Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 22



Rowers by century

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Merge/Delete by century categories, no consensus about . עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting:
 * rowers by century


 * 20th-century rowers
 * 21st-century rowers
 * male rowers
 * male rowers by century
 * 20th-century male rowers
 * 21st-century male rowers
 * female rowers by century
 * Propose merging:
 * Category:20th-century female rowers to Category:Female rowers
 * Category:21st-century female rowers to Category:Female rowers
 * Nominator's rationale: Although rowing as a competitive sport has existed for abut 200 years, a long series of recent CfDs has shown a consistent consensus against by-century catgories for 20th- and 21st-century sportspeople  (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).  The CfD for racehorse owners & breeders did not support the principle of retaining 20th and 21st-century categories even for those involved in much older sports.
 * Since rowing as a competitive sport appears to be segregated by gender, I have proposed that the female categories be upomerged rather than deleted. I have not proposed doing the same for the male rowers, per the principle of WP:CATGRS that a female category does not necessarily need to be balanced against a male one. is currently used only as a single-item container category for . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note. Categories are not all tagged yet, but I need to take a break now, so will do it later tonight . Categories now all tagged. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename - great improvement. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The nomination was to delete and merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed. The by-century subdivisions don't seem to have much significance and just make for less-populated categories. --RL0919 (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - there are also Category:Canadian male rowers and Category:Canadian female rowers. Should there not be some upmerging of the male categories or are we assuming they will be in some 'fooian rowers' category? Support anyway. Occuli (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have checked all the articles in these categories, and every one of them is in at least one other subcat of, so I don't see any need for an upmerger. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and rename all per nominator, see two nominations back. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Rename as nom, except "Male rowers": since men and women compete separately, I would have thoguht we ought to have this. The 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" which we do not allow.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection to upmerging the male categories to, if that's what others prefer. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Male rowers, and merge 20th-century and 21st-century male rowers there. I don't think a rower being female is such an exceptional occurrance as to warrant making a female rowers category without a corresponding male category. (The guideline gives Category:Female heads of government as an example where such categorization should be used.) Otherwise merge/delete per nom. Jafeluv (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and by the way, what do you people mean by "rename per nom"? Jafeluv (talk) 03:09, 5 March 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.

21st-century softball players

 * 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 Category:21st-century softball players; rename Category:21st-century softball players to Category:Female softball players. —  ξ xplicit  21:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting:
 * 21st-century water polo players
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:21st-century softball players to Category:Female softball players
 * Nominator's rationale: The sport of softball has existed only since 1887, and dividing 123 years of sport into three 100-year blocks is not helpful for navigation, per the precedent of a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).
 * Since softball appears to be segregated by gender, I have proposed that the should not be deleted, but repurposed as a  general category for women who play the sport. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – Occuli (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per BHG - great improvement. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and rename all per nominator, see below. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * support -- the 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" categories which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 25 February 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.

21st-century water polo players

 * 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 Category:21st-century water polo players and Category:21st-century male water polo players; rename Category:21st-century female water polo players to Category:Female water polo players. —  ξ xplicit  21:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting:
 * 21st-century water polo players


 * 21st-century water polo players


 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:21st-century female water polo players to Category:Female water polo players
 * Nominator's rationale: The sport of water polo has existed only since about 1870, and dividing 140 years of sport into three 100-year blocks is not helpful for navigation, per the precedent of a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople).
 * Since water polo appears to be segregated by gender, I have proposed that the should not be deleted, but repurposed as general category for women who play the sport. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support nom. There is Category:Water polo players which is subcatted by nationality; and there should be Category:Female water polo players which will need populating. (There are also various extraneous partially developed categories such as Category:21st-century aquatic sportspeople floating around.) Occuli (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per BHG. - great improvement. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename or delete all per nominator per my previous support of deletion of all these century based categories. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * support -- the 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" categories which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 25 February 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:Ununbium

 * 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, without prejudice to a deletion discussion if it is nominated for deletion due to small number of articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Ununbium -> :Category:Copernicium


 * Propose rename of category because article has been moved. Georgia guy (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename - great improvement. The atomic element has recently been renamed. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to reflect new title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. There is also Category:Isotopes of ununbium, but I believe that should be deleted as it mostly contains articles that are redirects. Quite a bit needs cleaning up, now the name change is official (I take it that it is!). -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the redirects that were in Category:Isotopes of ununbium and that category is now empty. If kept, it should contain Isotopes of copernicium, but since it is unlikely to contain anything else, it should be deleted. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy the subcategory if empty by the time this discussion is closed per C1. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename Should be uncontroversial. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support in principle -- but is there ever going to be enough content to warrant its existence? Since the isotopes category is likely to be deleted as empty, there will be nothing but a main article. There is thus a case for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Isotopes of copernicium is already in the traget category. I did not see the point in correcting that. So, there are two articles, and I think that is just enough. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:48, 25 February 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:Mark Foley

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * mark foley


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete I realize eponymous categories are one issue that there is disagreement on, but this one, for a retired congressman most notable for some suggestive text messages to pages, seems like overkill and a violation of both WP:OC and WP:OC. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think there is general agreement that categories like this one serve no purpose and lead to articles such as Florida's 16th congressional district election, 2006 being categorised vaguely, as having 'something to do with Mark Foley' (it has 'something to do' with several other people too). The other one is properly categorised under a 'scandals' category. Occuli (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pcap ping  10:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- It would be better handled (if at all) by template. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 25 February 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:Transport by London borough

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposed rename from Category:Transport by London borough to Category:Transport in London by borough
 * Nominator's rationale This is for consistency with the naming convention adopted in other cases; for instance the recent discussion on 'Churches in London by locality; and the general conventions adopted in WP:WikiProject London/Categories. Kbthompson (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename – much better. Ditto the 2 underneath. Occuli (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename - great improvement. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to match format used by other corresponding categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support rename as proposed for consistency. MRSC (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename this nomination and the two previous ones as well. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 24 February 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:Parks and open spaces by London borough

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposed rename from Category:Parks and open spaces by London borough to Category:Parks and open spaces in London by borough
 * Nominator's rationale This is for consistency with the naming convention adopted in other cases; for instance the recent discussion on 'Churches in London by locality; and the general conventions adopted in WP:WikiProject London/Categories. Kbthompson (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename - great improvement. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to match format used by other corresponding categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support rename as proposed for consistency. MRSC (talk) 07:08, 23 February 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:Media and communications by London borough

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposed rename from Category:Media and communications by London borough to Category:Media and communications in London by borough
 * Nominator's rationale This is for consistency with the naming convention adopted in other cases; for instance the recent discussion on 'Churches in London by locality; and the general conventions adopted in WP:WikiProject London/Categories. Kbthompson (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Rename to match format used by other corresponding categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support rename as proposed for consistency. MRSC (talk) 07:09, 23 February 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:New England Conservatory of Music

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename all. —  ξ xplicit  21:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:New England Conservatory of Music to Category:New England Conservatory
 * Category:New England Conservatory of Music alumni to Category:New England Conservatory alumni
 * Category:New England Conservatory of Music faculty to Category:New England Conservatory faculty
 * Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the main article, New England Conservatory; the Conservatory's web site also uses "New England Conservatory" or "NEC", not "New England Conservatory of Music". (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nominominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename - great improvement. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename — I created the original category based on the name of the school in its article. The article has since been renamed (diff), so these categories should be renamed too.  Tom ™(2¢) 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per arguments of nominator, consensus, and agreement of creator if this category. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 24 February 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:Forests and woodlands of County Kilkenny
<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: merge as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Forests and woodlands of County Kilkenny to Category:Forests and woodlands of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Geography of County Kilkenny
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OC. Single-article category, little possibility of expansion, no other by-county sub-categories of . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . Category creator also notified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:OC. - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. MrChris strikes again! Snappy (talk) 12:43, 22 February 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:Jewish American fashion designers
<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: Merge to Category:Jewish fashion designers and Category:American fashion designers. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * jewish american fashion designers


 * Nominator's rationale: The master cat Category:Jewish fashion designers was a no-consensus keep after its CfD. I'd suggest that this category is an even more classic case of WP:OC, however. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree that even if Category:Jewish fashion designers is arguably not overcategorization, then surely Category:Jewish American fashion designers is. "Jewish American fashion designing" is hardly a self-standing "encyclopedic" topic that has become an area of research or inquiry. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to the 2 parents Category:Jewish fashion designers and Category:American fashion designers (assuming that Category:Russian-American Jewish fashion designers is out of the question). Occuli (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per argument of nominator and editors above. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 24 February 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.

NASCAR races
<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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Kobalt Tools 500 to Category:NASCAR races at the Atlanta Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Labor Day Classic 500 to Category:NASCAR races at the Atlanta Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Auto Club 500 to Category:NASCAR races at the Auto Club Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Pepsi Max 400 to Category:NASCAR races at the Auto Club Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Myers Brothers Memorial to Category:NASCAR races at Bowman Gray Stadium
 * Propose renaming Category:Food City 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Bristol Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Sharpie 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Bristol Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Bank of America 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Charlotte Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Coca-Cola 600 to Category:NASCAR races at Charlotte Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:NASCAR Sprint All-Star Race to Category:NASCAR races at Charlotte Motor Speedway (or maybe not)
 * Propose renaming Category:LifeLock.com 400 to Category:NASCAR races at Chicagoland Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Southern 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Darlington Raceway
 * Propose renaming Category:Budweiser Shootout to Category:NASCAR races at Daytona International Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Coke Zero 400 to Category:NASCAR races at Daytona International Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Daytona 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Daytona International Speedway (or maybe not)
 * Propose renaming Category:Gatorade Duel to Category:NASCAR races at Daytona International Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:AAA 400 to Category:NASCAR races at Dover International Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Autism Speaks 400 to Category:NASCAR races at Dover International Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Greenville 200 to Category:NASCAR races at the Greenville-Pickens Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Ford 400 to Category:NASCAR races at Homestead-Miami Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Allstate 400 at the Brickyard to Category:NASCAR races at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Toyota/Save Mart 350 to Category:NASCAR races at Infineon Raceway
 * Propose renaming Category:Price Chopper 400 to Category:NASCAR races at the Kansas Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Shelby 427 to Category:NASCAR races at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Shelby American Classic to Category:NASCAR races at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Goody's Fast Pain Relief 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Martinsville Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:TUMS Fast Relief 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Martinsville Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:3M Performance 400 to Category:NASCAR races at Michigan International Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:LifeLock 400 (Michigan) to Category:NASCAR races at Michigan International Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Coors 420 to Category:NASCAR races at Music City Motorplex
 * Propose renaming Category:Pepsi 420 to Category:NASCAR races at Music City Motorplex
 * Propose renaming Category:Lenox Industrial Tools 301 to Category:NASCAR races at the New Hampshire Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Sylvania 300 to Category:NASCAR races at the New Hampshire Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:First Union 400 to Category:NASCAR races at North Wilkesboro Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Tyson Holly Farms 400 to Category:NASCAR races at North Wilkesboro Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles Times 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Ontario Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Subway Fresh Fit 600 to Category:NASCAR races at Phoenix International Raceway
 * Propose renaming Category:Pennsylvania 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Pocono Raceway
 * Propose renaming Category:Pocono 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Pocono Raceway
 * Propose renaming Category:Crown Royal Presents the Your Name Here 400 to Category:NASCAR races at Richmond International Raceway
 * Propose renaming Category:One Last Race to Make the Chase to Category:NASCAR races at Richmond International Raceway
 * Propose renaming Category:Budweiser 400 to Category:NASCAR races at Riverside International Raceway
 * Propose renaming Category:Winston Western 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Riverside International Raceway
 * Propose renaming Category:Pop Secret Microwave Popcorn 400 to Category:NASCAR races at Rockingham Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Subway 400 to Category:NASCAR races at Rockingham Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:AMP Energy 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Talladega Superspeedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Aaron's 499 to Category:NASCAR races at Talladega Superspeedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Dickies 500 to Category:NASCAR races at the Texas Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Samsung 500 to Category:NASCAR races at the Texas Motor Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Budweiser NASCAR 400 to Category:NASCAR races at the Texas World Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Alamo 500 to Category:NASCAR races at the Texas World Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Northern 300 to Category:NASCAR races at the Trenton Speedway
 * Propose renaming Category:Watkins Glen 220 to Category:NASCAR races at Watkins Glen International


 * Nominator's rationale: In this successful nomination, there was support for renaming these categories to eliminate the frequent changes in race names (e.g., the Subway 500 delightfully becoming the TUMS Fast Relief 500). I suggested we rename them by racetrack, as those names don't change very often. The defunct categories would change a bit; instead of dealing with defunct races, we'd sort by whether the track itself was current or defunct. This would take some categories with very little in them and combine them in a logical manner. It's possible these might want to be "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series races at...". The Daytona 500 and NASCAR Sprint All-Star Race might be special enough to retain individual categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with one concern that many of these new categories need a 'the' added. So Category:NASCAR races at Atlanta Motor Speedway should be Category:NASCAR races at the Atlanta Motor Speedway. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Feel free to adjust the nomination if you can tell which ones need the leading article.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK did the ones I think needed it. Review and adjust as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the maybe nots, I would be inclined to leave Category:Daytona 500 as is. This race name is clearly deserving of a category.  Now, if it changes to a sponsorship name, then I would be OK to rename to match the others.  But as long is it keeps the current name, then Keep. 22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per considerable increase in clarity (adding the odd 'the'). I would have no idea what TUMS Fast Relief 500 might be, whereas I have some clue about NASCAR. Occuli (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Renames to more effectively group races by location rather than title. The race names change constantly and it becomes a needless effort to change category titles to match the changed names of the race itself. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename all per above comments.- choster (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename all for clarity and ease of use except the Daytona 500 and the All-Star race, although I don't have a strong opinion about the All-Star race like I do for the Daytona 500. The Daytona 500 is special in its own right and it has way more season race articles that any other race. I've done a few of the most notable race articles myself for DYK. The way the races change names every year I can't keep track of which race is which anymore and sources usually talk about the spring and fall race at a particular track or the first and second race. I'll leave a message for my WikiProject NASCAR cohorts about this discussion.  Royal broil  00:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the All-Star Race will have to go to two categories: those of Atlanta and Charlotte. In 1986, it was in Atlanta, and then moved to Charlotte. As far as I can tell, it's the only race that's changed racetracks. But I could be wrong.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Any thoughts as to what to do with category:Ford 300? That's a Nationwide Series race at Homestead-Miami, rather than a Sprint Cup Series race. We can either put that into the Homestead-Miami race category and not worry about which series races they are, or change all of these to "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series races at (X)". That's probably the right call. (Though if we don't get consensus on that, my original proposal seems like it has consensus.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom for clarity, stability and neutrality. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 26 February 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.