Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 2

< March 1 March 3 >

March 2

Category:EOKA struggle

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 close Nominator agreed to close CFD so that category can be speedied. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:EOKA struggle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category, redundant since the relevant Category:EOKA also exists Constantine ✍ 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.

Recipients of the Victoria Cross by nationality

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. — ξxplicit 00:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross by nation to Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross by nationality
Nominator's rationale: Rename, chnaging "by nation" to "by nationality" per other categories of "Fooers by nationality". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and custom. Occuli (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is the prime military bravery award in UK and dominions, but should be renamed according to the usual practice. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Might be worth having categories based on which nation issued the award- IIRC Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have their own editions of the VC; but that's not what this category does. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:05, 8 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.

Category:Albion Rovers F.C. (Scotland)

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:
--Xdamrtalk 17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albion Rovers F.C. (Scotland) to Category:Albion Rovers F.C.
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to match main article; this was previously moved from Albion Rovers F.C. (Scotland) to Albion Rovers F.C. as it was considered the primary topic over the similarly named team from Wales. As there are no categories relating to the Welsh outfit the categories should follow suit as disambiguation is unnecessary.Jellyman (talk) 20:18, 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.

Category:Star Trek music

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. — ξxplicit 00:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Star Trek music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category was deleted a couple of years ago. Speedy declined because there were more articles placed in it but after removing articles for songs inextricably linked to Star Trek like Row, Row, Row Your Boat the category remains small with little or no growth potential and serves as a magnet for adding any song used in a Star Trek movie however peripherally. Otto4711 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until a better argument for deletion is presented. There are currently five articles in it that are only about Star Trek music; a sixth would also arguably fit ("Faith of the Heart", or at least a redirect for its re-working "Where My Heart Will Take Me" that was used as the theme song for Enterprise). There are also many other franchise-specific categories in Category:Science fiction music, including Category:Doctor Who music, for example, notwithstanding the likelihood that someone will put "Voodoo Child" in it. There aren't that many songs/music used in Star Trek films that weren't written for it, so why can't it just be policed? How many songs except for "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" (Star Trek V) or "Magic Carpet Ride" (Star Trek: First Contact) are likely to be dumped in it inappropriately? The alternative is to dump all five (and possibly more) articles directly in Category:Science fiction music and Category:Star Trek. postdlf (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps tighten the rubric to exclude peripheral odes. It is not like Otto to favour the dumping of articles from a really-quite-well-defined subcat into an eponymous category. Occuli (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove any songs that are only tangentially related that get dropped in there. We're not bound to a three year old decision that was based on it being small. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:10, 8 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.

Martial artists

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. — ξxplicit 00:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The sub-categories of Category:Martial arts practitioners by nationality all use the format "Fooian martial artists", and all but two of the first-level sub-categories of Category:Martial arts practitioners use "martial artists" rather than "practitioners". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 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.

Category:Economic, Social and Cultural Council

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 09:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Economic, Social and Cultural Council to Category:ECOSOCC
Nominator's rationale: WP:COMMONNAME and this discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is at Economic, Social, and Cultural Council, so I'd actually propose adding an extra comma to the category name, rather than going for an acronym on the parent category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:12, 8 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.

HIV/AIDS

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. — ξxplicit 00:46, 10 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My quick google search gives about 18 million hits for "HIV/AIDS" vs. about 2.5 million for "HIV and AIDS". The current names appear to me to be far more common, despite it's apparent violation of a WP naming convention. Those who deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS would like the linkage to be destroyed, but I think we're beyond that hope right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Apparently HIV/AIDS is the most common name, so we should use that. Pcap ping 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Renames to use the most common form of the terms. Alansohn (talk) 01:03, 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.

Category:Olympic alpine skiers of Albania

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 nomination withdrawn; see last comment. (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Olympic alpine skiers of Albania to Category:Albanian alpine skiers
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping contents. McMarcoP (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please mind that I was not suggesting to delete either category, but just to merge the two. I found unnecessary to have a category for Albanian skiers and one for Albanian Olympic skiers. I will abide with what you suggest anyway, of course. Just intended to clarify the reasoning behind my suggestion McMarcoP (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Thanks for explaining your rationale, McMarcoP; I hope you'll forgive me for explaining why the convention is to keep categories like this. There are two reasons why WP:OC#SMALL recommends keeping small categories when they are part of a series:
    1. To ensure completeness, so that anyone looking at Category:Olympic alpine skiers by country can find the Albanian olympic skiers amongst the others. If the category has been upmerged, they can't get there without popping up a layer to Category:Alpine skiers by nationality.
    2. To ensure that the Albanians remain in an Olympic category. The small category may have many parent categories, so it provides several different pathways to the articles in it.
    By the way, merger is a form of deletion, because merging Cat:X to Cat:Y consists of taking the articles in Cat:X, recategorising them in Cat:Y, and then deleting Cat:X; the end result is that there is no more Cat:X.
    Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Hi BrownHairedGirl. Your explanation is very clear and I understand that the reasoning behind my proposal was not correct. Thank you for clarifying that. Both categories need to be kept. McMarcoP (talk) 09:05, 4 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.

Comedians by century

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 and merge as nominated. — ξxplicit 00:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Delete & merge, per the consensus in many recent discussions that by-century categories of people-by-occupation may be useful for the 19th century and before, but not for the 20th- and 21st-centuries. (And sorry for the 10-hour delay in completing this nomination). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge according to much recent precedent. Any categories for earlier centuries could be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my long-standing support of deletion of per-century categories. Debresser (talk) 07:01, 9 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.

Television personalities by century

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 both. — ξxplicit 00:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge both. There is a general consensus against 20th and 21st-century sub-categories of people-by-occupation categories, and television is another bad topic for this form of categorisation. Per the timeline of the introduction of television in countries broadcasts only began on a significant scale in the 1940s and 1950s, yet these categories set out to divide this 70-year history into two 100-year blocs. That's a really bad way of grouping articles for navigational purposes, not least because nearly all the 21st-century television personalities are also 20th-century television people. (These two categories contain only 13 articles between them. Of the 6 articles in Category:20th-century television personalities, only one is not among the 12 in Category:21st-century television personalities.)
Note that these categories probably should have been included in Cfd February 26 discussion of Category:Television people by century, but since they were not sub-categories of Category:Television people by century I didn't spot them at the time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom per many similar cfds. Occuli (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Too overly-specific as a people by occupation and century category Mayumashu (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my long-standing support of deletion of per-century categories. Debresser (talk) 07:01, 9 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.

Film directors by century

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 and merge as nominated. — ξxplicit 00:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
  • Category:Film directors by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete. The first commercial films date only from the 1890s (see History of film#The_silent_era), so occupation of film director is only 115 years old. Dividing those 115 years into three blocks of 100 years make no sense: there were few 19th-century directors, and at this early point in the current century most 21st-century directors were also active in the 20th century.
Other recent discussions of people-by-occupation-by-century categories have shown a preference for keeping some 19th-century categories, but in this case there is currently no 19th-century category. I can't see any point in creating one, because it would amount to a small and arbitrary subset of Category:Silent film directors, a category which provides a much more logical grouping of the early days of film. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom per many similar cfds. Agree re 19th century. Occuli (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- according to much recnet precedent. No 19th century category should be permitted. If we need a slit it should be silent/talkie, but probably better to treat silent as a subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my long-standing support of deletion of per-century categories. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 9 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.

Category:DCAU screenshots and pictures

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:DCAU screenshots and pictures to Category:DC animated universe screenshots and pictures. --Xdamrtalk 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:DCAU screenshots and pictures to Category:DC animated universe images
Nominator's rationale: Per main category and simpler name —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Naming convention - screenshots and pictures - is consistent with sub categories and other related categories for collection of stills, promotional images, artwork, posters, etc from comics related films and television shows. There may be an argument for lengthening by spelling out "animated universe", but a tenuous one. Again, it is consistent with how long, awkward titles are treated on "back-end" categories. - J Greb (talk) 03:06, 23 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 09:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:DC animated universe screenshots and pictures to expand abbreviation per nom, and to keep "screenshots and pictures" per J Greb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is probably the best option. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 9 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.

Category:ANTARA people

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:ANTARA people to Category:Antara news agency people. --Xdamrtalk 17:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ANTARA people to Category:???
Nominator's rationale: This should certainly be renamed if kept (per main article and WP:ALLCAPS), but the current name implies a people group. Should this be further renamed? Maybe Category:Persons associated with Antara? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this Indonesian organisation acronym was commonly found in caps SatuSuro 06:01, 24 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 09:29, 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.

Category:ANAPROF

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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ANAPROF to Category:Liga Panameña de Fútbol
Nominator's rationale: Per main. There should be some consistency to the articles within this as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - nominators personal rationale does not coincide with the usage again - just because an acronym exists is not necessarily a reason to create the expanded words - 10 of the articles in the category have the acronym as the title - common usage is a good argument against making it the title - just one in the category with the suggested name. SatuSuro 07:03, 24 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 09:26, 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.

Myanmar

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:
--Xdamrtalk 17:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Russia to Myanmar to Category:Ambassadors of Russia to Burma
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Myanmar to Russia to Category:Ambassadors of Burma to Russia
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Myanmar to Category:Ambassadors of Burma
Propose renaming Category:Government ministries of Myanmar to Category:Government ministries of Burma
Nominator's rationale: Per main article (Burma) and category (Category:Burma). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, notwithstanding the fact that the government currently self-identifies as "Myanmar". When (if) the article name changes, we could change the categories. For now, this qualifies as a speedy change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold back for a bit as discussion on the parent article's talk page seems to suggest there is some controversy about the article being moved to Burma from Myanmar. Orderinchaos 14:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless someone formally proposes moving it back, I don't see a reason to wait. It's easy to rename categories, and if the article is renamed, the categories could easily be renamed too. For the time being, there not really a good reason to have most named "Burma" and these outliers named "Myanmar". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 10 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.

Category:Deprecated citation templates

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. --Xdamrtalk 17:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deprecated citation templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty. I am nominating this rather than using a db-tag because there may be something I'm missing here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the templates that were here were deleted at Tfd. Delete only if this is so, but repopulate if not. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 9 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.

Category:Whiptail lizards

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. — ξxplicit 00:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Whiptail lizards to Category:Teiidae
Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicate category for a lizard family. The parent article is at Teiidae, which shows that "whiptail lizard" is not a comprehensive common term for all included species. postdlf (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:54, 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.

Category:BGN/PCGN romanization

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: Nomination withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:BGN/PCGN romanization to Category:BGN–PCGN romanization
Nominator's rationale: WP:SLASH and title of main article (which I just moved.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The BGN/PCGN publication used as a source in the BGN/PCGN romanization article uses a slash, not a dash. We should not be overwriting real-life usage with our guidelines (please do correct me if I'm wrong, though). The main article (and its sub-articles) should be moved back for this same reason as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 2, 2010; 13:57 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 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.

Category:Members of the European Greens - European Free Alliance

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:Members of the European Greens - European Free Alliance to Category:European Greens–European Free Alliance. --Xdamrtalk 17:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Members of the European Greens - European Free Alliance to Category:European Greens–European Free Alliance
Nominator's rationale: These parties are members of either the European Free Alliance or the European Green Party. However they are not themselves members of a parliamentary group such as the "European Greens - European Free Alliance", only their MPs are. So this category is both wrong and unnecessary. It can safely be merged into its parent category Category:European Greens–European Free Alliance which is enough to indicate their affiliation to a parliamentary group. PanchoS (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - these are two separate groups in alliance, not a single one. European Greens are members of various international Green groups, but members of the EFA are not --MacRusgail (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehm, yes, certainly the two alliances are different from each other, which is why they have separate categories.
    But this is not about merging the respective categories of European Greens and of EFA. This is about merging the category Category:Members of the European Greens - European Free Alliance (which is both unnesessary and wrong) to its parent category Category:European Greens–European Free Alliance.
    I can't see that your otherwise reasonable objections to blurring the distinction between the two alliances, were warranted. The contrary is the case: as I said, parties are only members of either the Greens or the EFA, not of the common parliamentary group. So the distinction between the two alliances rather gets clearer. PanchoS (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both The main article says, "This group consists of two distinct European political parties - the European Green Party (EGP) and the European Free Alliance (EFA)". The implication is that there are two parties, which happen to work together. The present category is a parent-only container category the members of the two parties and the main article just quoted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 7 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.

Category:Northern Irish Radio DJs

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 for this merge, ut the proposal below applies to this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Northern Irish Radio DJs to Category:Radio personalities from Northern Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No distinction between the two categories and no need to have both available. "Radio personalities" category covers a more comprehensive range of articles. Fattonyni (talk) 02:53, 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.

Northern Irish xxx to xxx of Northern Ireland

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 18:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Mass renaming proposal in line with conventions used in main article title (Culture of Northern Ireland and various archived Cfd discussions including Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 18#Category:Northern Irish television and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 9#Northern Irish. Fattonyni (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom to avoid use of the contentious adjectival form "Northern Irish". The alternative "in Northern Ireland" carries less baggage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realised there's a very long list of similar categories here -- more categories now added to the proposed list -- saving for the moment, more to come. Also renamed above heading as I should have done in the first place. Fattonyni (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further articles added, final bunch to come. Fattonyni (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • List now complete. Fattonyni (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all The proposal appears logical and non-contentious. Davshul (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per previous cfds. Occuli (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. While I strongly support this renaming to a more neutral terminology, it will have unfortunate effect of breaking the very clever and useful category navigation template {{Fooian fooers}}. To ensure that this template does not start generating redlinks, please recreate all the "Northern Irish fooers" category as {{category redirect}}s. -14:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename all per the statement made by BrownHairedGirl. ~Asarlaí 15:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to more clearly describe the contents of the categories. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - incredibly clumsy as indicated by some of the long winded names suggested.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:38, 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.

Category:British film director templates

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 18:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:British film director templates to Category:European film director templates
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Mostly-overlapping with Category:English film director templates and make up an unnecessary sublevel in Category:European film director templates. Most of the entries are actually for English directors but have been misplaced because of the overlap. Categories for other British countries can be created if the number of templates is sufficient, otherwise they can be placed directly under the European category. An alternative could be to delete the English subcat and move everything to the British one, but a merge between Britain and Europe would be preferable as I see it. Smetanahue (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per many other category structures that have British then English as the layout. Most of the directors in the British category have British as the category on their article (IE - Category:British film directors), instead of English. Not everyone who describes themselves as British is English (or vice-versa) and could lead to WP:OR in moving them to the English sub-cat. Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it is standard to have a 'British' category with an 'English' subcat. I checked about half the British ones and not a single one is also in the 'English' subcat. At least one of the British ones is not in any way English (Vaughan, described as Scottish). Merging British to European is a bizarre notion. (The category is not tagged.) Occuli (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts and Occuli. English as a subcat of British is standard practice in categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per standard practice to distinguish British subjects. Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 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.

Category:Templates deprecated from November 2006

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 delete as empty/emptied monthly maintenance category. Debresser (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Templates deprecated from November 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 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.

Category:Children

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. --Xdamrtalk 17:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Children to Category:People who became notable as children
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The bulk of sub-categories here involve people who became notable as children rather than current children. PatGallacher (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious support Since everyone who is an adult was at one time a child, this category is basically redundant to Category:People. That having been said, I'm not 100% on the proposed name. I don't have a better one though, so unless I have a flash of brilliance, I'll support this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB An exception as a subcat is Category:Military brats but this was resoundingly deleted in July 2006 and should perhaps be revisited. I join Koavf in offering guarded support. Occuli (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are just a handful of subcats where the issues are slightly different, if this cat is renamed we will have to consider what to do with them. PatGallacher (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't know—I think that what is being proposed goes without saying for all categories. People are only categorized by their defining characteristics. Just because someone spent some time as a reporter we don't categorize them as reporters. We only categorize them in Category:Reporters if it's defining for them. This principle is fairly widely misunderstood and misapplied. We could partly solve the problem by naming the category Category:People who became notable as reporters, but I think doing so is not the way to promote the idea of proper categorization. The same principles apply here, I think. Also, and probably more significantly—the category contains more than just bio articles about people who were notable as children. It contains articles such as Advertising to children, Juvenile delinquency, Witchcraft and children, etc. Renaming would create problems for inclusion of articles like this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Besides the arguments already raised, this change could widen the category, by including people who were notable as children but are now adults. Maurreen (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that misunderstands the issue. Effectively, this category already does mostly consist of people who were notable as children but are now adults. The name should be changed to reflect this. PatGallacher (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I'm changing my !vote to other rename to Category:People notable as children. It accomplishes your goal, but is less wordy. Maurreen (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: at this timestamp, category is not tagged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I can see what the nominator is trying to do (i.e. to avoid having an article on an adult tagged as "Children") and it's a reasonable goal, because I can see some editors removing such a category on the grounds that (for example) Charlotte Church or Aled Jones have not been children for a long time. However, there are two problems with this proposal:
    1. Good Olfactory's point about the categorisation of articles such as Advertising to children. I think that this can be resolved by categorising those articles under Category:Childhood, and leaving this category tree for individual children (or groups of children) rather than for topics-relating-to-children.
    2. A more subtle problem. The current scope of the category is not actually "people who became notable as children"; it is the more subtle "people notable in relation to their childhood", because in many cases the notability arose many years after the events to which it relates. One example is abuse cases: such as Michael O'Brien, who was unknown as a child, low-profile notable in adulthood as mayor or a town, but shot to national prominence in Ireland more than 40 years later after his graphic account on television of the abuse he had received as a child in the "care" of a religious order. We do not appear to be categorising child-abuse victims (were those categories deleted?), but there are other similar categories such as Category:Children who died in Nazi concentration camps. Those children were nearly all unknown until well after their death.
    So I am opposing this nomination unless we can resolve these issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ridiculous category. At one point every single person on Wiki was a child, so in theory everybody could go in this category. Djln--Djln (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Beyond those issues with the rename being inapplicable to many of the contents, I think this is largely a solution in search of a problem, because I don't see any sign that this is in danger of being misused. Many of the subcategories are clearly based upon the relationship of some other fact to the subject's age, such as Category:Child actors, that remain applicable even once the subject is no longer a child, and so Category:Children is at a minimum a useful parent category. Even if an article is placed in a more general category such as Category:American children, it serves as a useful sorting bin for subjects who presently are children (or who died as children) until it can be sorted to a more specific category. And such a general child category would obviously be removed (and easy to detect as inapplicable from year of birth categories) once the subject is no longer a child. So unless it can be shown that there is a marked tendency for Category:Children to be inappropriately added to every biographical article (as everyone was once a child), I don't see a problem here that would outweigh its functionality. postdlf (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Comment - I don't see any more sign of misuse of this category than I did when I clarified the head note 2 years ago. In other words, the vast majority of editors "get" that it's for people whose notability dates to their childhood, regardless of their current age. As far as I can see, there are just a few misplaced articles that should be moved to Category:Childhood. I've seen lots of categories that are in much worse shape than this one. All in all, I think we can probably live with the current name, which has the virtue of simplicity. However, if an additional bit of clarity is deemed desirable, I would prefer Maurreen's suggestion of Category:People notable as children, which is both more concise and inclusive of the kinds of individuals that BGH mentioned. Cgingold (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- A better rename might be Category:People notable while children. A headnote should explain the scope of the category, with a cut-off of perhaps age 12, any one older being in a "youth" category. It should be limited to those who achieved something while a child and are now adults. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 7 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.

Football competitions in the Republic of Ireland

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 18:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renaming or deleting the following categories
Nominator's rationale: Current categories are populated by articles about association football or soccer, so it should be renamed to disambiguate from other football codes in Ireland. The category could not even be accurately populated with other articles about other football codes in Ireland as they are organised on an All-Ireland basis. Djln--Djln (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator, but note that as with the category below, Category:Defunct football competitions in the Republic of Ireland had its parent categories removed and was twice depopulated out-of-process by the nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname to distinguish from Gaelic football. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 7 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.

League of Ireland Shield

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest deleting the following category
  • Category:League of Ireland Shield
Nominator's rationale: Pointless having a category about this defunct competition. Very unlikely to be populated by anything other then article of same name. Djln --Djln (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but note that the nominator has twice depopulated the category out-of-process (on 27 Feb and 1 March), and twice removed the parent category (on 27 Feb and 1 March), despite being warned in between (here, on 28 Feb to use CFD for deleting categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I cannot see how this subject is likely to be expanded to have more articles than its main one. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_2&oldid=1144513178"