Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 23



Category:African diasporas

 * 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. Courcelles 05:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * african diasporas


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicates Category:African diaspora. Goustien (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "African diaspora" is being used in two different senses: that of African diaspora, specifically of sub-Saharan outmigration, and more loosely to describe the dissemination of people from any country on the continent. Thus, Category:African diasporas by country contains such categories as Category:Egyptian diaspora and Category:Moroccan diaspora even though those phenomena are specifically excluded from the term in the main article. So, it may prevail upon the editors of African diaspora either to rename to something like Sub-Saharan African diaspora or Black African diaspora, or some cleanup is in order.- choster (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The category is empty and could simply have been db-c1 tag. Davshul (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As long as the cat wasn't cleared out in anticipation of this nomination, I would agree. I'm open to later discussions of migrations though because I think the distinction between diaspora and expatriate cats is muddy, e.g. Category:Equatoguinean expatriates. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete one category, either Category:African diasporas or Category:African diaspora. But if the former then Category:Asian diasporas and Category:European diasporas should be renamed to “diaspora” also, ie to Category:Asian diaspora & Category:European diaspora (there is no category for North America, South America or Oceanian diasporas). Perhaps though as each continent category for diaspora is for a number of countries then the plural “diasporas” should be used for all continents, so retain only Category:African diasporas? PS: The article African diaspora does deal only with Sub-Saharan Africa, although the section on Italy notes that only a minority of people of African descent in Italy relate to Sub-Saharan Africa (and presumably the same applies to France, with many there from ex-North African colonies). Hugo999 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 *  delete Category:African diasporas per nom Diaspora is used as a singular word in most all WP categories.  No particular reason to make it plural.  Hmains (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2011 (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:West Slavic countries

 * 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. Courcelles 05:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * west slavic countries


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorizated = unneeded category -- Azar66 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete Upmerge This appears to have something to do with the coloring of the map at right, but since I can find no explanation for that I question the meaningfulness of this category. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Slavic countries. I can see no justification for this separately category (Also, I note that there are no corresponding East Slavic countries and South Slavic countries categories.) However, it should be upmerged into the parent category. Davshul (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge Per Davshul. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2010 (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:Union College, New York alumni

 * 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 09:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Union College, New York alumni to Category:Union College alumni
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match title of parent article Union College and make it easier for an editor to match the category to the parent. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – this is a good example of an instance where the category needs a disambiguator as Union College (disambiguation) demonstrates; and there is eg Category:Union College (Nebraska) alumni. (I might well favour Category:Union College (New York) alumni as the article was earlier at Union College (New York). On the other hand there is .) This has been discussed recently at cfd - it was a unanimous keep (apart from the nom). Occuli (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Rename article back to Union College (New York), and use "Union college" as a dabpage. The NY college may be the oldest and thus have a claim to primacy, but the dabpage lists six Union Colleges.  The proposed target is dangerous, because it will attract entries from other colleges.  For that reason, while the article on Birmingham, England is at "Birmingham", its categories are at Birmingham, England, so that it does not attract articles on Birmingham, AL.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Occuli and Peterkingiron, and rename the head article to restore the disambiguator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename article. Per above. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2010 (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:Basins of the Gulf of Mexico

 * 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. Courcelles 05:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Basins of the Gulf of Mexico to Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The discussion to rename Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico pointed out that these are in fact drainage basins and not structural basins. So they should be merged into one unambiguously named category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "Catchments of ...". Peterkingiron (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Catchment redirects to Catchment area which disambiguates to point to Drainage basin. Better to stick with the terminology of the preferred article title.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * merge per nom. Drainage basin is the full name for this type of basin. Hmains (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2010 (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:Historical nations of Poland

 * 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.  This pair of nominations is over one empty category and a category with one member.  With no strong consensus to keep, this can also be deleted under OC small.  If anyone can find more articles to populate a better defined category in this area, they can do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * historical nations of poland


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded and redundant category. Azar66 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Query – why is it unneeded and to what is it redundant? The nom needs to give a better rationale for deletion. Occuli (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. I don't see the difference between Category:Historical nations of Poland and Category:Historical nations in Poland = redundant.
 * 2. I don't understand, what are all the "historical nations in/of Poland" at all? I guess, every possible tribe from Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe or/and ethnic group from Category:Ethnic groups in Poland? -- Azar66 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would certainly agree that at most one of Category:Historical nations of Poland and Category:Historical nations in Poland should be kept. As for 2, this looks like a valid rationale for deletion. Occuli (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge this and "nations in" then Rename to Category:Tribes of Poland or Category:Ancient tribes of Poland, matching article Tribes of Poland and populate usinng that article. However, one of the tribes appears to be in Dacia (i.e. Roumania) not Poland.  We also need a category for nations that preceding the present Poland, including Greater and Lesser Poland, Silesia, and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw; may be this already exists.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and Rename to Category:Tribes of Poland, per Peterkingiron comments directly above.— Look2See1  t a l k →  21:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; The next problem with the Category:Tribes of Poland is, that it's a kind of "reverse history", like Category:Tribes of Soviet Union :)
 * The term "Tribes of Poland" can only describe the tribes of West Slavs that lived from around the mid-7th century to the creation of first Polish state by the Piast dynasty in the territories that became Polish.
 * Is such a category helpful? Are the now available categories: Category:West Slavic tribes, Category:Lechites, Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe, Category:Ethnic groups in Poland, Category:West Slavic history, not enough? -- Azar66 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per my argument at creator's talk page and per arguments above - redundant, unclear, also - unused. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:40, 29 December 2010 (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:Historical nations in Poland

 * 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.  This pair of nominations is over one empty category and a category with one member.  With no strong consensus to keep, this can also be deleted under OC small.  If anyone can find more articles to populate a better defined category in this area, they can do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * historical nations in poland


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded and redundant category. Azar66 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Query – why is it unneeded and to what is it redundant? The nom needs to give a better rationale for deletion. Occuli (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See nomination: "Category:Historical nations of Poland" -- Azar66 (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If retained merge it and next item above. See that discussion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Category:Historical nations of Poland, per Peterkingiron comment directly above.— Look2See1  t a l k →  21:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge, correction - meant merge into Category:Tribes of Poland— Look2See1  t a l k →  21:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - see comment above in "Category:Historical nations of Poland" -- Azar66 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguments above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:40, 29 December 2010 (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:Scheduled sporting events

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Scheduled sporting events to Category:Scheduled sports events
 * Nominator's rationale: To pass to the following two categories: Category:Current sports events and Category:Current sports seasons. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  13:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a US/UK variation.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename as per nom. No point maintaining this in an inconsistent form. TheGrappler (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename – a parent is Category:Sports events. Occuli (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2010 (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:America's Cup venues

 * 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: As the category is currently empty, there is nothing to listify.  Therefore, it is a delete.. Courcelles 05:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * america's cup venues


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of cities. See Overcategorization, where it states that "there is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there". These are already mentioned in the article text and in table form at America's Cup. It's certainly not defining for places like Auckland, San Diego, and Valencia, Spain. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Listify (and expand) to a new section following America's_Cup. Not defining, but some material on the venues and courses would be welcome.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete per nominator and SmokeyJoe. The presence of a one-off sporting event is indeed non-defining for  the cities  in this category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a defining characteristic of the cities and other places where the races were held. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete as the city is not a "venue"; if retained it should be renamed "host cities" in line with the roughly analogous Category:Host cities of the Summer Olympic Games and Category:Host cities of the World Championships in Athletics.- choster (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete. I think the categories listed by Choster should go the same way - worth a nomination? TheGrappler (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify as List of America's Cup host cities and venues (so as to allow the locations of courses to also be listed. (such as the Harukai Gulf) ). 65.94.232.153 (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I think the list is not long enough to warrant spinning out of America's_Cup.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A clear case for listifying. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have notified the category creator here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the category creator and confess to not thinking this through! I fully support a Listify approach which will enable America's Cup venue specifics such as courses etc to be properly described.  The main article should be focussed on the challenges, results and changes to the cup format I would prefer a separate article America's Cup host cities and venues rather than List of America's Cup host cities and venues but I will fully support the majority decision on this. Boatman (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming to comment. To be honest I think people were just suggesting the article name starts "List of" because we were talking about a very basic listification. Once some more content gets fleshed out, that's a rubbish title (I think "list of" is worth avoiding unless necessary for clarification) so I think you should feel free to go ahead at America's Cup host cities and venues. TheGrappler (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2010 (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:Ukrainian soccer clubs outside of Ukraine

 * 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:Ukrainian association football clubs outside Ukraine. Courcelles 05:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian soccer clubs outside of Ukraine to Category:Ukrainian association football clubs outside of Ukraine
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Association football" is the common general term used on EN Wikipedia. Darwinek (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The common term is "soccer".  While it is appropriate that soccer redirects to the formal title, making this change throughout the project reduces accessibility.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  13:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to something but 'outside of' is not ideal. These are all in North America so Category:Ukrainian soccer clubs in North America might do (as we have Category:Canadian soccer clubs and Category:Soccer clubs in the United States). Occuli (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Ukrainian football clubs outside of Ukraine or an alterative for "outside of". The parent category is Football in Ukraine and the key sister cat is Ukrainian football clubs so go for consistent usage. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Where I come from, 'outside' is an alternative to 'outside of'. How is a team in Toronto part of 'Football in Ukraine'? Occuli (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename but to Category:Ukrainian association football clubs outside Ukraine (omit "of"). US and Canada subcats would be Category:Ukrainian soccer clubs in Canada, etc, to fit local nomenclature for the sport.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename also I add the Ukrainian clubs from Australia, Germany and Austria in future. I think, ideal version is Category:Ukrainian association football clubs outside Ukraine. Bogic (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2010 (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:Islands in the West Indies

 * 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. Courcelles 05:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * islands in the west indies


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category contains only Category:Caribbean islands, which covers this antiquated concept.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom as redundant; at a minimum, it can just be redirected to . West Indies redirects to Caribbean. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Don't think redirect is needed. TheGrappler (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2010 (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:Naxos

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Naxos to Category:Naxos (island)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Naxos (island). Naxos is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the other cities have been just ruins for over 2000 years. There is no need for a seperate cat between the island and the city on it. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are enough other potential meanings that it would seem to me to be foolish to make this a "primary meaning"-type category when the article hasn't taken that approach. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are articles on the island and the main city. The category can and should cover the lot. If you set up an island category you might want a city one in addition. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The central problem is that there is bound to be confusion with Naxos (Sicily) or Naxos (Crete). If the city Naxos (city) is on the island, doesn't an island category encompass articles about the city that is on the island? That's how other island categories seem to be set up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No there absolutely isn't! The Sicilian one was abandoned for a better site in 358 BC, and hasn't even left any proper ruins, and it is unclear is the Cretan one ever actually existed. Both are as obscure as can be, whereas the island is a major tourist destination. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm too insignificant to avoid a finding of "absolutely" no chance of confusion, but I'm a reasonably well-read person, and I had heard of the Sicilian one in my line of work but was unaware of the island of the same name (except in the mythic sense), so I at least have anecdotal evidence that it's possible. (Admittedly, I have little interest in reading about or visiting Aegean islands and would not choose to pursue material about that topic.) In any case, that seems to be a debate more suitable to fixing the name of the article, not the category.
 * But with categories, don't we tend to default to disambiguation if there is a possible problem, especially if the category name is different from and more ambiguous than the article name, which this one is? These questions aren't being addressed directly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Rename per nom. The category name should match the article name, with an extra disambiguator if necessary. Occuli (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and per Occuli; the category name should match the article name, with an extra disambiguator if necessary. AFAICS, if there is a primary usage for "Naxos" there is a case to be made for Naxos Records, but for now the situation is that there is no primary usage. If anyone disagrees with that, please start with a WP:RM request. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename What BrowhHairedGirl said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrappler (talk • contribs)
 * Wrong Forum The disagreement here is with the article name. Whatever the article name ends up being, the cat name should follow. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of precedents for applying a disambiguator to an ambiguous category name, even if the head article is currentky the primary topic. See for example the city of Birmingham and Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that example desirable that one distinguishes between Alabama (among others) while the other doesn't? Honest question. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus of lengthy discussions is that it is desirable, because ambiguity raises difft issues in difft namespaces. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How can this possibly be the wrong forum? As nominator, I have zero issues with the name of the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears I was mistaken. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (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.

Native American tribes of South Carolina
<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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Native American tribes of South Carolina to Category:Native American tribes in South Carolina
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Reason: there are 48 US states with a Native Tribes category, 47 are “in” and only South Carolina is “of”; see Category:Native American tribes by state Hugo999 (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename as per nom. Pointless inconsistency. TheGrappler (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * rename nominator's analysis of current names is correct. No obvious reason for this inconsistency to remain Hmains (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2010 (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.

Dinghies by designer
<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: rename to Category:Boats designed by Ian Proctor and Category:Boats designed by Jack Holt. I've moved both categories out of Category:Dinghies and into a new Category:Boats by designer.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ian Proctor designs to Category:Dinghies designed by Ian Proctor or other (nom adjusted in comments below)
 * Propose renaming Category:Jack Holt Designs to Category:Dinghies designed by Jack Holt or other (nom adjusted in comments below)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are categories for dinghies by designer, so I think "dinghies" needs to appear somewhere in the category name. ( and are other options; this would mirror the naming pattern of .) I am fine with either format. (These people did design non-dinghy things, but the parent category is, so I suppose it should be limited to dinghies they designed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename Either option is fine but I think the original options in the nom are clearer. The problem with "Ian Proctor dinghies" is that it doesn't make it clear whether Ian Proctor is a designer, a style named after a designer, the person/company who physically made the dinghies... lets keep it nice and clear. TheGrappler (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per TheGrappler. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ian Proctor designed other types of boat in addition to dinghies - hence the word dinghy should not appear in the cat name. The two categories should be Category:Boats designed by Ian Proctor and Category:Boats designed by Jack Holt.  This format can also be used for all other designers of dinghy/keelboat/yacht/catamaran/trimaran etc etc.  Boatman (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I mentioned above, but then why were the categories placed as subcategories of ? Should they be subcategories of ? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (nom). I think we should adopt Boatman's suggestion to broaden these, since upon investigation I've found that some non-dinghy boats have been added to the categories. Rename these to Category:Boats designed by Ian Proctor and Category:Boats designed by Jack Holt and change the parent categories from to . Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2010 (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:Yachts by name
<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: rename as nominated. Courcelles 05:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Yachts by name to Category:Individual yachts
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of this category is not quite right; it is a little bit nonsensical, or at least somewhat redundant. Earlier this year there was discussion of the problematic nature of this category name in a discussion that resulted in the renaming of to . This category was never followed up on, but I suggest that it should be renamed in a similar fashion, since what it contains are articles about individual yachts as opposed to classes of yachts and the other things in .  Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom to better reflect the actual purpose of the category, which is articles on yachts rather than on their names.  Also, the current name wouldn't work for multiple yachts of the same name, such as the series of twenty-something craft named Yeoman by their owner Owen Aisher. His son(?) David has continued the tradition, and is now up to Yeoman XXXII.  We do not yet appear to have any articles of any of those 32 craft, but given the number of prizes they have collected I think it's very likely that at least a few of the 32 would pass WP:GNG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename What BrownHairedGirl said. TheGrappler (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * comment How is the content of this category supposed to differ from the category Category:Yachts? Looking around various categories in the boat/ship tree, it seems that most just have a plural name of the boat/ship in  which the individual vessels are included.  Category:Individual sailing vessels may be the exception, not the rule.  Of course, Category:Yachts would need additional subcats such as Category:Types of yachts to rid itself directly of articles other than those of individual yachts.  Alternatively, the entire boat and ship category branches need to be re-examined and a single pattern established and created for all of them regarding individual boats/ships. Hmains (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think there is a difference, meaning that this could just as well be merged to, or if it is kept, many of the articles in still need to be moved to this category. I'm not really convinced it's necessary, but as long as it exists, I thought the name should at least be fixed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * merge to Category: Yachts as this is the standard way to handle named vessels Hmains (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or rename, but don't merge to Yachts. The topic is broad enough to support both an overall descriptive category, and a "... by name" category. Any mis-categorization is an issue for the articles, not a reason to delete the category.
 * It's also against policy to depopulate categories whilst they're still under discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2011 (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:Companies that have entered administration
<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: rename. Courcelles 05:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Companies that have entered administration to Category:Companies that have entered administration in the United Kingdom
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is defined as "companies that have entered administration in the United Kingdom". The category needs to add "in the United Kingdom" since companies can enter administration under the laws of other countries; eg, Australia. The parent categories are and . Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename the headnote restricts this category to the United Kingdom so the name should follow. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename as per nom. TheGrappler (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename as nom, but re-create present form as a parent. This should not be a category of defunct company, as the purpose of adminstration is to save the business, not close it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * comment no need to rename; just create the subcat named Category:Companies that have entered administration in the United Kingdom, move the current current articles into it and adjust this category's purpose slightly. Doing that would be good.  Hmains (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is necessary currently, since we don't currently categorize corporations from any other jurisdiction that have entered into administration. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2010 (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:Hundred Percent Free
<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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * hundred percent free


 * hundred percent free songs (empty category added to nomination at 02:52, 23 DEC 2010 UTC)


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded eponymous category. No subcategories for songs or albums; apparently there are not even other articles to include—a template has been created but it is Hundred Percent redlinked. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Protest at the nom's gross misrepresentation of the template - it contains an endangered bluelink to this category. Otto's argument about Hundred Percent Free being a navigational hub rendering all else redundant is valid in this case as no navigation is possible. ('What links here' reveals Category:Hundred Percent Free songs - the template has missed a trick, indeed Fifty Percent of the tricks.) Yes, delete. Occuli (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee, I'm not sure how I missed that songs category. That empty songs category. ... I've added it to this nomination since it's empty and I can't find anything to go in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There was, briefly, a song until it was deleted (deservedly IMO). Occuli (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom and per Occuli. Two categories for one article and a useless template? Pointless. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Delete this is not about 100% free (libre or gratis) material. 65.94.232.153 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Both If noteworthy articles are created to populate them, they can be recreated. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2010 (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:Change albums
<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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Change albums to Category:Change (band) songs Category:Change (band) albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Change (band). Change is ambiguous and there are a number of albums and songs called "Change" that could result in confusion relating this category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename as confusion is plausible, but you mean Category:Change (band) albums rather than songs, surely? TheGrappler (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, of course. Thank you. But don't call me Shirley. I prefer "Claire". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2010 (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.