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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Upper West Side (Manhattan). Category was not tagged. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Upper West Side (Manhattan) to Category:Upper West Side

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Make it consistent with article. Gryffindor (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to remove unnecessary qualifier. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Josei to Category:Josei manga

Rename Category:Seinen to Category:Seinen manga

Rename Category:Shōjo to Category:Shōjo manga

Rename Category:Shōnen to Category:Shōnen manga

Rename Category:Kodomo anime and manga to Category:Children's manga

Nominator's rationale: Back in 2008, Josei, Seinen, Shōjo, and Shōnen were renamed to Josei manga, Seinen manga, Shōjo manga, and Shōnen manga respectively to disambiguate the articles (which were about different manga demographic groups) from the litteral meanings of the terms (women, men, girls, and boys respectively). However, their associative categories were not similarly renamed. This proposal is to fix that oversight and also rename the Kodomo category to "Children's manga", which is the term most often used by reliable English-language sources. (See WT:ANIME# Renaming demographic categories) —Farix (t | c) 22:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, for the nominator's reasons. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support more accurate naming. --KrebMarkt 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as they are more accurate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and above supports (on a side note, these categories could be added automatically by the infobox). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:JARGON,WP:UE - why is only Kodomo using an English word? Why not make it clear what these non-English terms mean? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the English trade press and commercial publishers for those demographics have adopted the Japanese terms for all but that last. In part because there is no English term that means, for example, "written for women aged 18 to 30" in the way that "childern's" can mean "for children". —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Farm preservationists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undefined and not likely to be populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Category is defined and fairly narrow. Has good potential for future articles. Scanlan (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this single entry category. Also delete Category:Farm preservation which has this as the only entry. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now; allow re-creation if indeed other articles are created to populate it. Right now, I kind of doubt there will be. If it is deleted, I agree that Category:Farm preservation may as well be deleted too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 3 May 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename NCAA Division I men's basketball conference Coaches of the Year → NCAA Division I men's basketball conference coaches of the year
• Rename NCAA Division I men's basketball conference Players of the Year → NCAA Division I men's basketball conference players of the year
• Rename NCAA Division I women's basketball conference Players of the Year → NCAA Division I women's basketball conference players of the year
• Rename American college basketball conference Player of the Year templates → American college basketball conference player of the year navigation boxes
• Rename American college basketball conference Coach of the Year templates → American college basketball conference coach of the year navigation boxes

Nominator's rationale: I created all of these categories a while back but falsely used capitalization in them. Also, "navigation boxes" is more descriptive and accurate than "templates". Jrcla2 (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Municipal districts and counties in Alberta. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Counties and municipal districts of Alberta to Category:Municipal districts and counties in Alberta

Nominator's rationale: I was performing an uncontroversial restructuring of the community categories in Alberta. The discussion can be found at User:117Avenue#Specialized municipalities of Alberta. The decision was to follow the route of the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, by saying Municipal district, then county. 117Avenue (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Straightforward enough. Resolute 16:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename since municipal district is the true municipal status of all in this category and county is merely a way in which a municipal district may choose to brand itself within its official name (see List of Alberta municipal districts#Branding). --Hwy43 (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vaporware operating systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia generally should not have lists/categories with "vaporware" in the title as this is clearly not NPOV. The List of vaporware was recently deleted for this reason, so should be this category. Should Windows Neptune or Windows Odyssey be declared vaporware? They're clearly not going to be released at this point. Etc. Pcap ping 12:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vaporware appears to be a contentious term for some products. Categories should be for clearly defined criteria and whether a product is vaporware is not always certain. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too subjective to function as a category. Note: I !voted List of vaporware for deletion earlier this month. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Pokémon images. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Images of Pikachu to Category:Pokémon images

Nominator's rationale: Only two images in category. There is not reason as to why this character has it's own image category while others are contained within Category:Pokémon images —Farix (t | c) 11:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pika! Merge per nom, no need for its own subcat. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Municipal seats in Alberta. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging Category:Municipal districts and county seats in Alberta and Category:County and municipal districts seats in Alberta into Category:County and municipal district seats in Alberta

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories just phrasing the same thing in a different way. But neither has to pluralize "municipal district", just as "county" is not pluralized. The category is about the seats, thus "seat" is pluralized, but the other words don't need to be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As seen in the discussion at User talk:117Avenue#Category:Municipal districts and county seats in Alberta a consensus on this name has not been met yet. The name “Municipal seats in Alberta” would be able to include the seats of Specialized Municipalities and Special Areas, but the problem is what category to place it in. 117Avenue (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CFD is probably a more appropriate forum than a user talk page for reaching consensus on this point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename to Category:Municipal seats in Alberta and place it under Category:Local government in Alberta. Wikilinks to this category could then be placed in the introductions for Category:Specialized municipalities in Alberta, Category:Counties and municipal districts of Alberta and Category:Rural municipalities in Alberta#Pages in category "Rural municipalities in Alberta" (for Special Areas). --Hwy43 (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). That suggestion seems reasonable and would be fine with me. The important thing is that we combine the two duplicate categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Football (soccer) informal variants to Category:Association football variants

Nominator's rationale: Between them, these two categories contain only about 30 pages. There is good reason to have a separate category system for established/popular variants of association football such as indoor soccer, but this split between "variants" (presumably, "formal variants"?) and "informal variants" does not aid navigation and seems to be unnecessary. (Category creator not notified because: inactive since 2007) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:24, 13 April 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 05:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that divide between formal and informal is an unnecessary to (try to) maintain for WP cats Mayumashu (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This seems like an obvious merge to make. Deciding what is an informal and what is formal is fraught with difficulty enough, but even if we could do it, why bother with so few to categorize? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People associated with the University of Johannesburg to Category:University of Johannesburg

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, loosely defined category. — ξ^xplicit 03:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – standard way of doing this for many countries, cf Category:People by university or college in England. (It is usually a container category for well-defined subcats, as in this case.) Occuli (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. This is not a terribly useful system and we don't need to spread its implementation beyond where it's already infested. I see no reason why these aren't just as usefully contained in the eponymous category about the institution. "People associated with" is unnecessarily vague and such categories are better done away with. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. There is also Category:People by university or college in the United States which has the standard 'XXX University people' and, more to the point, Category:People by university or college in South Africa; so this useful idea has adherents in at least 3 continents. Occuli (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you are pointing out that the "scheme" exists in more than one country, but that doesn't change my opinion that they are generally unhelpful and could (all) easily be upmerged. (Incidentally, I wouldn't assume that just because the scheme exists for schools in 3 continents the idea has actual "adherents" in 3 continents. It's not unusual for editors on one continent to create categories for topics on other continents, as you no doubt know. I doubt there is a general international "meeting of the minds" on this issue—it's probably the work of a limited number of editors, and who knows where they are from. And anyway, especially with categories, there's a lot of simply imitative behaviour that contributes to category creation. When editors see categories of one type exist, they create more of them, whether or not the original categories were a good idea or not.) Rather than the standard "part of a scheme" argument, I really want to hear a reason why these (in general) are a good idea. If we can't get those types of views without nominating the entire swath of them, then that may need to be done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The categories for alumni and academics are sufficient. Bring forward group nominations to remove other instances of this intermediate "people" category. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I'm the contributor who created the category in question. Firstly I'm a South African, thus one can assume at least some adherence on 3 continents. Secondly Yes I imitated another contributor - that being another South African contributor (See my first point) and use it because I find it effective. Thirdly I find the category helpful when a particular university category becomes overpopulated. It is a neat way for defined categories to be kept in a broader category. Not only including alumni and academics but for example chancellors, vice-chancellors, deans, provosts and presidents. Furthermore people who are associated with the university, but who don't justify their own category e.g. current students. More than a hypothetical rationale, I've used and seen it used in this way. Purple Duke (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, it should be tagged to be a parent-only category (or primarily such). Vice-chancellors, deans, etc are usually academics, but may have been promoted to a level where they nolonger do academic work. CErtainly, we need a standard for of category tree, which should be able to apply worldwide. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and also regarding the creator's comments—note that current students can simply be placed in an "alumni" category. "Alumni" is a broad enough term to describe any student who has ever attended an institution, current or former. Graduation or reception of a degree is not necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: OED says an alumnus is "[t]he nurseling or pupil of any school, university, or other seat of learning. Also, a graduate or former student (chiefly U.S., esp. in pl.)". I'd say the US usage has begun to predominate worldwide, including in many UK universities where one can only join the "alumni association" when one has graduated from the institution. Would it not be clearer to maintain separate categories called "University of Foo alumni" (for graduates) and "University of Foo students"? Otherwise, I have no objection to such categories being placed directly in the main category, "University of Foo". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:13, 14 May 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: speedy deleted per user request. JamieS93^❤ 15:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Koman90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Doesn't meet WP:USERCAT criteria as this category doesn't group user pages of Wikipedia users who share one or more characteristics nor does aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. — ξ^xplicit 03:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Users are welcome to keep track of pages in their userspace using the PrefixIndex feature (e.g., Special:PrefixIndex/User:Koman90). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  INPUT- I see you point but AWB will not properly populate pages from Special:PrefixIndex/User:Koman90. Koman90 (talk), Network+ (Verify) 15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Try the following steps: from the Make list drop-down list, select "Special page"; click on "Make list"; and in the pop-up window, choose "All Pages with prefix (Prefixindex)", type "Koman90", and select "User" from the namespace drop-down list. That should work. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you now that I know how to do this sthis catagory is no longer needed Delete per CSD G7 Koman90 (talk), Network+ (Verify) 14:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per vast unanimous precedent to delete user-specific categories like this. VegaDark (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 28. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian American physicists to Category:American scientists of Indian descent

Nominator's rationale: too narrow a focus for this kind of category Mayumashu (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Calgary Cowboys (WHA) players to Category:Calgary Cowboys players

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation. Rename to match parent article, Calgary Cowboys. Resolute 01:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match parent article. No need to disambig. -DJSasso (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename where the only other notable team was a junior team and we don t list players by their junior teams as players, but as alumni Mayumashu (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. stay consistent.

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 28. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Overseas Chinese groups to Category:Chinese diaspora

Nominator's rationale: mean the same thing and the standard WP category naming pattern is 'Fooian diaspora' - see subcats listed at Category:Diasporas Mayumashu (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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