Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 12



Category:Baroda High School

 * 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. I've added a hatnote to the article to disambiguate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting baroda high school


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Baroda Lions Club schools. This is not simply a matter of a shared name; these 3 schools are all run by the  Baroda Lions Club Education Trust. With only 3 articles, there is a WP:SMALLCAT problem here (tho maybe the trust has more schools?) .... but the trust is a shared defining characteristic, so WP:OC does not apply. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (changing my !vote). On second thoughts, I think JPL is right: the links from Baroda High School are enough for now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. While BHG is correct in this probably not being a shared name, there is no clear case that linking in the main article is not sufficient for sound navigation. If deleted recreation if there is a significantly larger number of school articles should be permitted.  If kept, rename per BHG. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Articlise into a dab-page. That is the usual way that we deal with shared names.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the main page provides enough linking for the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2013 (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:Painter of the Wind

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting painter of the wind


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not Deleting. As you know, or should know, book+tv series+movie Painter of the Wind ( 바람의 화원) are about paintings of the Joseon period in Korea. The aim of this category is to identify all the paintings which are alluded to, as well as to compare the way they are alluded with the historical facts. The number of the involved paintings seems to be greater than 40: therefore OC#SMALL is irrelevant here. Pldx1 (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this defining for the paintings in question? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, if the intent is simply to categorize paintings that are alluded to in the series. If it's going to group articles that deal directly with the series, that would be a different matter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete being mentioned in a tv series is not a defining characteristic of a painting made long before the series came to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as empty and not needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


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

Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles
 * Nominator's rationale: The proposed title better reflects the scope of the category—administrators who will consider, but are free to decline, requests for copies of deleted articles—and the convention within Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination. There is a talk page archive that might need to be moved manually. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Do we really need this?  I'm not in the category and commonly provide this based on the deleted content. Some deleted content is best summarized and not passed along. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. There exist a couple of similar categories for admins who are willing to perform specific user-assistance functions, but providing copies of deleted articles (or, at least, directing a user to WP:REFUND) seems to be something that any admin ought to be willing to do as long as the circumstances are reasonable. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot   &nabla;.  18:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, looks like it's about possibility, not guarantee. Brandmeistertalk  01:06, 13 March 2013 (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:Soap Opera Digest Award winners

 * 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. A comprehensive set of lists already exists at Category:Soap Opera Digest Awards. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting soap opera digest award winners
 * Nominator's rationale This seems to violate the rule against categorizing by award. I read through the article on the award and really saw no evidence that this is a prestigious enough award to be an exception to the general rule.  We already have a list so do not need to listify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I've alerted WikiProject Soap Operas to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. Why is the category not linked from this discussion? Even if the nominator has decided for some reason not to use WP:TWINKLE, the template with which the category is tagged provides a boilerplate which sets up the link and section heading etc. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think because I got impatient and forgot to do so. We are fallible human beings after all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot   &nabla;.  18:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. And wow, this is the first time I've seen a CfD with two relistings. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify (if necessary) then delete -- as we almost invariably do with awards categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


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

Category:United States House of Representatives special elections by state

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


 * The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:CSD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting united states house of representatives special elections by state


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only empty categories. —GoldRingChip 17:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep unless and until the subcats are deleted. If they go, then this can be speedy deleted as empty. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 12 March 2013 (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:2001 Six Nations

 * 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 (all contents are in the appropriate parent categories).--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 2005 six nations


 * Propose deleting 2004 six nations


 * Propose deleting 2003 six nations


 * Propose deleting 2002 six nations


 * Propose deleting 2001 six nations


 * Propose deleting 2000 six nations


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. There are only two/three pages in the category and there will be certainly no more articles for the category. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. These are the only year-by-year subcategories of Category:Six Nations Championship.- choster (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete no need to split the championship category by year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dual upmerge all to Category:Six Nations Championship and the relevant year category. These subcats are too small to keep, but they should be upmerged to ther parents rather than deleted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the articles are alreaddy directly listed in Category:Six Nations Championship or Category:Women's Six Nations Championship and their respective nationality categories.- choster (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2013 (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:Republican holders of the role of pontifex maximus

 * 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:Pontifices Maximi of the Roman Republic. This may not be the best phrasing, so it's open to renomination. But it's an improvement on the current phrasing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Republican holders of the role of pontifex maximus to Category:Republican Pontifices Maximi
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. More succinct, plural form per Pontifex Maximus. Brandmeistertalk  15:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Possibly similar discussion at CfD 2009/Oct/30 Roman Magister Equitums. We still have Category:Magistri militum and Category:Comites excubitorum.- choster (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the brevity, but am uncomfortable about importing non-English plural forms. We have Category:Referendums, not Referenda. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't insist, but scholar sources show that Pontifices Maximi is an acceptable form in English:, , , , , . Btw, aside from Latin words with English endings like referendum, there are those with original endings, like dictum (plural: dicta), tumulus (tumuli), etc. Brandmeistertalk  00:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree that "holders of the role" has to go, but have no opinion on the best alternative. Since that earlier dismal discussion was brought up, let me point out that the problem with "Roman Magister Equitums" was completely different: there is no linguistic context in which equitums is acceptable or even makes any sense. The issue as I recall (I was rather new to these debates then and no doubt my deportment left much to be desired) was whether to use the English plural "Masters of the Horse" or the Latin plural Magistri equitum. There's one additional factor relevant to choosing the best name for the category: the reason (presumably) we categorize only Pontifices Maximi of the Republic is that during the Imperial period the emperor was the Pontifex Maximus. However, AFAIK there was only one Pontifex Maximus at a time, whereas in the 2nd century onward there might be legitimate co-emperors, and even earlier (as in 69 AD) there were short-lived emperors who may never have been formal "holders of the role" of Pontifex Maximus. The category name should allow for the creation of a general category for "Pontifices Maximi of ancient Rome" with subcategories for the historical periodization of ""Pontifices Maximi of the Roman Republic" and "Pontifices Maximi of the Roman Empire". Cynwolfe (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Pontifices Maximi of the Roman Republic. This is the correct Latin plural.  It is important to refer to the Roman Republic, as subsequantly the emperor and now the Pope have this title.  "holder" is inappropriate.  WE do not have "Presidnet holders of United States".  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Pontifix maximuses of the Roman Republic, this is the English not the Latin wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This last proposal is neither English nor Latin. It would be the equivalent of saying "Greats prezident of the United States". "Maximus" is an adjective; in anglicizing, it's the noun that has to be plural, since most adjectives in English don't change their form from singular to plural. I just don't think pontifex has become sufficiently anglicized to make an English plural from it (pontifexes?). The English translation is Pontiff, as in College of Pontiffs—but then what do you do with "Maximus"? So the situation is not like a Latin word that's in regular English usage. It's more a technical term for which no English equivalent exists. Peterkingiron's proposal seems to be the only workable one. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2013 (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:Ancient Roman Empire

 * 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:Roman Empire. This is a brute force solution. There are probably some articles and subcategories that would be better in Category:Ancient Rome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Ancient Roman Empire to Category:Ancient Rome and/or related subcats
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The category seems to be a moot WP:ORish construction, that can be easily confused with Category:Roman Empire and which is redundant to Category:Ancient Rome. Formally and often actually the ancient Rome was not an empire "from c.700BC to approximately 44BC", as the category implies. Some related pages could be also recategorized into suitable subcats, such as Category:Roman Republic, where the container category is exactly Category:Ancient Rome. Brandmeistertalk  15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Ancient Roman territories or some such. The longstanding distinction had been that Category:Roman Empire was for the period and polity— literature, government, religion, engineering— whereas Category:Ancient Roman Empire was for the geography— archaeological sites, frontiers, borders, client states. After all, the Roman Republic may not have had an emperor, but it did have foreign possessions, not unlike Athens did before or France would later. So, Category:Government of the Roman Empire is a topic for Roman Empire, whereas Category:Roman towns and cities is a topic for Ancient Roman Empire. In practice, the distinction has not been well-maintained because of the ambiguous names. We have analogous categories in Category:Territories of the Republic of Venice and Category:Territories of the Republic of Genoa, plus various "Former colonies" categories.- choster (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Split into Category:Territories of the Roman Republic and Category:Territories of the Roman Empire. I don't think that there were any territories of note of thr Kingdom of Rome. Shove anything that doesn't neatly split into Category:Ancient Rome as a default category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ancient Rome. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom, this has a bunch of sub-categories which all ought to be in the Ancient Roman Cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom, mostly. It seems to be about "imperialism in ancient Rome", given the dodgy description—not exactly OR (see first paragraph here), but it's best to stick with the conventional periodization. However, a couple of subcats belong specifically to Category:Roman Empire (Category:Roman Egypt, Category:Roman frontiers, Category:Maps of the Roman Empire), not the general "Ancient Rome" category. I'm not following the split proposals, since not all the subcats are about territories. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge but to Category:Roman Empire.  The present Category:Ancient Rome needs to be split between that and a new category, specifically relating to the city of Rome - very probably with that name.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Roman Republic consisted of a lot more than just the city, and is not the same thing as the Roman Empire, so this plan really does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2013 (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:Turisas

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting turisas


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 12 March 2013 (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:Music album templates
<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
 * Category:Music album templates to Category:Album navigational boxes
 * Category:The Beach Boys album templates to Category:The Beach Boys album navigational boxes
 * Category:The Beatles album templates to Category:The Beatles album navigational boxes
 * Category:Bee Gees album templates to Category:Bee Gees album navigational boxes
 * Category:Michael Jackson album templates to Category:Michael Jackson album navigational boxes
 * Category:Led Zeppelin album templates to Category:Led Zeppelin album navigational boxes
 * Category:Pink Floyd album templates to Category:Pink Floyd album navigational boxes
 * Category:Queen album templates to Category:Queen album navigational boxes
 * Category:Soundtrack album templates to Category:Soundtrack album navigational boxes
 * Category:Bruce Springsteen album templates to Category:Bruce Springsteen album track list templates
 * Category:U2 album templates to Category:U2 album navigational boxes
 * Category:The Velvet Underground album templates to Category:The Velvet Underground album navigational boxes
 * Category:The Who album templates to Category:The Who album navigational boxes
 * Jafeluv (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Music album templates to Category:Music album navigational boxes
 * Category:The Beach Boys album templates to Category:The Beach Boys album navigational boxes
 * Category:The Beatles album templates to Category:The Beatles album navigational boxes
 * Category:Bee Gees album templates to Category:Bee Gees album navigational boxes
 * Category:Michael Jackson album templates to Category:Michael Jackson album navigational boxes
 * Category:Led Zeppelin album templates to Category:Led Zeppelin album navigational boxes
 * Category:Pink Floyd album templates to Category:Pink Floyd album navigational boxes
 * Category:Queen album templates to Category:Queen album navigational boxes
 * Category:Soundtrack album templates to Category:Soundtrack album navigational boxes
 * Category:Bruce Springsteen album templates to Category:Bruce Springsteen album navigational boxes
 * Category:U2 album templates to Category:U2 album navigational boxes
 * Category:The Velvet Underground album templates to Category:The Velvet Underground album navigational boxes
 * Category:The Who album templates to Category:The Who album navigational boxes
 * Nominator's rationale: These are as much navigational boxes as Category:Singles navigational boxes, and ideally should be categorised together in Category:Music navigational boxes. 86.40.193.140 (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename all per nom, except for the parent category which should be renamed to Category:Album navigational boxes. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 07:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per C2C all, they contain only navboxes, except . Rename the Springsteen category to . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename as the proposed title is more specific and uniform with singles templates. Also rename the parent category as per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and Bruce Springsteen as per Armbrust. FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  19:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Springsteen rename as well based on its contents. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:42, 27 March 2013 (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:Net laying ships of the Royal Navy
<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 per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Net laying ships of the Royal Navy to Category:Boom defence vessels of the Royal Navy
 * Propose renaming Category:Net laying ships of the Royal Australian Navy to Category:Boom defence vessels of the Royal Australian Navy
 * Propose renaming Category:Net laying ships of the South African Navy to Category:Boom defence vessels of the South African Navy
 * Propose renaming Category:Ailanthus-class net laying ships of the Royal Navy to Category:Ailanthus-class boom defence vessels of the Royal Navy
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:ENGVAR applies here, I believe. While the category tree is Category:Net laying ships, and the main article is Net laying ship, that main article notes that "The British Admiralty knew such ships as a “boom defence vessel".", and the latter term appears to be the one used by British and Australian articles on ships of this type, and also sources. (Note also that I created all these categories, without realising the WP:ENGVAR difference here.) The Bushranger One ping only 04:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename For UK users net-laying is pretty meaningless; stick to our traditional usage of Boom defence. Category:Ailanthus-class net laying ships of the Royal Navy will also need renaming; and it also includes a New Zealand Vessel. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added that one to the nomination; I'll split out the NZ vessel when it's not oh-dark-thirty. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename -- WE have a classic ENGVAR issue here. US had net laying ships; UK (and Commonwealth) had boom defence ships.  The categiries should follow national usage.  That means that the US category should retain its name.  A parent Category:Boom defence vessels needs to be a redirect to Category:Net laying ships or (better) vice versa.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cat redirect created; if it should be flipped the other way Net laying ship needs to be renamed first. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:09, 19 March 2013 (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:Disney
<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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Disney to Category:The Walt Disney Company
 * Nominator's rationale: This is the title of the main article, The Walt Disney Company. 86.40.193.140 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to avoid possible confusion with Walt Disney. Brandmeistertalk  20:24, 13 March 2013 (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.

Artist navigational boxes
<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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Artist templates to Category:Artist navigational boxes
 * Category:Artist (painter) templates to Category:Artist (painter) navigational boxes
 * Category:Artist (sculptor) templates to Category:Artist (sculptor) navigational boxes
 * Nominator's rationale: These seem to be navigational boxes so fit into Category:People and person navigational boxes (perhaps any that aren't could be moved back to Category:Visual arts templates). 86.40.193.140 (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename per C2C. Categories only contain navigational boxes. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:39, 12 March 2013 (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.

Lisa Merkel
<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: nothing here to discuss at CFD.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2012/may/09/merkel-elected-mayor-herndon/ http://www.reston-connection.com/news/2012/jun/26/herndon-mayor-merkel-new-council-sworn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaMerk (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 March 2013 (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:Little Pakistan
<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 (C2A). The Bushranger One ping only 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Little Pakistan to Category:Little Pakistans
 * Nominator's rationale: The category title should be plural, along the lines of other similar categories such as Category:Little Indias or Category:Little Italys. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Brandmeistertalk  11:11, 15 March 2013 (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:Animals navigational boxes
<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:Animal navigational boxes. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Animals navigational boxes to Category:Biology navigational boxes
 * Nominator's rationale: This contains insects, spiders, birds, reptiles, fish and everything. The current title also looks a little out of place in Category:Navigational boxes which has more general subcategories (i.e. "biology" instead of "animals"), such as "arts and culture", "geography", "history and events" and everything. 86.40.193.140 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The "insects, spiders, birds, reptiles, fish and everything" are all animals. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Support  - Biology is the study of animals (among other things), and the parent is Category:Biology templates. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Not any more, I just moved the category under . The IP removed the category shortly before nominating it for renaming. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nominated then, as this does make more sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Animal navigational boxes if kept. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support renaming it to Category:Animal navigational boxes, no need for double plural in the title. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose becuase Animal (Muppet) needs his navbox too. Support this. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Animal navigational boxes per Vegaswikian. If the nom's logic were to be followed, the target would be zoology nav boxes.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2013 (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.