country in this type of structure. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but upmerge also to Category:Hotel chains. Occuli (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per User:Occuli. Wiki ian 10:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Occuli SatuSuro 02:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Many hotel chains will operate in one country only. I see no objection to categorising them by grade AND country, but if we lose the country, one will have no clue whehter the chain operates in USA, UK, South Africa or (for that matter) Mongolia. I accept that some chains are international, but few are pan-global, so that location is relevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Peterkingiron. There's nothing wrong with categorizing national-scale hotel chains in a by-country category. In the contrary, we could probably use some more of these to reduce the clutter in Category:Hotel chains. However, we need to restrict the inclusion either to Category:Hotel chains based in the United Kingdom or place a note in the category header excluding hotel chains that operate in more countries. I'd propose the former, because it's both easier to understand and easier to enforce. PanchoS (talk) 21:27, 2 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: No consensus. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Clark Family Experience albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only article is a redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – valid use. See above. Occuli (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's acceptable for a category to contain only redirects. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an aid to navigation for this group's albums. Alansohn (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The group only had one album which does not have its own article. There will never be any articles to add to this cat. Sussexonian (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sussexonian. --Kbdank71 14:52, 19 February 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 06:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sussexonian. Sure, it's acceptable for a category to only contain redirects, but a cat with only one item in it and that has no possibility of expansion seems pointless. -- AJR | Talk 11:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Categories with only on item are okay if there's a reasonable expectancy of expansion, but that does not seem to be the case here. Pcap ping 15:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note – the size of the category is irrelevant - we have never deleted a 1-article album category, per WP:OC#Small (part of an established scheme, in this case Category:Albums by artist, which specifically says "Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded"). The categorising of redirects is covered in WP:Categorizing_redirects#Subtopic_categorization and this is a perfect example. (I am not sure why this was not a no-consensus close rather than a relist.) Occuli (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Occuli. A category scheme breaks a single decision. To overthrow the general rule we'd need to extend the discussion at least to a representative sample of comparable cases (i.e. single-album categories). Breaking single categories out of an existing scheme erodes the scheme. PanchoS (talk) 21:36, 2 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 05:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FOX Sports logos to Category:Fox Sports logos

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming per Koavf. PanchoS (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming per Koavf. (Is Koavf a bot, given a series of mysteriously unrelated but onerous tasks to surmount some previous high mark of cfd contributions in 24 hours?) Occuli (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Just bored, I guess. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Against I originally named it "FOX Sports logos" because it is written as FOX on TV. Think, it's not the word "fox" its "FOX". Compare > MLB ON FOX - MLB ON Fox. Speaks for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLNet49 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per typical procedure: we don't give words in all caps unless they're acronyms, which "MLB" is and "FOX" isn't. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 1 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 7#Category:HGTV shows. — ξ^xplicit 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HGTV shows to Category:Home & Garden Television shows

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• unsure as Category:Home & Garden Television shows sounds like a generic category referring to home and garden shows in television. Maybe Category:Shows on Home & Garden Television would be an unambiguos solution. PanchoS (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the phraseology "Home & Garden Television" is nowhere to be found on either www.scrippsnetworks.com or hgtv.com , it seems that the article is due for renaming, not the category.- choster (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually "Home & Garden Television" is on the HGTV site, but it took me a while to find it. Maybe a question is how do we deal with brands? Clearly HGTV is a brand but "Home & Garden Television" is not? Are brands allowed to have a category under the brand name even if it does not match the lead article and if it is the primary use? If brands are OK, then clearly this would not need renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not familiar with any guideline which requires the use of an official name, only that the name be the most familiar and most unambiguous. A majority of company-related articles do not use the full name; we have Wal-Mart, not Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; ARCO, not The Atlantic Richfield Company; TIAA-CREF, not Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association - College Retirement Equities Fund.- choster (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • True. Note that Wal-Mart needs to be split into Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. since the two are different. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 27 February 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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS researchers to Category:HIV and AIDS researchers

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS research institutes to Category:HIV and AIDS research institutes

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS prevention organizations to Category:HIV and AIDS prevention organizations

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in Africa to Category:HIV and AIDS in Africa

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean to Category:HIV and AIDS in the Caribbean

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in the United Kingdom to Category:HIV and AIDS in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in the United States to Category:HIV and AIDS in the United States

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in Uganda to Category:HIV and AIDS in Uganda

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in Switzerland to Category:HIV and AIDS in Switzerland

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in South Africa to Category:HIV and AIDS in South Africa

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in India to Category:HIV and AIDS in India

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in the People's Republic of China to Category:HIV and AIDS in the People's Republic of China

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in Canada to Category:HIV and AIDS in Canada

Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about HIV/AIDS to Category:Documentaries about HIV and AIDS

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS in literature to Category:HIV and AIDS in literature

Propose renaming Category:People associated with HIV/AIDS to Category:People associated with HIV and AIDS

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS organizations to Category:HIV and AIDS organizations

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS by region to Category:HIV and AIDS by region

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS by country to Category:HIV and AIDS by country

Propose renaming Category:HIV/AIDS to Category:HIV and AIDS

Nominator's rationale: WP:SLASH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• clarification requested what is the meaning of the slash, does it equate to and or or given we have AIDS and HIV as seperate articles though HIV is the cause of AIDS one can exist without the other HIV infection has basically four stages: incubation period, acute infection, latency stage and AIDS(emphasis added). Gnangarra 06:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose renaming to just 'HIV' (e.g. Category:HIV by region, Category:HIV in Switzerland, Category:HIV researchers etc.) because AIDS is the name for the common symptomatics of an HIV infection, meaning that 'HIV' encompasses all we want to collect in this category. We don't want to string together subsets like "HIV and AIDS and Karposi's sarcoma" (slight exaggeration of this principle) PanchoS (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comment I'd prefer Category:Documentary films about HIV and AIDS because there's been a long standing problem imo with this category tree. Documentaries is the top-level category which can refer to film, television or radio/audio documentaries, but this category is populated with films. Anyway, it's no bid deal if renamed as nommed, it can just become a top level cat if we ever do create subcats for HIV television and radio docs, at some later date. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose HIV/AIDS is the most commonly used and recognisable descriptor available. It's even used in the name of a WHO department, a funded program by USAID, state departments, etc. This is one case where real world usage trumps Wikipedia guidelines (and they are, after all, only guidelines.) Orderinchaos 05:43, 24 February 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:ISKCON bands to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness bands
• Category:ISKCON charities to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness charities
• Category:ISKCON organizations to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness organizations
• Category:ISKCON media to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness media
• Category:ISKCON temples to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness temples
• Category:ISKCON texts to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness texts

--Xdamr^talk 16:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ISKCON bands to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness bands

Propose renaming Category:ISKCON charities to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness charities

Propose renaming Category:ISKCON organizations to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness organizations

Propose renaming Category:ISKCON media to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness media

Propose renaming Category:ISKCON temples to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness temples

Propose renaming Category:ISKCON texts to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness texts

Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ISKCON is unambiguous. Pcap ping 10:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ISKCON is more commonly used term than International Society for Krishna Consciousness, e.g. temples are addressed as ISKCON temple colloquially, though they all have individual names. Thanks!--Ekabhishek^talk 11:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match full title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose commonly used acronym does not spelling out SatuSuro 09:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ISKCON does not have an obvious meaning to me. In principle, abbreviations in categories are unwelcome, and should be expanded. If I am in a minority, I would expect the abbreviation to be expanded on each category page in explanatory text at the top of the page. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I support peterkingiron's comments 100 % - the important issue is to make sure adequate explanation in the article and category space - with the acronym and expanded name outlined in both SatuSuro 09:40, 2 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ISBN agencies to Category:International Standard Book Number agencies

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, International Standard Book Number —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. ISBN is unambiguous. Pcap ping 08:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose category clutter is a problem but extrapolation of well known initials which arent necessitated by disambiguation appears to creating bigger issues not resolving them Gnangarra 10:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose for the reasons given. "ISBN" is much better known than "International Standard Book Number", and if it is not even ambiguous, there is absolutely no reasons to make things more complicated than they are. PanchoS (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ISBN has a common meaning, I'm not even sure most people would know what the expanded form refers to. Orderinchaos 05:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose moving an acronym to that is absurd - are we wanting to make wikipedia look like a rubbish bin of redundant usages? SatuSuro 06:04, 24 February 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. — ξ^xplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ISI highly cited researchers to Category:Institute for Scientific Information highly-cited researchers

Nominator's rationale: Per main and grammar. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and move back the article as well per [1] [2]. Pcap ping 10:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• According to User:Tony1, we do not put hyphens after adverbs ending in "ly"; see User_talk:Tony1#Institute_for_Scientific_Information_highly-cited_researcher and MOS:HYPHEN, 4th bullet under 3. Pcap ping 10:30, 24 February 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ISO member bodies to Category:International Organization for Standardization member bodies

Propose renaming Category:ISO standards to Category:International Organization for Standardization standards

Propose renaming Category:ISO to Category:International Organization for Standardization

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support to rename the main cat per ISO (disambiguation), which indicates there are other orgs with this TLA, although ISO redirects to International Organization for Standardization. I don't think "ISO standards" is confusing, but I could be wrong (does that sugar org make its own standards?) Unsure about "member bodies". Pcap ping 08:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure: ISO is much more known than "International Organization for Standardization" which doesn't even share the initials of 'ISO' which is because 'ISO' is no acronym. Definitely keep 'ISO standards' because that's the correct name. In the end, the potential ambiguity could be solved on the side of the organizations that are less known by their acronym, such as International Sugar Organization or International Socialist Organization. PanchoS (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ISO is a common and readily-understood acronym, the expanded form is not readily understood. Broadly, don't fix what ain't broken. Orderinchaos 05:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose commonly used acronym that does not need spelling out in article or category title space SatuSuro 09:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Changed my mind, as this is certainly the most common meaning of the TLA. There isn't much in the way of categories for the other ISO (disambiguation) stuff, but those that exist expand the acronym, e.g. Category:Companions of the Imperial Service Order, so there's probably no ambiguity. Pcap ping 21:57, 2 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 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ITAM faculty to Category:Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México faculty

Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support, also per Category:Faculty by university in Mexico. PanchoS (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator and per PanchoS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 26 February 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 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ITFA Awards to Category:International Tamil Film Awards

Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator, to expand an obscure abbreviation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and BrownHairedGirl. This acronym isn't understood by probably 99% of us – PanchoS (talk) 21:43, 2 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 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IUPUI public art collection to Category:Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis Public Art Collection

Nominator's rationale: Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis Public Art Collection. Contrary to the nom, this category seems to be for Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis Public Art Collection, not the general IUPUI art collection or other public art that may be owned by or displayed at the campus.- choster (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nomination changed per Choster. Note ndash in title per WP:DASH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per choster to Category:Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis Public Art Collection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis Public Art Collection. PanchoS (talk) 21:45, 2 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 08:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IROC tracks to Category:International Race of Champions tracks

Nominator's rationale: Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AGREE - The full name should be used on Wikipedia so that it does not confuse and conflict with the main page. Doctorindy (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename per Dr. and Alan. Former member of WikiProject IROC along with Dr. Royalbroil 13:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support also, the acronym is not commonly understood. PanchoS (talk) 21:47, 2 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: Listify & Delete. --Xdamr^talk 00:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IQA medalist (individual competition) to Category:International Quizzing Association medalists or Category:World Quizzing Championship medalists

Nominator's rationale: Per main article and proper pluralization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can comment here. I gave it this name to include both WQC and European Quizzing Championships(EQC) as the EQC is relatively similar in difficulty. German.Knowitall (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete -- This is an awawrds category, for which this is the usual solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean please? German.Knowitall (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OC#Award-winners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete per WP:OC#Award-winners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A medal is no award, see Olympics. There have to be some IQA categories, before it was categorized under "quiz" where it doesn't belong.German.Knowitall (talk) 10:56, 26 February 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. --Xdamr^talk 00:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICFTU African Regional Organisation to Category:ITUC Regional Organisation for Africa

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

• IMHO this needs to be solved in the main namespace first. The correct name of the organization is "African Regional Organisation of the International Trade Union Confederation", the short name is "ITUC-Africa" per its constitution, so this category rename wouldn't improve anything. PanchoS (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me be more clear about this: The name proposed by the nominator is better than the current name as it matches the main article's title, so I don't oppose the proposal. However, I'm not sure about whether the main article's title is correct. I'm going to propose an article rename and see what the discussion tends to. PanchoS (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Requested move: Talk:ITUC Regional Organisation for Africa — PanchoS (talk) 18:35, 2 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: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICFTU Asia and Pacific Regional Organisation to Category:ITUC Regional Organisation for Asia and Pacific

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• IMHO this needs to be solved in the main namespace first. The correct name of the organization is "Regional Organisation of the International Trade Union Confederation for Asia and the Pacific", the short name is "ITUC-Asia Pacific" or "ITUC-AP" per its homepage and its constitution, so this category rename wouldn't improve anything. PanchoS (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me be more clear about this: The name proposed by the nominator is better than the current name as it matches the main article's title, so I don't oppose the proposal. However, I'm not sure about whether the main article's title is correct. I'm going to propose an article rename and see what the discussion tends to. PanchoS (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Requested move: Talk:ITUC Regional Organisation for Asia and Pacific — PanchoS (talk) 18:34, 2 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: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICFTU Inter American Regional Organisation to Category:ITUC Regional Organisation for the Americas

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

• This needed to be solved in the main namespace first. However, in this case the name to be used as article name was obvious: Trade Union Confederation of the Americas is the correct English language name per its constitution, so this category should be accordingly moved instead to Category:Trade Union Confederation of the Americas. PanchoS (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (slightly reworded for clarification PanchoS (talk) 18:38, 2 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:IFTU-affiliated unions to Category:Indian Federation of Trade Unions. --Xdamr^talk 00:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IFTU-affiliated unions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Affiliation with a redlink article, only one entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) can be verified to exist and seems to be notable. The category is also in line with other union associations in India (see Category:Trade unions of India) Even if an WP article on the IFTU is currently missing, the category should therefore be kept (struck by myself PanchoS (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
However as an abbreviation in the context of unions this is a bit confusing as there is also the defunct International Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). To clarify, a notice on the category's page would be necessary. PanchoS (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• However, as I believe the acronyms in Category:Trade unions of India need to be expanded, I'm going to file a new CfD for these. Just keep as is for now. PanchoS (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Category:Indian Federation of Trade Unions to expand cryptic acronym and disambiguate from International Federation of Trade Unions. Adhere to the simple naming scheme used for Trade unions of Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States to avoid the reduncancies something like Indian Federation of Trade Unions-affiliated unions, or Trade Unions affiliated to the Indian Federation of Trade Unions would bring. See also my Cfd for some more of these — PanchoS (talk) 02:42, 3 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IMCRA regions to Category:Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia regions

Nominator's rationale: per main article, Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild oppose. It is much better known by its initialism. Hesperian 04:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose better known by IMCRA but Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia regions is very poor gramma and is something noone would look for nor consider as possible category. Gnangarra 04:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

further thoughts is it could be at Category:IMCRA 4.0 or Category:Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia category clutter is a problem but extrapolation of know initials which arent necessitated by disambiguation appears to creating a bigger issues not resolving them. Gnangarra 04:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Abbreviation is more concise. Maurreen (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose abbreviation is what it is known as - acronyms have a life of their own - they dont need expanding at this point SatuSuro 01:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not a necessary shift - the longer form is likely to be less clear to professional readers who are the people most likely to be using these articles and categories. Orderinchaos 06:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand abbreviation which is meaningless to non-cogniscenti. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire thing is only of meaning to cogniscenti anyway - the average person couldn't give two hoots about IMCRA regions. :P Orderinchaos 07:45, 1 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 all. — ξ^xplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ION network shows to Category:Ion Television network shows

Propose renaming Category:ION Television affiliates to Category:Ion Television affiliates

Propose renaming Category:ION Television network to Category:Ion Television network

Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• support renaming per koavf. PanchoS (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom to FIX the broken caPiTaLiSaTiON. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 2 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:International Phonetic Alphabet. — ξ^xplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IPA to Category:International Phonetic Association or Category:International Phonetic Alphabet

Nominator's rationale: Not sure what this is about exactly. Also, includes pages from several namespaces. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment definitely needs cleanup. I say split the project namespace pages out to Category:Wikipedia IPA first and see what's left. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments – IPA (disambiguation) certainly won't do. I'm surprised that IPA redirects to a specific interpretation of the acronym. Agree with User talk:70.29.210.242 re wiki project. Category:International Phonetic Alphabet seems the better name for the residue. Occuli (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the redirect may be correct per WP:PT, but google (book) searches indicate that other IPAs are just a prominent. Pcap ping 11:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This reminds me of the mess that Category:GFDL was a while back. See discussion at the WT:CATP. Pcap ping 11:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. I've moved all the WP-namespace pages to Category:Wikipedia IPA, and replaced cross-namspace cats violating WP:PROJCATS with {{selfref}} links using a new template, {{WikiIPA}}. Pcap ping 12:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming to Category:International Phonetic Alphabet; all pages left are about this subtopic rather than about the Association. Pcap ping 12:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming to alphabet since the entries seem to be about that, with only one about the association, which can also be safely stored under the alphabet name. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:05, 24 February 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 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IBC stations to Category:Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation stations

Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The acronym is highly ambiguous: see IBC (disambiguation). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 2 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICL programming languages to Category:International Computers Limited programming languages

Propose renaming Category:ICL operating systems to Category:International Computers Limited operating systems

Propose renaming Category:ICL people to Category:International Computers Limited people

Propose renaming Category:ICL workstations to Category:International Computers Limited workstations

Propose renaming Category:ICL minicomputers to Category:International Computers Limited minicomputers

Propose renaming Category:ICL mainframe computers to Category:International Computers Limited mainframe computers

Propose renaming Category:Companies associated with ICL to Category:Companies associated with International Computers Limited

Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category: International Computers Limited —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The other things that abbreviate to ICL did not make computers, so those cats are fine as they are. OK to rename the people and "Companies associated" cats. Pcap ping 10:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE The computers were known as ICL computers and not as International Computers Limited computers. I can't find the equivalent renaming of IBM categories to International Business Machines? Is this asymmetric? Ian Cairns (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE -- Abbreviation is more concise. Maurreen (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per Pohta ce-am pohtit and also my issue with exploding acronyms as a pointless exercise SatuSuro 09:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There's no ambiguity here, and the proposed renames created un-needed verbosity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Until IBM is expanded to Interational Business Machines, the abbreviation shoudl remain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 25 February 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 both. — ξ^xplicit 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICI executives to Category:Imperial Chemical Industries executives

Propose renaming Category:ICI people to Category:Imperial Chemical Industries people

Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category: Imperial Chemical Industries —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for over 50 years ICI has been a recognised acronym - no need to play with it SatuSuro 09:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- The abbreviation is well known and unambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. There is no sense in having the main article and the main category use the expanded name while subcategories use an abbreviation. Choose one or the other and use it! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, to match head article Imperial Chemical Industries and because the TLA is ambiguous: see ICI (disambiguation). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 2 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 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per main article/category: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Propose renaming Category:Senior Members of the IEEE to Category:Senior Members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Propose renaming Category:IEEE standards to Category:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standards

Propose renaming Category:IEEE publications to Category:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers publications

Nominator's rationale: per main article/category: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose the standards are known as IEEE xxx like IEEE 802.11g (WiFi-G) commonly, so people will be expecting that, since they are not in industry. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. IEEE does not need disambiguation. Pcap ping 07:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• same as above with ISO. Unnecessary, less known, more complicated. Oppose. PanchoS (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- IEEE is fairly well-known by the abbreviation. Maurreen (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- "IEEE" better known, I would think, than "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers." ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose IEEE is a well known acronym, the longer form is not. Orderinchaos 05:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 24 February 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 all. Although there were those who saw the name of the categories fit in contextual form, there was significant agreement that ICC is too ambiguous and may cause confusion with other topics with the same abbreviation. — ξ^xplicit 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per main article and category: International Cricket Council

Propose renaming Category:ICC associate and affiliate member competitions to Category:International Cricket Council associate and affiliate member competitions

Propose renaming Category:ICC Events to Category:International Cricket Council events

Propose renaming Category:ICC Cricket Hall of Fame inductees to Category:International Cricket Council Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• mild oppose ICC is the commonly used and better known term. Gnangarra 05:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think of the International Criminal Court, so the events category is atleast confusing. I also think of the colour codes, but these category names would not be confused with it. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. When I saw ICC I also thought of International Criminal Court. Pcap ping 07:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the proposed rename includes a typo. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and comment is resolves any confusion with the aforementioned other meaning(s) of ICC. I have also fixed the typo, which was the misspelling of "associate". SGGH ^ping! 12:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the argument given by 70.29.210.242: ICC is very much used for the International Criminal Court as well. PanchoS (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont support The International Cricket Council already refers these programs as ICC and then the name such as ICC Events. Thus it would we inapropriate to rename them as official they are not called International Cricket Council events. For more information, see its website [3]. Even if you search ICC on google, you would get the first website as the website of International Cricket Council. Try it. --Karyasuman (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Moreover ICC is always known as INTERNATIONAL CRICKET COUNCIL in most cricket playing nations.--Karyasuman (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also as said by Gnangarra ICC is the more used term in WORLD CRICKET. Try visiting cricket playing nations. You will find ICC is mostly used for INTERNATIONAL CRICKET COUNCIL.--Karyasuman (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Every news report I've ever heard uses the "ICC" unambiguously to describe them. e.g. google news Orderinchaos 05:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all the rest of them - an unnecesary explosion of an acronym -SatuSuro 09:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as unnecessary and potentially inaccurate, since the competitions at least are formally named "ICC", not "International Cricket Council". Also, from context, it's fairly easy to see what it's talking about, unless the International Criminal Court is inducting people into the Cricket Hall of Fame these days. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• What is cricket? Never mind explaining, found it. Rename. Side note: the first google hit was International Code Council, second cricket, third chess. There must be more bureaucrats than players! NVO (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nominator to expand ambiguous acronym (see ICC (disambiguation)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Rename all because "ICC" is ambiguous. I don't really care what cricket-philes use, the abbreviation still also commonly means "International Criminal Court" as well as other stuff. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose(Struck as duplicate !vote.) You say so because you dnt belong to a cricketing counter, Just the same way as you said, I can also say that I never listened ICC for INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. --Karyasuman (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the more reason to make it unambiguous. "ICC" shouldn't be used in categories to abbreviate "International Cricket Council" or "International Criminal Court". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to all Cricket-philes - are you saying that the International Criminal Court does not have events that occur at it? Category:ICC Events certainly doesn't scream cricket. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand abbreviation Only in cricket-playing countries might the abbreviation be obvious, but not necessarily even there. There are clearly too many other ICCs for the cricket option, but the "hall of fame" might stay as ICC, since cricket is mentioned. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to expand abbreviation (oops! strike duplicate !vote). International Criminal Court is at least as significant a meaning of this ambiguous abbreviation, and while the use of ICC in some of these categories may not be ambiguous if a reader analyses it, it's better for readers and for editors to maintain consistency by renaming them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 26 February 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. --Xdamr^talk 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICA products to Category:Innovative Communications Alliance products

Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure I'm not so sure about whether this category makes any sense at all. Finally, this ominous "Innovative Communications Alliance" is a strategic alliance, probably a defunct one. It doesn't even seem to be a joint venture nor a company, and the five products listed in this category were sold under the brands of either Microsoft, Nortel or Avaya. Microsoft Office Communicator is the only article stating that this were an ICA product, Avaya Communication Server 2100 mentions that this were an ICA compliant product and the other three articles just contain links to the defunct website which is now routed to Avaya. Also, the main article Innovative Communications Alliance certainly doesn't fit in a category called Category:Innovative Communications Alliance products. Maybe rename to just Category:Innovative Communications Alliance? Or delete and mention in the product articles? What do the others think? A relist would certainly be appropriate. PanchoS (talk) 00:39, 3 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:ICMLPO (International Newsletter) to Category:International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (International Newsletter). --Xdamr^talk 16:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICMLPO (International Newsletter) to Category:International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (newsletter)

Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator just renamed the main article. Changing the "International newsletter" with "newsletter" was wrong. The name of the magazine is "International newsletter". --Magioladitis (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations. The main article seem to be about parties that attend the confernece, not about its publication "International newsletter". The category appears to be listing participating organisations. (not that I know anything of the matter) Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations per Peter. That seems to be what this is about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the article name was quite incorrect at the moment the category was nominated. The problem is that there are two completely different organizations that are both called International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations. They are only kept apart by the name of their magazines Unity & Struggle vs. International Newsletter. So the disambiguation "(International Newsletter)" must be retained and might not be abbreviated as it is the name of the magazine. However expanding the cryptic acronym is a good idea.
  Conclusion: Rename to Category:International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (International Newsletter) — PanchoS (talk) 00:51, 3 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICMP messages to Category:Internet Control Message Protocol messages

Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. The other articles that abbreviate to ICMP (International Commission on Missing Persons, International Congress on Mathematical Physics) do not have associated categories, so a category disambiguation seem unnecessary. Further "... messages" doesn't really makes sense in the other contexts. Pcap ping 07:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Abbreviation is more concise. Maurreen (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Abbreviation is well understood, long form is not. Orderinchaos 05:50, 24 February 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; it's not clear, however, that the parent category (Category:HTTP) would have failed this discussion if nominated alone. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per main article at Hypertext Transfer Protocol.

Propose renaming Category:HTTP to Category:Hypertext Transfer Protocol

Propose renaming Category:HTTP status codes to Category:Hypertext Transfer Protocol status codes

Propose renaming Category:HTTP headers to Category:Hypertext Transfer Protocol headers

Propose renaming Category:HTTP clients to Category:Hypertext Transfer Protocol clients

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If consensus is to retain at "HTTP" I will nominate the main article to be moved. There is no reason to have the article and category at separate names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if that other nomination fails too ... then what? Maybe there is a reason? NVO (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then I'll be frustrated. I can't imagine what the reason could be for an article and a category to have differing names, especially in such a straight-forward example as this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment lots of articles and categories have different names, because category names require more precision, due to maintenance and usability issues. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • [Citation needed] Can you explain? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My gut preferences are, inconsistently, article name should be full, category name should be short, article and category name should be the same. —Ashley Y 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Category:HTTP to Category:Hypertext Transfer Protocol, neutral on others. —Ashley Y 07:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all. HTTP is unambiguous. Pcap ping 08:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all. HTTP is the common usage, can't be confused. SGGH ^ping! 12:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all per SGGH. Royalbroil 12:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all for the reasons given. PanchoS (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all since 'HTTP' is not ambiguous and the full name is less well known than the acronym. --RL0919 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose all unambiguous acronym that is widely used - the full name is very uncommonly seen used anywhere SatuSuro 06:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:HTTP to Category:Hypertext Transfer Protocol, but oppose others as unnecessary expansion of a very well-known acronym, but retract some WP:TROUTing of the nominator, for at least doing a merged nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "http" is a well known acronym, and I suspect that few of us know what it stands for. The objection that the article should be moved the other way if this nomination fails is also inappropriate: http redirects to the relevant main article, so that no harms is done by leaving things alone. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all; rename the page to HTTP. It is a well known acronym. --TheJosh (talk) 01:42, 26 February 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:HD and HDE objects to Category:Henry Draper Catalogue objects'. --Xdamr^talk 16:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HD and HDE objects to Category:Henry Draper Catalogue objects

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral—This makes some sense, but I am concerned about consistency with the naming convention of the other astronomical catalogue categories. Expanding those will add much additional bulk to the category sections. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that it makes sense to have this category, since it is so widely inclusive.—RJH (talk) 17:51, 23 February 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 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HDR file formats to Category:High dynamic range file formats

Nominator's rationale: Per High dynamic range imaging. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine. I agree. Behnam (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. HDR is too ambiguous even for file formats, e.g. "hard disk recording". Pcap ping 10:08, 23 February 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:HBO television network to Category:HBO. --Xdamr^talk 16:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HBO television network to Category:HBO

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why not Category:Home Box Office as an acronym expansion, that you listed for lots of others today? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See my rationale two lines above: per main article (HBO). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:26, 23 February 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. --Xdamr^talk 00:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:GPS Schools to Category:Athletic Association of the Great Public Schools of New South Wales schools

Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I only looked at it as I thought it referred to 'Global Positioning System'. Very ambiguous. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename GPS is unlikely to be recognised outside of NSW for anything but the global positioning systems. though schools of NSW schools? Gnangarra 10:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Too easily confused with "global positioning system." Maurreen (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to avoid ambiguity. However this category doesn't contain just member schools, but various articles about the association, so the new category name should be just Category:Athletic Association of the Great Public Schools of New South Wales (without "schools"). PanchoS (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This must be renamed somehow, but would not Category:Great Public Schools be better? I assume that the origanisation does more than hold sporting events. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a rename but not the proposed rename The proposal is absolutely awful, but I agree GPS is meaningless by itself. (And it doesn't help that the expanded form sounds non-NPOV) Would suggest Category:Great Public Schools of New South Wales members. Orderinchaos 07:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BHG and others after my original comments - there isn't really a need for it to exist given the linkages are established both via a list article and also with a template at the bottom of each article. Orderinchaos 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see no evidence that membership of an athletic group is a defining characteristic of the schools concerned, and there is already a list of the schools in the head article Athletic Association of the Great Public Schools of New South Wales. A similar category was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 29#Category:Australian_Boarding_Schools.27_Association. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]