Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 3



Category:Professional Darts Corporation 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: merge. Category:Premier League Darts venues should be nominated separately.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Professional Darts Corporation venues to Category:Darts venues
 * Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: no need to categorize the events after organisations. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: There's a Category:Premier League Darts venues sub-cat. Do you want to add that to your nomination? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 4 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:Recent extinctions

 * 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 08:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Recent extinctions to Category:Extinctions since 1500
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contrary to the claim of the category description page, there appears to be no official IUCN definition of "recent extinctions"; uses the term for extinctions in the last 20 or 100 years and "Recent" may also refer to the entire Holocene. The category should be renamed to an unambiguous name. 1500 is a good cut-off year because the IUCN Red List does not list species that went extinct before 1500, and it coincides approximately with the beginning of the European exploration of the world, which caused many extinctions. Ucucha 19:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Normally I wouldn't like an arbitrary cutoff but, per the article, that's what the IUCN uses so having the cat match makes sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Recent is a thoroughly uselessly vague word to have in a category title. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)


 * 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:Great Valley

 * 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) 03:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * great valley


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another small category with a single entry. While this category does have the potential to be populated, the article provides ample navigation showing how the various pieces fit together. If kept, rename to Category:Great Appalachian Valley.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep and r Rename if kept The nominated category, which is also a sub-cat of Hike's soon-to-be deleted Category:Divided regions between Canada and the United States is, as stated in Great Appalachian Valley, a "gigantic trough [that] stretches about 700 miles." Judging by the category's sole entry, it would seem that Hike intends it to contain every body of water or landform within that vast area. I'm not crazy about the idea but we do have Category:Categories named after valleys for these very things and I don't see anyway to delete this based on precedent. I'd be happy to be dissuaded on this point because I fear it's going to lead to a myriad of Foo of the Great Appalachian Valley subcats, and plus I think it's more of Hike's screw you I'm getting my way approach to things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm softening my !vote above because I really don't know if this vast trough should be considered a distinct valley like other entries in Category:Categories named after valleys and I worry about a lot of category clutter if kept. In all conscience I can't !vote to delete, but I sure don't want to be seen as anything other than neutral on the question of retention. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Usually I think a one-article cat should be populated or deleted. In this case, I'm more concerned it will be populated. I would not find land forms, towns, counties etc. to be better linked or aided by being added in this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename as nom if kept. Neutral as to retention.  My immediate reaction to the category was that it referred to the Great Glen in Scotland, so that renaming is imperative.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Great Appalachian Valley and populate as an appropriate means of grouping landforms and geographical entities within the area. Alansohn (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Templatise. This seems to me to be the sort of category better served by a navbox within articles that can group features either by type or geography. Grutness...wha?  21:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable alternative to keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 10 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:Lists of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament

 * 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 the name that was proposed in the rename proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Lists of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament to Category:Lists of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Slightly simpler name which matches its parent Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Looks like the lists themselves were moved about 1 year ago but the category was never changed. Tim! (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support much simpler. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, to remove un-necessary and superfluous redundant verbiage which we can do without :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 4 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:Arab Christians

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * arab christians


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Adding all Christians in the Arab World into one category doesn't make sense. Many Christians in the Levant are not Arabs (Armenians, Maronites, Syriacs, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Copts) and have much closer ties to other Christians in the middle east (Turkey, Iran, Armenia) than to those in north Africa, Which are mostly European descent. Rafy talk 15:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename or Purge: This looks like a long-standing cat that is grouping both individuals and a number of sub-groups logically. As the nominator points out, North African Christians are incorrectly included as "Arabs" though.  I would suggest either moving out the inappropriate articles and sub-cats or renaming the cat Category:Middle Eastern Christians.  (But, if the cat is deleted, the items should be upmerged to Category:Asian Christians or Category:African Christians if they're not already there.)
 * Keep but if necessary purge -- The groups named are denominations, though these are quasi-ethnic due to the long-standing practice of endogamy within them. Arabic is the language of a large region, which we also call the Middle East.  Whatever their denomination, these people are ethnically Arab, so that I see no reason why this should not exist.  There are Christian converts in both Morocco and Algeria (though perhaps not in large numbers) and substantial Christian minorities in most countries of the Middle East; Saudi Arabia being the most notable exception.  This nom looks to me like an attempt to deny non-Muslim Arabs their nationality, so that being Arab is equated with being Muslim: that is a gross distortion of the truth.  Yes, Christians in Saudi Arabia are all (or mostly) expatriate, but that is not the case in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt or Jordan.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you here. Most Arab countries with substantial ethno-religious minorities (Iraq, Syria, Egypt) tried vigorously to assimilate others by promoting the Arab Pan-ethnicity and many Christians accepted this. However since the rise of political Islam being Arab is becoming synonymous of being Muslim. Most Christians in Iraq (some 90%) belong to eastern Syriac Churches and many Syriac Orthodoxes in Syria were never assimilated, they still retain Syriac as their main language. On the other hand even though Maronites and Copts use only Arabic, many of them identify themselves as Lebanese (Phoenician or Syriac) and Egyptian respectively, (see Christian Arabs). I suggest either making (Category:Arab Christians) a sub category within (Category:Iraqi Christians), (Category:Syrian Christians) etc... or removing it since it's too vague. Raf<font color="#BE81F7">y talk 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep' solely as a parent category with sub-categries for the different groups, though renaming to reflect the region Category:Middle Eastern Christians rather than a generic racially loaded term does appear to more logical. Gnangarra 16:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are definately plenty of Arab Christians. In fact, Christians have played a prominent role in fostering Arab nationalism, the creation of Arab national identity is to large extent thanks to Christian contributions. The great majority of Christians in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria (millions of people) certainly qualifies as 'Arab Christians'. That doesn't mean that categorization is entirely unproblematic, but Arab national identity is inclusive and not strictly racial/ethnic, and thus the category can include subcats like Category:Syrian Christians, Category:Iraqi Christians in the same sense that Category:Swedish Christians are included in Category:European Christians (although not all Christians in Sweden are Europeans in the strict sense). --Soman (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This category should be about Christians from the Arab world, orginized in the same fashion as Category:European Christians. Pereant antiburchius (talk) 21:35, 10 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:Preserved automobiles
<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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * preserved automobiles


 * Nominator's rationale: Hike continues with Preserved automobiles. Sole content to date is a single concept car article, which is better characterized under Category:Concept automobiles. What is the criterion for being included in this category? It must be that a car is being "preserved," i.e. in a museum, or a collection, and someone is dutifully polishing it. I'd say that's non-defining. Plus, vintage vehicles are already well-categorized in Category:Vintage vehicles. To "preserve" a ship, a plane, a locomotive seemed to me to be such a curatorial undertaking that I was willing to try to keep it. But it seems to me that cars are so routinely preserved in public and private collections, and that this not going to be a defining characteristic of a particular model. It would be best if Hike desisted from further category creation of preserved vehicles until the CfD of Category:Preserved machines has wrapped, but seems like that's not how he rolls. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Populate or Delete: I'm conceptually OK with the category. Sure, the car in my driveway would fit the category but it's not notable enough for an article. And therein lies the problem. There are number of preserved automobiles referenced in Category:Automobile museums but specific cars rarely justify an article. Unless this can be populated, it should go. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's my take: the hypothetical car in question is notable for some reason other than it's in storage, right? If a car is part of some defining collection, perhaps we could have a category, as we do with Category:Paintings by collection. But -- to stay with paintings for a moment as an example of well-crafted and valuable objects -- we don't have Category:Restored paintings for the many works of art that have had restoration or "preservation" work. We do have Category:Lost paintings for those works which have been lost to the sands of time, so maybe we could have a "former" for notable individual cars which no longer exist -- though I can't think of one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. Maybe if I saw this cat populated, I would hate what was in it as not being notable by this grouping. That happened to me once with the railroad cats where I thought it was logical but unpopulated, someone populated it, and I realized I was very wrong. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That happens with me all the time: in fact, that the case with my two concurrent Cfds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 4 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:Team Canada 1981 members
<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) 02:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * team canada 1981 members


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of ice hockey players by national team in a specific year. Players should be categorized by national team but are not categorized by specific years or specific tournaments. Compare with the deleted 1972 Team Canada players. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Better handled through a template. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename? I understand your rationale here, but my feeling was that the general tag of Team Canada - typically tagged in the hockey player's infobox - was too general. Some years, the team is composed of only amateurs, more recently it is all professionals.  In the Canada Cup days, the Olympic squads were all amateurs, and the Cup squads were the ones made up of pros. (Also not to be confused with the Junior squads.)  I wasn't trying to put undue weight on the 1981 squad; I just happened to be editing a player from 1981 at the time.  My feeling was that each squad should have a category - the makeup and purpose of each squad being unique, so is the social impact and therefore the relevance. (By that standard, the 1972 squad would have the greatest impact...) Echoedmyron (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Templates: Check out some of the sporting team season templates like this one. Would this accomplish what you're looking to do without cluttering the cats? RevelationDirect (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that looks like what I'm after. Thanks for the suggestion, will work on that later.Echoedmyron (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that will probably end up deleted as well as templates like that are against a number of guidelines and the hockey project has them deleted routinely. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with DJ - Please do not create useless templates that just clutter articles. Resolute 18:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I give lousy advice! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point about clutter, but am curious about the guidelines - is there something you could show me that covers this? My feeling is that yes, there are different "versions" of Team Canada for hockey, and being named to either the Canada Cup squad or the Olympic squad is generally considered an achievement, as opposed to say playing for the Spengler Cup squad, which isn't held in as high regard.Echoedmyron (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, for what's worth, there are all manner of national teams, as Canada men's national ice hockey team shows. The Canada Cup squads were among the first "dream teams." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:EMBED and WP:NAVBOX. To paraphrase, navigational lists (which these templates are) should only contain links to articles which would already be linked to in an ideal version of the page that the template is being used on. Every player who just happened to play on this team would not be expected to be found in the biography of every other player on the team. Another section mentions you should consider where the reader is likely to want to go next, and the next place the reader is likely to want to go isn't to one of his teammates pages, but to the page of the team/year's tournament itself. By all means you can list in the prose of the article that the subject were part of these teams so as to recognize the acomplishment, but we shouldn't be adding a list of all their teammates on the bottom of the article, nor should we create a category. Write the information in prose form in the article. -DJSasso (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * delete -- Is this not a performance by performer category? If retained, it (and any cognate categories) should be renamed  to something like "Canadian national ice hockey team members 1981", but better delete.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that would work, Peter. There were other "Canadian national ice hockey teams" in 1981, a Canada Cup "Team Canada" is a very different and special thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete we don't categorize by individual teams played on. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is categorizing overkill. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Performer by performance. Beyond that, remarkably vague.  Canada participated in numerous sports at numerous events at numerous levels throughout 1981. Resolute 18:57, 6 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:British Vogue
<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) 21:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:British Vogue to Category:Vogue (British magazine)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Vogue (British magazine). Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- The magazine is called "Vogue", not "British Vogue", so that British should be a disambiguator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
 * Rename per nom and per Peterkingiron. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 5 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:Digital data storage formats
<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) 02:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * digital data storage formats


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Parent category of Category:Computer file formats; it seems to be synonymous. I just sorted down Category:Open formats and a single article. Pnm (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternate Delete: No problem with deleting one of the categories because their current use is redundant. Increasingly these files are being used on phones, music players, cameras, cars and other devices not thought of as "computers" by most people.  I would actually favor keeping Category:Digital data storage formats and deleting Category:Computer file formats. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge Category:Computer file formats into Category:Digital data storage formats. I am not sure that they are synonymous; but at the moment I cannot think of an example to disprove it. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:13, 4 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:Computer file systems
<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: at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 10. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Computer file systems to Category:File systems
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. Main article is File systems and is fairly unambiguous. Pnm (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * reverse merge "Computer file systems" has been around since 2004. "File systems" is much newer and should be removed as the newer almost unpopulated version. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Merge: Neutral on which one we keep and which we get rid of. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge. When I hear the word 'file' I think of the paper version. 'Computer' needs to be in there to avoid any ambiguity. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: (1) I think age is not a good argument for which name is preferable. (2) At least in American English, systems for paper files are usually called filing systems, not file systems. --Pnm (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be a US/UK usage thing again, but I work with files - both paper files and computer files. If we have a category the name should be as unambiguos as possible. Keeping computer in the name makes it crystal clear that it has nothing to do with a paper based system. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:32, 6 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:Computer storage backup
<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:Computer backup. Upmerging it to Category:Fault-tolerant computer systems doesn't seem to have been fully vetted in this discussion, but it could be in another.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Computer storage backup to Category:Backup
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename per main article, Backup. Pnm (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose definitely not. Backup is not a computer storage term. It could be police backup (assistance), military backup, even records backup of the dead tree variety, like microfiche backup records. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Category:Computer backup would be fine too. --Pnm (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: I was in an air-traffic control tower were they all had a 2nd monitor above their heads with identical information in case their main monitor went out.  So computer backup systems that are not related to storage do exist but none are in the current cat. Are there non-storage articles out there that you want to move into this cat?  If not, I would favor keeping the name. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is covered in data redundancy or touched on here. I think that redundancy and backup are different, but if the names are not clear, the category could be ambiguous or confusing.  No opinion yet. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a reasonable common-sense use of "backup". I agree that Redundancy (engineering) is the right term for these systems, and the article Failover directly covers redundant hardware. Category:Fault-tolerant computing, which is concise, or Category:Fault tolerance in computing, which is natural and recognizable, would cover these topics and be a useful parent category – for the category in question, Category:RAID, and probably others. Category:Fault tolerance and Category:Business continuity and disaster recovery are more general and also related. --Pnm (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a main article: Fault-tolerant computer system. It summarizes the topic well. Perhaps Category:Fault-tolerant computer systems would be best. --Pnm (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Check it out. --Pnm (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I realized I'm looking for something that sounds natural. (The current title is very precise, but doesn't sound natural at all.) So here are some other possibilities:
 * Category:Computer backup — I mentioned it above. Less natural in a computing context, but fairly clear in an ambiguous context.
 * Category:Backup and recovery — Less recognizable for a general audience, but perfectly natural.
 * Category:Data backup — Rules out military backup and police backup. Fairly clear, fairly natural. I don't think a general audience would consider archiving/records retention part of it. --Pnm (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Backup and recovery wouldn't be computer specific, to 184.144.163.241's earlier point. I'm not opposed to the other two suggestions, although I don't see an advantage over the current cat name. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Data" is not a computer term either, data backup could mean a backup data feed if the primary feed goes down, such as spaceprobes have with two transmitters. And "computer backup" can mean extra processing capacity, a reserve computing center for instance. "computer data backup" would more or less mean what the current category name means, and be almost as long... 184.144.163.241 (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think backup data feeds for space probes is a far-fetched exemplar of ambiguity for "data backup". (And is "Backup and recovery" used in some other context?) --Pnm (talk) 05:20, 6 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:Network-attached computer storage
<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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Network-attached computer storage to Category:Network-attached storage
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename per network-attached storage. It's unambiguous, so using a different name, something it's never really called, is awkward. Pnm (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename per nom. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:11, 3 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:Sailing vessels and rigging
<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:Sailing rigs and rigging. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sailing vessels and rigging to Category:Sailing rigging
 * Nominator's rationale: Copying this over from a Cfd-speedy nomination. It didn't meet the speedy criteria, but it does seem like a good idea. Mike Selinker (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cfd-speedy nomination:
 * Category:Sailing vessels and rigging to Category:Sailing rigging — Ambiguous title creates confusion with Category:Sailing vessels, resulting in miscategorized articles.Gjs238 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea for a renaming, but this does not appear to meet any of the speedy criteria. This needs a full discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename and divide: Most articles should go into the renamed category, but some should go into Category: Sailing rigs per "Rig, the configuration of sails and other rigging on a sailing vessel" (e.g. Gaff rig). Mangoe (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename and refine Before the growth in numbers of these types of articles it was not easy to define very accurate/concise category names because there were not enough articles to identify a unique group of articles. I would strongly propose a single category of Category:Sailing rigs and rigging which is totally unambiguous and makes it easy for the non-expert to find ALL the articles on this subject matter.  Boatman (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Sailing rigs and rigging sounds great.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Boatman: this looks a good solution to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Boatman, it can be readily and clearly sub-divided as the need arises Gnangarra 15:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks everyone for not letting this die on the Cfd-speedy nomination vine. Gjs238 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Boatman SatuSuro 15:00, 8 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.