Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 19



Category:LGBT issues and religion

 * 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 * The result of the discussion was: withdrawn with no objections. Kbdank71 13:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:LGBT issues and religion to Category:Sexual orientation and religion
 * Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming to Category:Sexual orientation and religion to match naming scheme of similar cats (Category:Sexual orientation and medicine, Category:Sexual orientation and science, Category:Sexual orientation and society), and to avoid vague/awkward "LGBT issues and..." wording. Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Nominator withdraws nomination (see below) Wikignome0529 (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support rename to match other corresponding categories and to more accurately reflect the content of this category. Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep to reflect location in LGBT and Religion portals, as well as covering aspects of LGBT not covered under 'Sexual orientation', such as transgender and transsexualism, yet currently covered by items included under 'LGBT' (e.g., Metropolitan Community Church, Jewish Mosaic, and other LGBT groups which cover trans as well as other LGBT people). Other entries should also be under this category, such as where the Evangelical Alliance and the Church of England Some Issues in Human Sexuality have dealt specifically with transsexualism as well as sexual orientation, and Christian transgender groups, such as UK's 'Sybils'.  There is not a similar category for "Transgender issues and religion", and I am not clear it would be viable on its own, so inclusion within this category makes sense, which it could not be under sexual orientation and religion. Mish (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You make a good point about some articles which wouldn't neatly fit into either Sexual orientation or Transgender -- though organizations aren't exactly an "LGBT issue", and belong in the LGBT religious organizations subcat (but in order for the subcat to make sense, it needs an "LGBT..." parent cat, such as "LGBT issues and religion") How about keeping the current category name the way it is, but adding separate trees underneath for sexual orientation, trans issues, and LGBT orgs? I think there would at least be a handful of articles which could fit in a Transgender religion cat, and then that cat could be a top-level cat within the Transgender main category and also would appear on the category tree on Portal:Transgender.
 * Example:


 * Keep: LGBT issues and religion (parent cats: Category:LGBT, Category:Religion)
 * New cat: Sexual orientation and religion (parent cats: Category:Sexuality and religion, Category:Sexual orientation), all of the "Homosexuality and..." articles/cats would fit within
 * New cat: Transgenderism and religion, or some other naming Category:Transgender topics and religion (parent cats: Category:Transgender and Category:Gender and religion), could include contemporary issues and pre-modern examples
 * Stays where it is: LGBT religious organizations would remain a top-level cat under "LGBT issues and religion", but "See also" links could be added to the top of the 2 other cats to point users to the LGBT religious orgs cat)
 * Thoughts? Wikignome0529 (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (edited 21:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC) to add recently created category wikilink)
 * Sounds OK to me. Hijra (South Asia) has no religious category apart from Category:Hindu law.  As a Hindu sect, it could be fitted in here somewhere, I am sure.  Similarly for Kathoey in a Buddhist culture. Neither would fit under Sexuality and religion, but could be squeezed in under LGBT issues and religion (not sure why it hasn't been done already though). Mish (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * cool.. if no one objects, i withdraw my nom. Wikignome0529 (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:Sportspeople of multiple sports

 * 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. Kbdank71 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * sportspeople of multiple sports


 * Nominator's rationale: unencyclopedic, and overcategorization. TheEdgeWork (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, unencyclopedic is always vague, and the nominator didn't defend this position, so I don't even think it is a valid argument. And neither is overcategorization.  Overcategorization usually applies to categories that don't actually provide any real distinction, like sportpeople who wear green, or NFL players who have played more than two games.  This is not the case with this category at all.  Elite athletes who have notability in two sports are not common.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 08:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – Esprit15d puts it very well. Occuli (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, a relevant trait in the sportspersons in question. Punkmorten (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Having played multiple sports professionally or at the highest level is a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Multiple sport sportspeople - because it flows better. "Fooers of multiple foos' is awkward. Otto4711 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:Iranian grand ayatollahs (died)

 * 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. Kbdank71 12:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Iranian grand ayatollahs (died) to Category:Iranian grand ayatollahs
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge per standard practice not to distinguish between alive/dead, present/former etc in category names. Bencherheavy (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Alefbe (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 08:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge Shittes can just refer to alive grand ayatollahs so it is important to find them easily. پوویا (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. The one oppose !vote rationale is not the least bit convincing. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Listify and merge per nom and پوویا.-choster (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:United Kingdom military navigational boxes

 * 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 merge as per nomination. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:United Kingdom military navigational boxes to Category:United Kingdom military templates
 * Propose merging Category:United States military navigational boxes to Category:United States military templates
 * Propose renaming Category:Australian military navigational boxes to Category:Australia military templates
 * Propose renaming Category:Canadian military navigational boxes to Category:Canada military templates
 * Propose renaming Category:Estonian military navigational boxes to Category:Estonia military templates
 * Propose renaming Category:Estonian military navbox templates to Category:Estonia military templates
 * Propose renaming Category:Finnish military navigational boxes to Category:Finland military templates
 * Propose renaming Category:French military navigational boxes to Category:France military templates
 * Propose renaming Category:New Zealand military navigational boxes to Category:New Zealand military templates
 * Propose renaming Category:Romanian military navbox templates to Category:Romania military templates


 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categorization schemes. The "Country military templates" form appears to be more commonly used; see Category:Military templates by country. Estonia has two categories that need to be merged and then renamed, or vice versa. :) R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:Social Progressives

 * 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. Kbdank71 12:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * social progressives


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with the various categories for "conservatives" and "liberals" this is overcategorization by political opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just as with race, religion and ethnicity, viewpoints are quite often defining characteristics, as is the case here. The same way we know whether someone is LGBT, based on descriptions and self-description in reliable and verifiable sources, is the same mechanism we should be using here. The elimination of categories for "conservatives" and "liberals" has been patently disruptive and has made categories of politicians and writers (among many others) far less useful for navigation. Whatever the agenda here in denying that such opinions exist needs to be put to an end. Alansohn (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, being LGBT is not a matter of opinion, thus the example has no bearing on this discussion. Calling the considered opinions of many editors "disruptive" does not strike me as being particularly conducive to discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Being LGBT is based entirely on self-description and descriptions included in reliable and verifiable sources and you are LGBT because you say you are LGBT on a purely subjective basis; There is no objective means to determine that someone is LGBT. Whether you call it "personal choice" or a "matter of opinion", we have an agreed-upon standard on using such self-descriptions and descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources and we ought to apply it on a consistent basis, not just when someone likes or dislikes a category. Arbitrary deletion of categories on the basis of WP:IHATEIT is inherently disruptive and does not strike me as being particularly conducive to building a useful encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, it's a bloody good thing that no one is arguing IHATEIT despite your attempt to reduce the discussion to that level, isn't it? Categorizing someone as LGBT is not categorizing them by an opinion; it is nonsensical to equate the state of being LGBT with holding a particular opinion on one or more of an arbitrary laundry list of political ideas. They are not the same; they are not analogous. Reliable sourcing is the standard for including a piece of information in an article, not for including an article in a category, otherwise every fact stated in a reliable source becomes a basis for categorization. That is not the way the categorization system works. It is not an indexing system. WP:OC represents the consensus of Wikipedia editors based on an enormous number of CFD discussions. If you disagree with that consensus then the place to argue it is the talk page where you can attempt to demonstrate that consensus about one or another section of the guideline has changed. Otto4711 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have arbitrarily decided that we can accept self-descriptions for sexual preference but we are unable to do so for political opinions. Both sexual preference and political opinions are strong defining characteristics, but one we like, one we don't. CfD would gain a small shred of the credibility it so utterly lacks if there were some consistent set of rules applied consistently, but all we get is that it is so because we tell you so. I would argue that there is a double standard here, but I'm not sure that there is any standard being followed. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Had you bothered to follow the discussion relating to the various political opinion categories, you might possibly understand that the thinking behind their deletion centered in large measure around the fact that the same person can hold political opinions relating to one topic that would be thought of as "conservative" while simultaneously holding political opinions relating to to another topic that would be thought of as "liberal". Additionally, what constitutes a "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive" political position is unfixed. Not to mention that people may arrive at the same conclusion about a political position or issue through completely different analyses from completely different political philosophies. Otto4711 (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What you're missing is that a person's "self-description for sexual preference" is the most reliable and authoritative source possible for categorization as such, because there's no more reliable source possible for a person's internal emotional life than their own self-description. "Social Progressives" is not comparable, because it's not an identity that a person explicitly adopts — it's a descriptor applied by other people, not by the categorized themselves, to certain figures who are perceived to profess some variable percentage of a broad set of beliefs on social issues. It is possible, for example, for a person to be "progressive" on, say, liberalization of drug laws but "conservative" on same-sex marriage, or vice versa, which is why this isn't a particularly helpful grouping — it doesn't actually tell you anything about their views on specific issues, only that they have "progressive" views on some unspecified set of issues. Even some people who'd be categorized as "conservative" by most measures can still have "progressive" views on a couple of issues. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:American Social Progressive politicians, which is what the category contains, &^ re-parent. Johnbod (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a number of non-politicians in the category, and what is the objective definition of "Social progressive" for purposes of categorization? Otto4711 (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some non-Americans in it, too. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. We've deleted, , and . This seems to be of that variety of political opinion or stance that is a little bit vague, varies depending on who is using the term, and ultimately is relatively unhelpful as far as categorization goes. The comparison to LGBT is ... interesting ... but quite inapposite, in my opinion. Better to compare apples with apples—this is about political beliefs, not sexual orientation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question If Category:Social Progressives is deleted, will Category:Progressives need a separate CfD or will this outcome kill two birds with one stone?  APK  straight up now tell me  09:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The other category would need to be nominated separately. In fact, I'll do it now. Otto4711 (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per established consensus against categorizing people by broad and relatively vague political orientations. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711 and Bearcat – social progressives is too broad and vague to be of any help in categorization. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711. Category tells us very little about the subject. &#618;nt&#601;  sv&#603;nsk''  19:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:Alberta musical groups

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Alberta musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Alberta


 * Category:Calgary musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Calgary
 * Category:Edmonton musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Edmonton
 * Category:British Columbia musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from British Columbia
 * Category:Vancouver musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Vancouver
 * Category:Victoria, British Columbia musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Victoria, British Columbia
 * Category:Manitoba musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Manitoba
 * Category:Winnipeg musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Winnipeg
 * Category:New Brunswick musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from New Brunswick
 * Category:Moncton musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Moncton
 * Category:Newfoundland and Labrador musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Newfoundland and Labrador
 * Category:St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador
 * Category:Nova Scotia musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Nova Scotia
 * Category:Halifax musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Halifax, Nova Scotia
 * Category:Ontario musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Ontario
 * Category:Durham Region musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Durham Region
 * Category:Guelph musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Guelph
 * Category:Halton Region musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Halton Region
 * Category:Hamilton, Ontario musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Hamilton Region
 * Category:Kawartha Lakes, Ontario musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Kawartha Lakes, Ontario
 * Category:Kingston, Ontario musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Kingston, Ontario
 * Category:Kitchener-Waterloo musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Kitchener-Waterloo (or somesuch, not so sure on this one)
 * Category:London, Ontario musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from London, Ontario
 * Category:Niagara Region musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Niagara Region
 * Category:Northern Ontario musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Northern Ontario
 * Category:Ottawa musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Ottawa
 * Category:Peel Region musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Peel Region
 * Category:Peterborough, Ontario musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Peterborough, Ontario
 * Category:Toronto musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Toronto
 * Category:Windsor, Ontario musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Windsor, Ontario
 * Category:York Region musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from York Region
 * Category:Newmarket, Ontario musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Newmarket, Ontario
 * Category:Prince Edward Island musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Prince Edward Island
 * Category:Quebec musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Quebec
 * Category:Quebec English-language musical groups -> Category:English-language musical groups from Quebec
 * Category:Montreal musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Montreal
 * Category:Saskatchewan musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Saskatchewan
 * Category:Regina, Saskatchewan musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Regina, Saskatchewan
 * Category:Saskatoon musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Saskatoon
 * Nominator's rationale: I could've sworn I already nominated this. Anyway, I want all of the subcats of Category:Canadian musical groups by location to be renamed "Musical groups from X" to match the precedent that the American categories have set. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if Category:Vancouver musical groups -> Category:Musical groups from Vancouver, British Columbia since Vancouver is ambiguous, then support if the others are not ambiguous and they match the parent article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed that one. I made sure to check that the others aren't ambiguous. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Object to the "disambiguation" as Vancouver alone has consistently been declared nonambiguous and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE (see User:Mkdw/Vancouver why no disambiguation). Categories should not be disambiguated any farther than they are in the corresponding city articles - therefore if the category must change, it needs to be Category:Musical groups from Vancouver Dl2000 (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have checked the other ones TPO, but you missed Halifax, which definitely needs dabbing. Grutness...wha?  00:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming as is - Basing a mass category renaming solely on an USA precedent is problematic from a systemic bias viewpoint. There is a global implication, and as such needs to be discussed on a more widespread level (i.e. consensus from the various national music WikiProjects) before proceeding with any further category renaming. Musical group categories of other nations still generally follow the "Xn musical groups" pattern; the only apparent "Musical groups from X" case outside North America seems to be Category:Musical groups from Birmingham, England. The American music group "precedent", for all its implications, should also have considered this wider consensus first. Dl2000 (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not systemic bias at all. Yes, we started with American categories. So what? We agreed that all the American ones should be renamed, so why not the other countries too? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no real reason why Canadian needs are, or should be, any different than American ones in this matter. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename - unless there are Canada-specific objections. I would say it's also a UK precedent as all but one in Category:English musical groups have this form + a few more within Category:British musical groups. NB It is Category:Vancouver so it should just be Vancouver. Occuli (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 08:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. No dab required for Vancouver. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename. I would love to see movement toward making all the Canadian city categories "City, State" (e.g. "Musical groups from Edmonton, Alberta"), but regardless, I think this is a good idea.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A category name does not need to be "City, Province" (State? in Canada?) unless the city's head article needs to be "City, Province". The WP:NC for Canadian places is perfectly in line with the NC for every country in the world that isn't the United States — and it's not going back to match the eternally contentious outlier of a US convention, because there's no even remotely compelling reason to do so beyond the laughable notion that Canadian conventions should match US conventions solely for the sake of matching US conventions. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I obviously meant "City, Province." I was just stating a preference for a change, which I did not expect to be adopted solely because we made the change to "City, State" for the US cities.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:Wikipedia 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: merge into Category:Wikimedia Foundation, removing those which do not belong.  . Kbdank71 13:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nominator's rationale: I'm not proposing this be deleted necessarily, but there needs to be some thought put into its scope, currently defined as "notable people who are or were part of the Wikipedia organization, not merely a Wikipedian." The problem is that there is no such organization as "Wikipedia" - with three exceptions (Essjay controversy, Revo Soekatno and Simon Pulsifer) all the articles in this category are about Wikimedia Foundation apparatchiks. I propose that this be split into (which already contains many of the articles) for individuals with a formal involvement in the WMF, and a separate category for articles about in individuals who are notable to some degree for being involved informally (i.e. as an editor) with the Wikipedia project specifically - an article counterpart to  (which is for talkpages). Thoughts?   Skomorokh   16:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename...to Wikimedia Foundation employees? That's what they all have in common.  Regardless, Revo Soekatno doesn't belong there.
 * Comment - if this was renamed as suggested above, Simon Pulsifer would have to be removed. (As would Essjay controversy, but that article shouldn't be in this category anyway, as it's not a biography.) That may not be a problem, though - there's so few notable people connected with Wikipedia who aren't employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm not sure we need a separate category to include them. Robofish (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:Lillestrøm S.K.

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Lillestrøm S.K. to Category:Lillestrøm SK
 * Nominator's rationale: The dots in the category name are wrong. It has been fixed in the mainspace article Lillestrøm SK. The subcats should also be moved:


 * Category:Lillestrøm S.K. matches --> Category:Lillestrøm SK matches
 * Category:Lillestrøm S.K. players --> Category:Lillestrøm SK players
 * Category:Lillestrøm S.K. seasons --> Category:Lillestrøm SK seasons
 * --Rettetast (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, Norwegian clubs don't use dots in their names like they do in Italy. Punkmorten (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support all per nom. lil2mas (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom &#618;nt&#601;  sv&#603;nsk''  19:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Polish 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: merge/rename. Kbdank71 13:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Poles of French descent to Category:Polish people of French descent
 * Propose merging Category:Poles of Russian descent to Category:Polish people of Russian descent (existing)
 * Nominator's rationale: Match others in Category:Polish people by ethnic or national origin, according to the policy at Naming conventions (categories). William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary subjective ethnic categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is subjective here? Alansohn (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What objective criteria is there for someone to be included? What % of "descent" is objectively mandated for inclusion below which exclusion is mandated? And if you can come up with that answer, why isn't is just an arbitrary choice? Categories based on say-so or conjecture or someone's own self-identification are not encyclopedic. If someone self-identifies as a dentist, a god, a bony fish, does his/her bio get so categorized? No - we need reliable sources to categorize; which means we need an OBJECTIVE cut-off unrelated to self-identifications - which we learn can be way-off, Madeline Albright's "discovery" of her Jewish roots being recalled as one of the more striking examples. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a two-fold test, both self-identification and relevance. When you looked at these sparsely populated categories, hopefully you noted that the French immigrant taught French (and more notably music), and the Russian immigrant is a pair skater that has competed both as a Russian and Pole. Good objective selection! You know that I agree, that all our categorization must be objective.
 * Support to match other corresponding categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Alansohn. Occuli (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don t see the problem with 'Poles', so long as the supracategory page - Category:Polish people is 'spelled out'.  These are 'long-named' cat pages as is. Mayumashu (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As to what %, of course the answer is any percentage. As to the unreliability of self-identity, I agree that it is problematic but argue that this particular matter is not about science and therefore it s okay.  Most (maybe 75%) self-identity is accurate, so reporting it, as these cat pages do, provides a fairly accurate picture, which is sufficient (where, again, we are not doing science with these).  I do think though that over time there needs to be a weeding out of ones that give no sources where the claim seems odd.  I don t think personally that we should demand a source for every claim as nearly all are based on self-identity, either directly made or by those interested either in genealogy or furthering the expanse of their heritage culture (of course, claims by this last group, unsubstantiated, are the weeds) - that is very few, entirely objective sources on this matter exist.  So if we were doing science, I would be second in queue for having these wiped out, as they are highly subjective.  But again, this does not mean that most are not in fact accurate.  Mayumashu (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the self-identity percentage requirement is 100%, and relevant to that person's activities. Any person that merely says "I'm part Jewish, and part Scots-Irish", doesn't belong in any of these categories. Yes, we must demand a source for every claim! As they are evaluated, most of the entries in these categories are removed, and the empty categories are deleted.
 * Rename per nom for consistency. No reason to use "Poles" in just these two categories. Not every nationality has good collective nouns, so we use "Fooian people". Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:Volcanoes by geochronology, and subcategories

 * 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: Administrative close: withdrawn by nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Volcanoes by geochronology to Category:Volcanism by geochronology
 * and similarly its 28 subcategories


 * Category:Archean volcanoes to Category:Archean volcanism
 * Category:Cambrian volcanoes to Category:Cambrian volcanism
 * Category:Carboniferous volcanoes to Category:Carboniferous volcanism
 * Category:Cenozoic volcanoes to Category:Cenozoic volcanism
 * Category:Cretaceous volcanoes to Category:Cretaceous volcanism
 * Category:Devonian volcanoes to Category:Devonian volcanism
 * Category:Eocene volcanoes to Category:Eocene volcanism
 * Category:Holocene volcanoes to Category:Holocene volcanism
 * Category:Jurassic volcanoes to Category:Jurassic volcanism
 * Category:Mesozoic volcanoes to Category:Mesozoic volcanism
 * Category:Miocene volcanoes to Category:Miocene volcanism
 * Category:Neogene volcanoes to Category:Neogene volcanism
 * Category:Oligocene volcanoes to Category:Oligocene volcanism
 * Category:Ordovician volcanoes to Category:Ordovician volcanism
 * Category:Paleocene volcanoes to Category:Paleocene volcanism
 * Category:Paleogene volcanoes to Category:Paleogene volcanism
 * Category:Paleozoic volcanoes to Category:Paleozoic volcanism
 * Category:Permian volcanoes to Category:Permian volcanism
 * Category:Phanerozoic volcanoes to Category:Phanerozoic volcanism
 * Category:Pleistocene volcanoes to Category:Pleistocene volcanism
 * Category:Pliocene volcanoes to Category:Pliocene volcanism
 * Category:Pre-Holocene volcanoes to Category:Pre-Holocene volcanism
 * Category:Precambrian volcanoes to Category:Precambrian volcanism
 * Category:Proterozoic volcanoes to Category:Proterozoic volcanism
 * Category:Quaternary volcanoes to Category:Quaternary volcanism
 * Category:Silurian volcanoes to Category:Silurian volcanism
 * Category:Tertiary volcanoes to Category:Tertiary volcanism
 * Category:Triassic volcanoes to Category:Triassic volcanism


 * Nominator's rationale: This will broaden the scope of these categories to include landforms, areas, and deposits that might not be well described as volcanoes, but have been significantly affected by volcanism. While discussion is continuing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes about which "volcanoes" and "volcanism" categories would be useful, this change seems widely accepted. -- Avenue (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. My nom appears to have been premature after all. One of our project's most productive editors has now come out against simply renaming these categories, so we no longer seem to have a consensus. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. -- Avenue (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Gilgamesh has attempted a cut-and-paste move of these categories, so all the target categories now exist and many are populated, and many of the source categories are now empty. While this needn't impinge on the discussion here, it may make the closing admin's job more complicated. -- Avenue (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – it would be easier in each case to retain Category:Archean volcanoes for the volcanoes as a subcategory of Category:Archean volcanism (particularly as 'volcano' is a household name, whereas 'volcanism' is not, at least in my household). And this would not need a cfd. Occuli (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any great objection to that, except that some of the resulting categories might be on the small side. Anyway, now it's started, I'd like to wait at least a day to see if there are any more comments before deciding whether to withdraw this nomination. I admit it was prompted by finding the move already underway. -- Avenue (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename - I really would have used the "Move" button if there had been one. When I realized there wasn't, I thought, "maybe categories aren't considered articles?"  Anyway, after a long discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes, I had no choice, since it was decided that not all volcanic features (even very big ones) are formally "volcanoes", but they were instead occurances of "volcanism" if an actual volcano-shaped structure could not be found.  But they still fell well within scope of the project, and large igneous provinces of huge outpourings of lava (like the Siberian Traps and the Deccan Traps) are enormous volcanic events, and even if we couldn't find the specific eruptive vent, we know one or more of them exists or existed somewhere, but there was opposition to calling them or even categorizing them as "volcanoes", but little opposition to categorizing even older structures that kept their shape (such as volcanic calderas) as such.  It just seemed counterintuitive and hypertechnical to have two non-overlapping systems of categories for what were originally the same nature of events.  So with further discussion, we came up with separate "Volcanism of" parent categories to encompass "Volcanoes of" categories.  But for examples like these (Volcanoes by geochronology), having an entire set of categories for both seemed like overcategorization, and Avenue didn't disagree.  I asked for more comment to weigh in (and the topic had already been discussed well into the ground and back again&mdash;if the discussion were a hole in the ground, it could have easily gone deep enough hit magma and strike a new volcanic vent), and those of us who were still there and discussed this, agreed on this principle.  This is a lot of hard work, and I feel a real responsibility to WikiProject Volcanoes. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are Category:Active volcanoes and Category:Extinct volcanoes; and Category:Archean volcanism doesn't include anything that seems volcano-like to me, so I'll defer to WikiProject Volcanoes on this. Occuli (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, volcanoes and volcanic features that old are difficult to recognize. Usually they've been worn down flat, and are known mainly from their distinctive geology (volcanic bedrock, metamorphosed volcanic rocks, etc.).  In particular, greenstone belts are old volcanic belts that have completely flattened and even marbled themselves into the continental craton.  (There are parts of the geologic record so old that not even any mountain chains survive from those times that haven't completely flattened and embedded themselves into the bedrock similarly.)  But even a few volcanoes of such great age are still recognizably formally volcanoes, such as the volcanic calderas, known for the ring-shaped collapse structures they leave behind rather than their vertical topography. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:American Jewellery designers

 * 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:American jewelry designers. Kbdank71 13:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:American Jewellery designers to Category:American jewelry designers
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The capitalization for the second word in this category needs fixing. While we're at it, we may as well change to the American spelling of "jewellery", which is "jewelry". (This went to speedy first to correct the caps, where an editor suggested the spelling of the word also be changed. A copy of that discussion is found below.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * copy of speedy discussion
 * Category:American Jewellery designers to Category:American jewellery designers #2 — Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This one may need a full CFR... although jewellery is the normal spelling in most countries (and is used for the parent category), IIRC "jewelry" is the standard US spelling, so should probably be used for this country-specific category. Grutness...wha?  01:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * make new comments below this line
 * Support - also change the parent cat to Category:Jewelry designers (made into a redirect in 2007) as the main article is Jewelry designer (there are as yet no other subcats). Occuli (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the nom-ed cat changes, but not Category:Jewelry designers, which should be left to be consistent with other (most) other jewellery head-cats in Category:Jewellery. Category:Bench Jeweler is un-needed and should be merged. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per my previous comments, but oppose Occuli's additional proposal. Grutness...wha?  00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 08:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:User java-6

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * user java-6
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete or Merge to java-5 category - "6" level babel category for a programming language, which says "These users read, write, execute, speak, understand and think in the Java language and its bytecode." This should be deleted/merged because 1. It is a made up babel level, 2. No other 6-level categories exist, 3. Other 6-level babel categories have been deleted previously (see here) 4. A joke category, which have an extensive precedent for deletion, and 5. Doesn't benefit the encyclopedia in any way. VegaDark (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I created the page because there were userboxes for levels 1 to 6 already created, and only categories for numbers 1 to 5. There are currently 58 users in the category.  I agree with the nominator, and also think the userbox itself should be deleted.  Meiskam (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The userbox should be userfied if it isn't already, but I don't think once userfied it is any more unencyclopedic than the thousands of other userboxes out there. Also, can we take this as a WP:CSD request and speedy? VegaDark (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's been previously established that level-6 linguistic categories are pointless, and all the more so for programming languages. Robofish (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:Multi-bot owners
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Kbdank71 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * multi-bot owners
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete (first preference) or Rename (second preference) - This category is for Wikipedians who have more than one bot account. At minimum, this needs to be renamed to reflect that this is a user and not a mainspace category, but my first preference, however, is to delete as I don't see why categorizing such users would be beneficial for the encyclopedia. I can think of no reason why seeking out such users grouped in a category would be useful. VegaDark (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To VegaDark, This category is designed to the benefit of Wikipedians for the purpose of users not wanting to overload a Bot with too many tasks. That way, more useful bots instead of overloaded bots may be used on Wikipedia. If you have any further questions, please contact me. --  B  e  t  a  x 
 * Ah, but what purpose would one have to specifically seek out people who have multiple bots as to not overload them? I could see that notice being on the bot owner's userpage if they want to avoid too many requests, but not a category, since user categories are intended for one to go through to seek out someone in it for a particular encyclopedia-benefiting reason. VegaDark (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good point. I see your reasoning, so it does seem like a good idea. As of my viewpoint, you might as well delete the category.

 B e  t  a  x 
 * Delete - no obvious value to this category. Robofish (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:Wikipedians who support the British National Party
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 per oppose/support deletions. Kbdank71 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * wikipedians who support the british national party
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by political ideology" category, which have all been deleted here, as well as a support/oppose category which have an extensive history of deletion here. VegaDark (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm aware that this category has a difficult history, but I think if it were left alone, then given time, then more people may use it. And the same applies to all other political categories I have created. Crablogger (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've speedy deleted virtually all the other political categories you created per either G4 or C1. If you want to be permitted to recreate the G4 ones, you will have to go through deletion review. VegaDark (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete categories for people who support various causes, political parties, positions, opinions do nothing to aid in building a consensus - even if the thing supported is quite uncontroversial - Category:Wikipedians who like apple pie, Category:Wikipedians who prefer oxygen in their atmosphere, etc. Like those, this is useless to the project, use a userbox for your soapbox, not a cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Why we would foolishly interfere with the ability of editors to self-identify by a characteristic that is a likely aid to collaboration is baffling. We have no restriction on anyone adding their political party affiliation on their user page with almost no regard to how controversial the opinion or political affiliation is, and all this does is standardize this and allow BNP supporters to find each other. If for some idiotic reason this is deleted, all they would need to do is create a British National Project Wikiproject with a userbox for participants as a rather trivial workaround. These efforts at disruption of perfectly reasonable practices should be banned unless there is some actual policy violation or justification that shows that Wikipedia navigation is somehow improved by elimination of any such category. What a waste. Alansohn (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedians interested in the British National Party would be a collaborative category. Support/oppose categories, as well as political ideology categories (of which this is both) do nothing but risk being divisive. If you think political ideology categories should be allowed, DRV is the proper venue to try to overturn previous consensus. If this is kept, it sets a huge double standard, especially because some other political categories cannot be re-created due to G4, so only people with certain political ideologies would be allowed to self-identify via a category. VegaDark (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then why not simply rename it to Wikipedians who are interested in the British National Party?. That way, we can avoid the worry about the support part of the category name and make the category a more collaborative one. Crablogger (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Such a rename could introduce miscategorization, as those supporting the BNP may not necessarily be interested in collaborating on topics related to the BNP, although I would rather it be renamed than kept. VegaDark (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per Crablogger. Otherwise, delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 08:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SOAP. Irrelevant to the project. Marasmusine (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - we don't categorise ourselves by political ideology, and this category is a perfect example why. Unless we want Category:Wikipedian Fascists to be (re?)created, we should delete this one. Robofish (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:Belarusian immigrants to Norway
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 with recreation permissible if other articles are found/written (preferrably with some ironing out of the trees per Occuli).  Categories are to find other like articles, and that's pretty hard to do when there is only one. Kbdank71 13:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * belarusian immigrants to norway


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category that seems to have recently created, purely for 1 person. delete or upmerge to Immigrants to Norway. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – I note (with some dismay) that we have 2 semi-fledged and interlocking trees of emigrants and immigrants, jostling for light within a forest of expatriate and fooian barian trees. See eg Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina emigrants. (I must say that it is at best OR and most likely pure guesswork to decide the immigrant/emigrant/expatriate status of anyone, assuming that we can find a definition for any of these nebulous concepts. Eldar Hadzimehmedovic for instance is IMO very unlikely to have emigrated.) Some sort of planning permission should be required before editors can begin on new category trees. Occuli (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rybak was born abroad, Hadzimehmedovic was born abroad, now they live in Norway, to which they thus have immigrated. I don't see the problem? Punkmorten (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * and how many Belarusian immigrants to Norway is there to add to the list? LibStar (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is no list. One item couldn't be a list, but I haven't seen policy which says it could be a category. Punkmorten (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on. No-one says footballers have emigrated. Beckham has not emigrated to the US. He is an English footballer on a short term US contract. Occuli (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - However small, this basically follows the same pattern as plenty of other categories. It possibly might grow pretty easily. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


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

The Gambia categories
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: Administrative close: withdrawn by nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:1964 in The Gambia to Category:1964 in the Gambia
 * Category:1965 in The Gambia to Category:1965 in the Gambia
 * Category:1982 in The Gambia to Category:1982 in the Gambia
 * Category:1987 in The Gambia to Category:1987 in the Gambia
 * Category:1992 in The Gambia to Category:1992 in the Gambia
 * Category:1996 in The Gambia to Category:1996 in the Gambia
 * Category:2001 in The Gambia to Category:2001 in the Gambia
 * Category:2002 in The Gambia to Category:2002 in the Gambia
 * Category:2006 in The Gambia to Category:2006 in the Gambia
 * Category:2007 in The Gambia to Category:2007 in the Gambia
 * Category:2008 in The Gambia to Category:2008 in the Gambia
 * Category:20th century in The Gambia to Category:20th century in the Gambia
 * Category:21st century in The Gambia to Category:21st century in the Gambia
 * Category:Airlines of The Gambia to Category:Airlines of the Gambia
 * Category:Airports in The Gambia to Category:Airports in the Gambia
 * Category:Ambassadors to The Gambia to Category:Ambassadors to the Gambia
 * Category:Aviation in The Gambia to Category:Aviation in the Gambia
 * Category:Banks of The Gambia to Category:Banks of the Gambia
 * Category:Bilateral relations of The Gambia to Category:Bilateral relations the Gambia
 * Category:Biota of The Gambia to Category:Biota of the Gambia
 * Category:Birds of The Gambia to Category:Birds of the Gambia
 * Category:Buildings and structures in The Gambia to Category:Buildings and structures in the Gambia
 * Category:Centuries in The Gambia to Category:Centuries in the Gambia
 * Category:Christianity in The Gambia to Category:Christianity in the Gambia
 * Category:Cities, towns and villages in The Gambia to Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Gambia
 * Category:Communications in The Gambia to Category:Communications in the Gambia
 * Category:Companies of The Gambia to Category:Companies of the Gambia
 * Category:Conservation in The Gambia to Category:Conservation in the Gambia
 * Category:Crime in The Gambia to Category:Crime in the Gambia
 * Category:Deaths by firearm in The Gambia to Category:Deaths by firearm in the Gambia
 * Category:Defunct airlines of The Gambia to Category:Defunct airlines of the Gambia
 * Category:Districts of The Gambia to Category:Districts of the Gambia
 * Category:Divisions of The Gambia to Category:Divisions of the Gambia
 * Category:Economy of The Gambia to Category:Economy of the Gambia
 * Category:Education in The Gambia to Category:Education in the Gambia
 * Category:Elections in The Gambia to Category:Elections in the Gambia
 * Category:Environment of The Gambia to Category:Environment of the Gambia
 * Category:Ethnic groups in The Gambia to Category:Ethnic groups in the Gambia
 * Category:Fauna of The Gambia to Category:Fauna of the Gambia
 * Category:Flora of The Gambia to Category:Flora of the Gambia
 * Category:Football in The Gambia to Category:Football in the Gambia
 * Category:Football venues in The Gambia to Category:Football venues in the Gambia
 * Category:Foreign relations of The Gambia to Category:Foreign relations of the Gambia
 * Category:Geography of The Gambia to Category:Geography of the Gambia
 * Category:Government of The Gambia to Category:Government of the Gambia
 * Category:Governors-General of The Gambia to Category:Governors-General of the Gambia
 * Category:Governors of The Gambia to Category:Governors of the Gambia
 * Category:Health in The Gambia to Category:Health in the Gambia
 * Category:History of The Gambia to Category:History of the Gambia
 * Category:Human death in The Gambia to Category:Human death in the Gambia
 * Category:Languages of The Gambia to Category:Languages of the Gambia
 * Category:Local Government Areas of The Gambia to Category:Local Government Areas of the Gambia
 * Category:Maps of The Gambia to Category:Maps of the Gambia
 * Category:Maps of the history of The Gambia to Category:Maps of the history of the Gambia
 * Category:Military of The Gambia to Category:Military of the Gambia
 * Category:Murder in The Gambia to Category:Murder in the Gambia
 * Category:Museums in The Gambia to Category:Museums in the Gambia
 * Category:National parks of The Gambia to Category:National parks of the Gambia
 * Category:National symbols of The Gambia to Category:National symbols of the Gambia
 * Category:Olympic athletes of The Gambia to Category:Olympic athletes of the Gambia
 * Category:Olympic boxers of The Gambia to Category:Olympic boxers of the Gambia
 * Category:Olympic competitors for The Gambia to Category:Olympic competitors for the Gambia
 * Category:Organisations based in The Gambia to Category:Organisations based in the Gambia
 * Category:People convicted of murder by The Gambia to Category:People convicted of murder by the Gambia
 * Category:People executed by The Gambia to Category:People executed by the Gambia
 * Category:People murdered in The Gambia to Category:People murdered in the Gambia
 * Category:Political parties in The Gambia to Category:Political parties in the Gambia
 * Category:Politics of The Gambia to Category:Politics of the Gambia
 * Category:Presidents of The Gambia to Category:Presidents of the Gambia
 * Category:Prisoners and detainees of The Gambia to Category:Prisoners and detainees of the Gambia
 * Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by The Gambia to Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by the Gambia
 * Category:Protected areas of The Gambia to Category:Protected areas of the Gambia
 * Category:Religion in The Gambia to Category:Religion in the Gambia
 * Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in The Gambia to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the Gambia
 * Category:Schools in The Gambia to Category:Schools in the Gambia
 * Category:Scouting and Guiding in The Gambia to Category:Scouting and Guiding in the Gambia
 * Category:Settlements in The Gambia to Category:Settlements in the Gambia
 * Category:Sport in The Gambia to Category:Sport in the Gambia
 * Category:Subdivisions of The Gambia to Category:Subdivisions of the Gambia
 * Category:Television in The Gambia to Category:Television in the Gambia
 * Category:Tourism in The Gambia to Category:Tourism in the Gambia
 * Category:Trade unions of The Gambia to Category:Trade unions of the Gambia
 * Category:Transport in The Gambia to Category:Transport in the Gambia
 * Category:United States ambassadors to The Gambia to Category:United States ambassadors to the Gambia
 * Category:Visitor attractions in The Gambia to Category:Visitor attractions in the Gambia
 * Category:Western Division, The Gambia to Category:Western Division, the Gambia
 * Category:World Heritage Sites in The Gambia to Category:World Heritage Sites in the Gambia
 * Category:Years in The Gambia to Category:Years in the Gambia
 * Category:Years of the 20th century in The Gambia to Category:Years of the 20th century in the Gambia
 * Category:Years of the 21st century in The Gambia to Category:Years of the 21st century in the Gambia
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. All The Gambia articles have been moved to a lower-case "the" and categories should follow suit. I am tagging and nominating some ninety categories; please be patient as I add them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn I wasted all this time to realize that I was mistaken. C'est la vie. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Category:Current members of the California State Assembly
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Members of the California State Assembly. Kbdank71 13:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * current members of the california state assembly


 * Nominator's rationale: Per repeated CFD consensus against using categories to separate current from former occupants of the same position or role, delete and upmerge back to Category:Members of the California State Assembly. Note also that Members of the California State Assembly and the list on California State Assembly already serve as navigational hubs for these articles. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; no current cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is what navboxes are for. Punkmorten (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Members of the California State Assembly per nom. Occuli (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


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