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 07:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ingelheim to Category:Ingelheim am Rhein

Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete This is eligible for a speedy rename since the main article is Ingelheim am Rhein but I'd like to hear others' opinion on the possibility of deletion. The category is ridiculously small but there is some albeit limited room for growth. Pichpich (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rename: main article is Ingelheim am Rhein --Symposiarch (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – per Ingelheim am Rhein. The corresponding category in German wikipedia (de:Kategorie:Ingelheim am Rhein) is substantial. Occuli (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2011 (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 07:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Startsy to Category:Starets

Nominator's rationale: Reliable English language sources strongly favor "Starets", and so does Wikipedia's own article, Starets (Startsy correctly redirects to Starets). First Light (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (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: closed. — ξ^xplicit 07:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a category "List Of Books Written" on his site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.144.33 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – there don't seem to be any articles on books written by A. Leon Higginbotham, necessary before a category can be created. Occuli (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2011 (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/2011_October_12#Category:Ships_with_ice_classification. The subcategories were tagged but not shown here, so I'm restarting the debate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships with ice classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ice class is rarely, if ever, a defining characteristic of a ship outside the shipbuilding and shipping industry (WP:DEFINING). In Wikipedia articles about ships it is usually not mentioned outside the infobox and perhaps in a single sentence in the design section — it basically denotes which set of rules were used to determine the level of ice strengthening in the ship (e.g. Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules, classification societies' own rules, polar class...) and does not have much to do with the actual icegoing capability of the ship as it is just a part of the ship's class notation. Nearly all ships calling northern ports have a high ice class (1A or 1A Super), so I would also say it's also more or less a trivial characteristic (WP:OC#TRIVIA). Also the categories seems to be inclined towards the Finnish-Swedish ice classes and list mainly Finnish and Swedish car ferriers even though probably half of the merchant ship articles in Wikipedia would qualify at least for the main category. Tupsumato (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2011 (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 07:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statues in Salisbury Cathedral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A form of overcategorisation, this catgeory contains people, not statues. This would make a better list then category. Tim! (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – this is 'People with a statue in Salisbury Cathedral', which is not defining. It would make an interesting list in the article on the cathedral. Occuli (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all probably in Table of the Statuary of the West Front of Salisbury Cathedral or the main article. Probably defining for Giles of Bridport, but not for Jesus, who one imagines has one too! Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The fact that a saint may be depicted on Salisbury Cathedral is non-defining of the saint. This is a gross misapplication of the category system. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (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:Visual art journals.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Art journals to Category:Arts journals

Nominator's rationale: The whole art/arts distinction is rather contrived. Our articles on Art and The arts are not much help either, as the leads for each one seem to imply that the other one is the less inclusive term. Distinctions are very subtle, making it almost impossible to decide where to categorize an article. As an example, the Archives of Asian Art describe themselves as covering "the arts of South, Southeast, Central, and East Asia." and were categorized as an "arts journal" until recently, when that was changed to "art journal" (presumably based on an inspection of the tables of contents of recent issues). As merging these two categories would not yield a category with an unwieldy amount of entries, that seems to be the most logical solution to me. As the plural "arts" appear to be more inclusive (regardless of what art says), I propose to merge to Category:Arts journals. As an aside, I should note that similar distinctions are not made for magazines, where the category "arts magazines" was deleted already way back in 2005. Crusio (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Oppose What nonsense! Try not to draw conclusions from WP articles, which as you know are not RS. Visual arts is the main article for Art. There's nothing subtle at all about these well known distinctions. "Arts" covers art and also theatre, music, literature, dance etc etc; Art in its common sense covers the visual arts, often including architecture, but on WP we keep them separate normally. Everybody understands the difference perfectly well, and there are colossal trees of categories and articles on art which would be thrown into chaos by following the merge you propose. The distinction is exactly the same in French, isn't it, so I don't see the difficulty. As you are a professional, you should be able to see how professional classifications handle the matter. If you really think " The whole art/arts distinction is rather contrived" I can only suggest you rethink your "en-5" self-classification, or stick to the sciences. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said above, the distinction is not made for magazines, without throwing into disarray "colossal trees of categories and articles on art". If the main article is "visual arts", then why is the cat not named accordingly ("Visual arts journals")? And what the fact that this distinction is the same in Frech has to do with this discussion completely escapes me. And where do we categorize architecture journals? They're part of "art" (visual arts"), but not on WP? This all sounds terribly messy to me. --Crusio (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot less messy than following the principle of this merge would be. A CFD decision in 2005, with 2 participants, is hardly sacred writ (though sadly most CFD discussions of that date were much better considered, and by more people, than they are now). In fact that decision did the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are proposing here, as it kept art, dance, and theatre magazines in their own categories, though no longer (presumably) connected by a common parent, whereas you are proposing to throw deny art its own category and throw it in with theatre and dance. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When, as in the case I mentioned in the nom, a journal that self-identifies as covering "the arts", you then re-classify this as "art journal", it looks to me that even professionals like those journal editors don't agree with you. --Crusio (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you are evidently aware, a look at the contents shows nothing but art, and indeed art history. What is your point exactly? By "the arts" they evidently mean branches of the visual arts like ceramics, sculpture and painting. Not music, literature or theatre. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What I mean is, if we have to inspect a journal's tables of contents to decide where to categorize it, things risk becoming very subjective and there obviously is something a bit wrong with our categorization scheme. Let me also add here the tidbit of information that the category "Art" redirects to the category "Arts", so much for the argument of category trees being disrupted by the proposed merger. --Crusio (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of these areas, but I do know the difference between the common meanings of "art" vs. "the arts". They are not synonymous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not saying that there is no difference between "art" and "the arts". I'm just saying that even professionals apparently disagree about the proper use of these terms and that, given that one is a subset of the other, it would make things much easier to merge the two categories. --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things would be clearer if we went to the more grammatical Category:Journals on the arts. I don't object to going to Category:Journals on visual art (or a plural form), but I'd take (as would the project I'm sure) a very strong stand against renaming Category:Artists or Category:Art movements etc. We don't begin our articles "Rembrandt was a visual artist..." nor should we. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to complicate matters: What's the difference between either of these categories and Category:Art magazines? Looking at List of art magazines it would appear that in fact many if not most entries are arts magazines, or journals for that matter. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look that way to me. A few seem to cover other stuff, mostly literature, but most seem pretty art centred, as the ones I know are. Many might be called journals, I agree. Talk to Crusion if you want merge those trees. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't want to make this a comment for or against the proposal, at least not until everyone above agrees to take a deep breath. But it's worth pointing out that confusion is widespread in these categories and in the articles. Category:Arts genres by country or nationality, Category:Music by nationality and Category:Literature by nationality are subcategories of Category:Art by nationality. And it's obvious that all of the national subcategories have everything to do with art in its broadest sense. Other incongruities such as the presence of Category:Performance artists and Category:Storytellers in Category:Artists by medium or of History of dance in Category:Art history by medium could probably be avoided if we just decided to either use "visual arts" instead of "art" or, better yet, scrap the distinction for categorization purposes. Wouldn't it be more natural to have a single category for all occupations that involve artistic creation? Isn't it more natural to have actors, painters, writers, sculptors, filmmakers, screenwriters in one category than to split them in such a way that the parent category of writers is the same as the parent category for literary agents? Pichpich (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it wouldn't! Like all trees, and despite the notes that most of these have, they often need tidying. But that is a fairly simple matter. Generally we should have an arts category above the art, music, literature, if it is felt to be needed. You ask:"Wouldn't it be more natural to have a single category for all occupations that involve artistic creation?" - words fail me, really! You want to merge "Italian composers", "Italian authors" and "Italian artists" into one category????? Why??? Are you perhaps joking? The ways you can use "visual art" in English of good quality are fairly limited - you can't say "Rembrandt was a visual artist ..." or call an article "Gothic visual art". The article titles are not going to change and the categories should match them. I will do some pruning, but there is nothing "incongruous" in Category:Performance artists being in Category:Artists by medium. Category:Music by nationality and Category:Literature by nationality were made subcategories of Category:Art by nationality a couple of moths ago by a South American editors, switching them from "Culture by nationality"; both were already in the parent Category:Arts genres by country or nationality. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure that if you calmed down you'd realize that this is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there should be some container category for all these. Something like es:Categoría:Artistas de Italia, pt:Categoria:Artistas da Itália or fr:Catégorie:Artiste italien. I really think it's the most natural categorization scheme but that we're letting the ambiguity in the English vocabulary dictate something else. We should choose the concept for a category first and its name second instead of sticking with some not-so-good prone-to-confusion scheme whose main benefit is that it can be named Category:Italian artists. Pichpich (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was what you said, whatever you meant to say! If you want to set up Category:Italian creative professionals (as WP:OCAT calls them) etc, then go ahead, but using the word "artist" in any combination will create confusion. I'm not very clear on the utility of such categories. It's not very relevant here anyway. Note that the French, Spanish etc categories you refer to fall into the very bad trap of dividing artists into "painters", "printmakers", "sculptors" etc, which is a typical bad tendency all over WP, where art=painting in the eyes of many. Not good examples to follow. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand the trap you're referring to. Are you suggesting we should merge painters, printmakers and sculptors categories? In any case, the word artiste in French or artistas in Spanish has never had the more restrictive meaning one sometimes sees in English. Let's not kid ourselves. We should acknowledge the fact that within the current category system, the words "art" and "artist" are not used solely in the narrow sense of visual art. This is not just a little mistake here and there that can easily be corrected. (For instance Category:Works by artist and in particular Category:Albums by artist) . Pichpich (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might well support such a merge - especially to get rid of "painters", as relatively few artists are or were only that; also true for printmakers. Personally I rarely add to "painters", preferring "artist" categories. The problem is even worse for artworks; museum's collections are typically assumed to contain only "paintings". There have been a number of decisions to change recording categories away from "artist" or to "recording artist" but the main category is too daunting to nom. It should be changed though. At least there is little possibility of confusion. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Judging by the category's contents, a rename to Category:Visual art journals would seem to be in order, though. (BTW, seems odd to me that Category:Literary journals is just a redirect to Category:Literary magazines as there are academic journals in this area, but that's another CfD discussion, I guess.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think that example is relevant here. There is a distinction made all over WP between (academic) journals and magazines. So we have parallel categories for several fields. However, the distinction kind of breaks down with literature journals/magazines. Whether a certain publication is a magazine of a journal is, in this particular field, basically a (subjective) judgment call. The same applies here. I gave an example above of a journal that said it covered "the arts" and hence had been categorized as an "arts journal", bud Johnbod tells us we have to look at the tables of contents and re-categorized it as an "art journal". "Art history journals" has been made a subcat of "art journals". What now should we do with an art history journal that dares to publish an article about the history of theater in Japan or dance on Bali? I think that if things get this complicated and subjective, we should cut our losses and do away with the distinction and merge the categories. --Crusio (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, my response on your last point: such a journal, if academic, would be a cultural studies, arts or humanities journal, I imagine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you are getting a little obsessive here, and forgetting that no scheme of categorization will ever be perfect. I can't believe that similar situations don't occur in scientific journals, but I imagine that you would not propose that just because a biology journal might sometimes, or often, stray into chemistry that the two categories should be merged. Johnbod (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If it often strays into chemistry, it probably belongs in Category:Biochemistry journals. But the example is not comparable to the situation here. The situation is more akin to "literary magazines" and "literary journals", where it is so difficult to decide into which category a certain publication belongs that it was decided to merge the two categories. When it becomes a subjective judgment call whetehr an article belongs in one category or another, categories should be merged. We have many categories that could be broken down further, but often we don't do that because either the categories then become very small or the distinctions are not helpfull any more. Take Category:Business and management journals, for example. I guess some journals in there are more business-oriented and others more management-oriented. But many journals will be very difficult to categorize as either one or the other, so it is more useful to combine them. That doesn't mean, of course, that we don't see the difference between business and management. --Crusio (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, my friends, I think I see where part of the conflict may be coming from, and it supports Crusio's argument, I think. We have a contradiction in the main articles from The arts and Art. The arts, as I've cited before states, The arts are a vast subdivision of culture, composed of many creative endeavors and disciplines. It is a broader term than "art", which as a description of a field usually means only the visual arts. But what I never noticed till now is that that's not what the Art's lead says. It states that Art... encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. The two main articles contradict each other. And according to Art, it is synonymous with The arts, rather than Visual arts. Do others see what I see, or have I mis-stated what's there in the leads ? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all native-speakers of English know that there is an overlap between art in the aesthetics sense of "work of art" (which may be music or literature) and art in the commonest sense of visual art. The three articles in fact cover this adequately, though Art should probably be improved, but that is a terrible article in every way. But the world goes on - people don't emerge puzzled from the National Gallery of Art because there were no plays performed. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but now I'm concerned about my own art-related Cfds. Let's face it, if Art doesn't describe art in the way we think it should (and the way The arts says it does) we have a problem. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The headnote clearly says: "This article is about the general concept of Art. For the categories of different artistic disciplines, see The arts. For the arts that are visual in nature, see Visual arts. For people named Art, see Arthur (disambiguation). For other uses, see Art (disambiguation)." I've also bolded some words you seem to have missed in the passage from The arts you quote above. No doubt all of these could be better expressed, & anyone who is clear on the usages is welcome to have a go. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. And we wouldn't create a category for a "general concept," we would do so for specific disciplines. I should have spotted that. Excellent point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Visual arts journals and purge if necessary. "Arts" is a much broader term covering all the liberal arts, probably too broad for a useful category, even a parent-only one. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Art journals to Category:Visual arts journals. Based on the discussion it's clear that we are going to have this discussion over and over again unless we pick a name which is clear and unambiguous. I don't think we are bound by the common use of "art" as only the visual in naming this category. Mangoe (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WHAT IS GOING ON? This category has been deleted before the discussion has closed. The nom was to merge it, but NONE of the several people commenting supported that, & the nom arguments were trashed. There were two oppose votes & two for a rename, which (as one of the opposes) is certainly better than a merge. Who did this? Of course one can't see, as non-admin. 20:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of what happened, that's a curious interpretation of this discussion... --Crusio (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorted - a Japanese editor who is either very inexperienced or disruptive emptied it & placed a delete template on it. Crusio, no one else thinks the distinction is "contrived" & most went out of their way to say so. Confusing perhaps but not contrived. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, let me try one more time to clarify my "trashed" argument: "Art journals" (or "Visual arts journals") is a subcategory of "Arts journals", just like (visual) art is part of the arts. As such, any journal categorized in "Art journals" is automatically considered part of the mother category "Arts journals". For many journals categorizing them as either belonging in the subcategory "Art journal" or the mother category "Arts journal" is a subjective decision requiring intimate knowledge of the journal (necessitating, for example, an in-depth analysis of the tables of contents). My proposal therefore is to categorize all arts journals (whether dance, theater, visual arts, or other) as "Arts journals" and do away with the one subcategory in that main category. --Crusio (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is perfectly clear, but its rubbish. Why not merge all sub-cats of science journals together using the same argument? Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Because there it is, first, almost always possible to assign a journal to a subcat objectively and, second, merging all of those cats together would yield a very unwieldy large category. Here, the category "art journals" currently has 5 members, whereas the category "arts journals" has only 19 members. All together just 24 journals. You may call my proposal "rubbish" as much as you like, but I maintain that it is perfectly reasonable. --Crusio (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To you, who find subject distinctions within the arts "contrived" and difficult to understand. To others above, no. If you merge all the other sub-categories together the category would be much larger, though not unmanageably so. It would also be far less useful, as people who, unlike you, are actually interested in the area, need to know which of the arts are covered. The category has not fully recovered from the vandalism yesterday - I think it had about 8 before, plus the art history sub. You are confusing "subjective" with "needing knowledge or a couple of minutes research". I can't believe many scientific journals don't present exactly the same issues. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I refer to the example above where a journal refers to itself as covering "arts", and then being moved by you from the "arts journals" cat to the "art journal" cat based on your subjective judgment. I rest my case. --Crusio (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If the point of the category is to distinguish visual arts from say music, then it seems to me that renaming the category to Category:Visual art journals would make the most sense. And I have never ever heard that Art == Visual art, and I know of several people, myself and many artists included, which would be rather offended at the suggestions that the common sense of "art" is "visual art" and not "art in general". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:19, 12 October 2011 (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. An all-redirect category needs a better rationale than this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rocko's Modern Life episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Most of Rocko's Modern Life episode articles got merged or redirect due to lack of sources. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 02:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Why would someone remove the category from the redirects? Simply repopulate it and if sources permit, make full-fledged articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 5 October 2011 (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 since category was created in the middle of the nomination. — ξ^xplicit 07:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Female fencers to Category:Women fencers

Nominators rationale The articles on women's fencing in the olympics and the name of the intercollegiate organization in the United States all use "women's fencing".John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the cats in the parent Category:Sportswomen by sport use female. Lugnuts (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename: Per above to standardise with the fencing category. --LauraHale (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the language that is used in the real world. To use the current language just because it's a Wikipedia protocol for sportswomen is a case of the tail wagging the dog, or the, um, cat in this case. First Light (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2011 (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 07:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Johnson family (Lyndon) to Category:Lyndon B. Johnson family

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Just calling it the "Lyndon B. Johnson family" to match Category:Lyndon B. Johnson and Lyndon B. Johnson seems to be a simpler solution at disambiguating than what currently exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename The other three families in the First Families of the United States that are disambiguated beyond the last name all use a form similar to the goal such as Category:John Tyler family and Category:Gerald Ford family.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Cjc13 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2011 (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.