Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 1



Category:Paul Auster

 * 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) 04:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting paul auster


 * Nominator's rationale: Too small - per OC this should be deleted, as it only contains one category and one subcategory.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 22:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as not needed for the subject's article and a Works sub-category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete All pertinent articles already categorized in the subject specific "works by" category. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:37, 6 November 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:Zones

 * 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) 04:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting zones


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appears to be a collection of entities with the word "Zone" in them, and also Conarky. I don't think that a Nuclear Free Zone, Zones of Nepal, or the Korean DMZ have much in common with one another. SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - overcategorization by shared name feature. No indication that the contents bear any relationship to each other beyond being called "zone". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * delete as too vague. Seyasirt (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The only connection is a shared name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 8 November 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:American straight-to-series scripted television series

 * 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) 04:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting american straight-to-series scripted television series


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizing TV series on this basis feels like overcategorization. There are many paths by which a series can make it to air and building a category around each of them strikes me as a structure we don't want to build. This is also a triple-intersection category, of "American", "straight-to-series" and "scripted" which as I understand we generally try to avoid. We have no Category:Scripted television series at all and no article on the Straight-to-series concept. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Maybe a list but not a category. It is interesting if not defining when a show can bypass the pilot stage, but I don't see it as a category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * delete we shouldn't start categorizing TV shows by the various routes they took to turn into a series.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:00, 1 November 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:New Brunswick Sports Hall of Fame inductees

 * 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) 04:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting new brunswick sports hall of fame inductees


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify per WP:OC. It is my understanding that state and provincial sports halls of fame are generally not considered sufficiently significant for inductee categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Not another award category. Listify if there is no list.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do see that there is indeed a list already at New Brunswick Sports Hall of Fame, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Peter. Steam5 (talk) 06:55, 6 November 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:Virtual machines

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nom. Changes have made this discussion irrelevant. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Virtual machines to Category:Hypervisors
 * Nominator's rationale: Hypervisors create and run virtual machines. Virtual machine are logical entities, not software products; hypervisors are. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * keep as is The current category name matches the main article Virtual machines. The article on Hypervisor is not directly or indirectly in this category.  There is no indication this change would improve reader understanding or article navigation--the purpose of categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 November 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Hi. Are you saying we should keep one stupid mistake because of another stupid mistake? Why not fix both!? I'd hop there and change the main article from virtual machine to hypervisor but I am afraid an editor hasn't studied the content of the category (like yourself) might revert me indisciminately. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please sign your message. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Lisa, I don't see why you call this a stupid mistake. I've looked at a number of articles in this category, and most of them start with "X is a virtual machine on platform Y" - etc. There may be a scope for a separate hypervisor category, but I'm not convinced yet. Can you give me a list of members that would be hypervisors but definitely not virtual machines?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Humpf! I just finished moving them out. Man, the category is much leaner now. You can keep the rest. But you see, the idea was to keep the hypervisors and move the virtual machines out. But... you guys made me take longer route. Anyway, if you insist on seeing a stupid mistake, ... well, I am not going to point you to one because I don't like commenting on the contributor unless necessary. But you should've eaten the trout that I sent you. Makes you smarter! (yes, that was a joke.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * keep per previous !voter.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete per WP:CSD. This category surely wins the Award for The Stupidest Category Every Created and can be regarded as wiki-graffiti. Without doubt those who created it had no clue as to what the heck a virtual machine is. Look at its items: Hardware virtualization, hardware-assisted virtualization, Full virtualization, Disk image, x86 virtualization, Extensible Embeddable Language, Cross-platform virtualization, Dynamic recompilation, BD+ and (the stupidest item ever) Adobe Flash Player -- which is put user "F". And these are not the only stupid items. Fleet Command (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think some items belong in or elsewhere instead feel free to move them - but some bad eggs in a category is no reason to delete. There are a number of items in this category which are described in the lede as a 'virtual machine' (see  - one potential problem with this category is that virtual machine has many different meanings, but I'm not sure if that is fatal. Otherwise, please assume good faith, calling it graffiti is exaggerated.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. With Seyasirt's comment below, what we have is 90% bad egg. And some items there are just interpreters, not process virtual machines. Now, while I am ready to hear your discussion on that, please avoid WP:OR. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * keep There's nothing that says a category has to be about specific software products, and Category:Virtual machines is the obvious place to put articles relating to the concepts of VMs. There's obviously some need for sorting out the various virtualization categories but for instance Java virtual machine is not a hypervisor; it's an abstraction that a hypervisor runs. Seyasirt (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. There is a small problem with your reason: We already have a Category:Java virtual machine. If we move what you suggested there, and remove what Obiwankenobi mentioned above, we will have nothing left. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:44, 8 November 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:First Nations women

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:First Nations women to Category:Aboriginal Canadian women
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge to parent - see related, which doesn't further subdivide. In canada, there are three divisions under aboriginal, of which first nations is one grouping. I don't think a separate category just for first nations women is needed, if we want to gender all aboriginal people in Canada the top level cat should suffice. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Populate and keep There are indeed three recognized and distinct Aboriginal nations in Canada, First Nations, Metis and Inuit. I don't see how the Native American category is a persuasive rationale for ignoring this key distinction for Canadian Aboriginal woman, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there are three high level groupings in Canada - First Nations isn't a "nation"; it is a collection of "nations". In any case, we could easily use category intersection to collect women across any of these groupings - I think separating at the top level is sufficient, coupled with category intersection (see Category:Albanian film actors or for an example of how this might work). First nations women might themselves be insulted that they aren't categorized according to their tribe, so saying "First nations vs aboriginal" is a key distinction but "first nations vs Sioux" is not doesn't make sense. We have a parallel cat, Category:Violence against Aboriginal women in Canada which groups aboriginal women together. Generally, I think for simplicity's sake, if we're dividing by gender to avoid ghettoization we should do so at the highest reasonable level, which in the case of Canada is Aboriginal women.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that Inuit, for one, are recognized as a culturally distinct group and I wonder if Category:Women by ethnicity would not suggest that there is a place for this category within a recognized category structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All of the first nations are recognized as culturally distinct, as I noted above; First Nations is a container no matter what. I just don't think we need it - aboriginal canadian is sufficient as a container for any women-cats that are found below.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Populate and keep Not all Aboriginal people are First Nations, and we shouldn't throw Inuit and First Nations categories together using that thinking. Clumping together under a single category would be like throwing out Category:English women because there is a higher Category:British women cat above it. I don't think we're going to do that. "First Nations" is a social and legal category that comprises many Nations but it does not cover every Aboriginal person or Aboriginal group in Canada. The category nesting is generally "Indigenous" for groups of the world considered together; "Aboriginal" or "First Peoples" for groups considered together in Canada; then "First Nations", "Inuit", and "Métis" for those socially and legally defined groups; then the individual Nations. __ E L A Q U E A T E   17:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to the category intersection to the top of so you can see how it works. This could be made slightly tighter by populating an "aboriginal" category. BTW, I never claimed all aboriginal people are first nations - one is the superset of the other. As I pointed out, we have a similar case in the US where we grouped all of the native american women together rathern than breaking it down tribe-by-tribe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't work. There are obvious hits that aren't First Nations women. __ E L A Q U E A T E  17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which ones specifically?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, without even looking at pages, there's Kim Campbell, the former Prime Minister, and Sky Lee, a Chinese-Canadian writer. I'm sorry, but I don't think this approach works with false positives on BLPs. I wish robots worked better, myself. __ E L A Q U E A T E  18:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not really a false positive; it's just a poorly set-up sub-category structure. Category:Nuu-chah-nulth contains Category:Alberni_Valley which contains Category:People_from_Port_Alberni. We could fix this by adjusting the parenting, or just populate "Aboriginal Canadian women" and intersect with that. Category intersection will reveal poor parenting practices, but that doesn't mean it's broken.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we can populate "First Nations women" and intersect with that, too. As it stands, and as it's written, it's broken and will mislead people looking at it today. Please remove it; right now we are claiming that Kim Campbell is a First Nations woman to anyone looking at your list. __ E L A Q U E A T E  18:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Obi-Wan Kenobi, could you can actually remove it instead of marking it as "may not be 100% correct". We know it's not correct right now, it's not a vague possibility. There are BLPs in your list that deserve more than "maybe" and we shouldn't "experiment" with actual biographies. You can sandbox or something, can't you? __ E L A Q U E A T E  19:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed the sub-cat issue, so Kim and Sky are now gone. Please take a look and see if there are others. Again, the advantage of this approach is that as soon as someone is added to "Canadian women writers" and "Cree people" for example, they will show up on this dynamic list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- It sounds to me as if the subject should be a sub-cat of the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is already the case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete We avoid categorizing people by gender except in cases where there is a good reason to so categorize them. In the case of the intersection of ethnicity and other traits, there is not really a compelling reason to subdivide by gender and it leads to quickly to splitting off all of the females in that ethnicity into a sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No Category:First Nations women should be a subcat of Category:Aboriginal Canadian women.  --Moxy (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Populate and keep ; Cleanup as necessary. First Nations is a critical identity; we have a parallel split in the USA with Native Americans/Alaskan Natives/Hawaiian Natives.  The "ghettoization of women" thing is a different issue entirely, and until resolved across all subjects, I'd keep a category for women for now.  (and as an aside please stop calling us "females" outside of scientific literature, we aren't subhumans or laboratory subjects. If you are men, then we are women, period.)  Montanabw (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Populate and keep, per Montanabw.  GregJackP   Boomer!   05:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support merge. The implication of having the First Nation people category only populated by men is that "people" are "men" and women are anomalies. It just means one more step to access women's articles. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Comment Isn't the discussion about Category:American women novelists)? relevant? Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: THIS proposal is about  merging Category:First Nations women to Category:Aboriginal Canadian women.  I am taking no position here on whether to have "women" in either category title because that isn't before us.  I do take exception to merging "First Nations" into "Aboriginal" as I believe in good faith that "Aboriginal" is the parent cat of "First Nations".  If there is a proposal to merge "women" into "people", I'd probably support that, but that isn't the proposal here.   Montanabw (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, I'm not sure I understand your point. This is not about merging First nations people to Aboriginal people, nor is it about destroying the differentiation between first nations and aboriginal people. It is simply about whether we need to have a non-diffusing "women" category at this level, or whether having it at the canadian level suffices. For example, in the US, we don't have "Sioux women" or "Nez Pierce women" - we only group by "Native American women"; the same logic applies here. Admittedly Canada has a more complex setup, but the principle is the same - you don't need to have "women" as a non-diffusing cat at every level of the tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Go one step up; First Nations=Native American or American Indian. Aboriginal Canadian = American Indian/Alaska Native/Hawaiian or, though there is not a totally agreed-upon legal term emcompassing all, they are collectively Indigenous people of the United States.  That's my point; probably most women in the Aboriginal women category ARE First Nations people, and if there is an Inuit women category too, the Aboriginal cat probably should mostly be diffusing into the subcats.  Does that make my position clear?
 * Put differently, had your proposal been First nations people -->Aborginal Canadian people, I'd be equally opposed. But if your proposal was First nations women --> First nations people, I'd probably not object if there were too few articles to justify "people" as being diffusing and no equivalent "men" category.  Does that make sense?   Montanabw (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a huge difference between First Nations people -> Aboriginal Canadian people and First Nations women -> Aboriginal Canadian women. One is a top-level container category that is gender neutral and diffusing; the other is a non-diffusing gendered category. If you want to keep First Nations women, to be fair you'd have to create First Nations men, and Metis women, and Metis men, and Inuit women, and Inuit men, and if you're classifying Inuit women, then why not Sioux or Cree or Nez Pierce women? I don't see a difference frankly. Both First Nations and Aboriginal are containers, in the same way Native American is a container; if we had a bigger container for Native American/Alaskan/Hawaiian people, I'd propose merging the Native American women cat up there as well. And as I've pointed out, there are many categories that exist only at the "Aboriginal Canadian" level - such as, so there's precedent that one need not always split everything into First Nations/Metis/Inuit.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I partly agree with you about the top level versus sub-level thing. But you clearly don't understand the difference between Native nations and "container" or general legal terms of art:  "Inuit" is not a single tribal nation in the way "Sioux" is; it's a legal/container term more akin to "Alaska Native" (where there are multiple groups/nations).  I agree that any gendered categories that exist should be balanced, but I don't agree that "just because we don't have one, the other should go" is a good argument, an equally good argument is, "well, then, create the others."  I also have not made the argument that "everything" should be split First Nations/Metis/Inuit.  That's a false dichotomy.  Some things can be generalized.  Truly, I have enough trouble stating what I DO believe clearly, I don't need to have things attributed to me that are not my actual feelings. At this point we are in tl;dr land, I've made my points as best I could, so I guess it's just time for others to vote.  I'm probably done here.  I don't like seeing women made invisible, and I don't like to see native people made invisible or treated as historical anachronism.  Whatever gets us there.  Montanabw (talk) 19:05, 21 November 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:Robert J. Shiller

 * 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) 14:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting robert j. shiller


 * Nominator's rationale: Small cat, no need for an eponymous cat - not likely to grow. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom and WP:OC. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The category looks extremely likely to grow, given Shiller's recognition with the 2013 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, his prolific writing in the field and the extensive work he has done in developing analytical tools such as the Case–Shiller index, all of which look more likely to increase in the wake of the Nobel Prize. Alansohn (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The writing might make a case for "works of Robert J. Schiller", but not for an epon cat. Besides, that's a bit crystal-ball-ish...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was using the same crystal-ball-ish methodology you used to state with absolute certainty that the category was "not likely to grow", I just used a more accurate reading based on the characteristics of the actual person to make my determination. What did you use to make your crystal ball prediction? Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing Shiller is most known for are his books (which already go in the works category), the Case Shiller index (article already exists), and the research that won him the nobel prize. I see epon cats as really useful when there are upwards of ten articles related to the subject- see Category:J._R._R._Tolkien for a textbook example of a useful epon cat. Even if 2 or 3 more articles were written about Shiller's contributions, I still don't think that would suffice for an epon cat, and much of his work is embedded in larger economics articles that themselves would not make sense to be categorized as "robert J. shiller".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The bio will make a good main article for the works by cat. The question is what do we do with Case–Shiller index; would be be able to movce that into "works by"?  If so the category is redundant.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair approach; it is, in the broader sense, a "work" by this economist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Eponomous categories are to be limited to people for whom there are lots of articles, there are not enough articles related to this subject for the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 8 December 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:Computer scientists from Melbourne

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Computer scientists from Melbourne to Category:Australian computer scientists and Category:Scientists from Melbourne
 * Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection; we don't have a broader "CS people by city" so this category is an anomaly, and we don't have so many australian computer scientists that we need to further divide by city. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 1 November 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:Computer scientists by IFIP Working Group

 * 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) 04:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting computer scientists by ifip working group


 * As well as:
 * Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As far as I'm aware, membership of these working groups is a near-permanent status. —Ruud 18:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruud. You may be right - though one of the headers said "past and current members" - however, like other awards or similar categories, membership in such working groups, even if permanent, is usually not WP:DEFINING for the people within.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that assessment. —Ruud 18:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; let me provide my evidence. I looked at all of the members of three randomly selected groups: Category:Members_of_IFIP_Working_Group_1.3, Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.6, . In their wikipedia bios, membership in the working group was not mentioned for any of them. I then chose two members of 2.11, and looked at their official bios on their homepage - again, no mention of IFIP., . So if editors have not determined it's worthy of inclusion in their bios, and the people themselves haven't included membership in these working groups in their own personal home pages, that to me is a classic case of not DEFINING.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Several of those do list the IFIP membership on their homepages: (2.11),  (1.3),  (1.6), ... —Ruud 17:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; but not all do, and it's often listed in the bottom, along side lots of other appointments, editorship positions, conference convening roles, etc. The bottom line is, per WP:DEFINING, this fails.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reasonable reading of that guideline under which this would fail to be a defining characteristic. Being a defining characteristic, someone consulting an encyclopedia would expect to find both which computer scientist are members of a particular IFIP WG and, conversely, of which IFIP WGs a particular computer scientist is a member. These categories fulfil this role precisely. Deleting them would be doing a disservice to readers and editors alike, as such they should be kept. —Ruud 22:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same guideline? This is what I'm reading: "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject; if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" I don't see membership in these working groups to be worthy of the lede, and I don't see most 3rd party sources that discuss these people referencing their membership in the working group. There are many many things that are true about people, and even that some random user may be interested to know, but which we do not allow categories for, because otherwise they would multiply. DEFINING is meant to limit such categories to those that are truly important; and if a decent proportion of these people don't mention it on their personal homepages, or mention it along with lots of other committees they are on, to me it is not defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Membership of these working groups is a fact worthy of mentioning in the lede. Take as a case in point "Don Sannella: a short CV": this resume would be in perfect compliance with WP:LEDE and does mention the working group membership. You seem to be working under the erroneous assumption that there exists a much larger group of equally worthy groups a computer scientist could be a member of. —Ruud 01:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm working under the assumption that probably no groups a computer scientist is a member of that would be worthy of a category. Alumni, yes, job, potentially, but working group membership - not in this case. Category:Committees and Category:Working groups has some other examples, but the vast majority don't have categories for members, most categories are just for articles about the committees. There are a few rare exceptions, like Category:Norwegian Nobel Committee or Category:International Panel on Climate Change lead authors, but these are very high level postings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a defining characteristic. If desired for any groups that have articles a list can be placed, but if there's no article there does not need to be a separate list per group. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete most of them. These are not award categories, but membership of a committee (unless it is a fulltime or most time position) is unlikely to be defining.  I do not think we have categories for directors of even the most prominent companies.  A very few of the Working Groups are well-populated, and it may be useful to keep them.  For the rest, I would suggest that a list will be adequate.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the discussion above I find Obi's argument more persuasive than Ruud's.  If "someone consulting an encyclopedia would expect to find ... which computer scientist are members of a particular IFIP WG" then that would be better handled as a list (with dates, references and people who don't have a WP article) than as a category. DexDor (talk) 19:05, 8 November 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.

Healthcare to Health care

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare management to Category:Health care management
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare occupations to Category:Health care occupations
 * Suggest renaming Category:Traditional healthcare occupations to Category:Traditional health care occupations
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare occupations in the United Kingdom to Category:Health care occupations in the United Kingdom
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare quality to Category:Health care quality
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare by city to Category:Health care by city
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Bangkok to Category:Health care in Bangkok
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Berlin to Category:Health care in Berlin
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Bristol to Category:Health care in Bristol
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Dhaka to Category:Health care in Dhaka
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Montreal to Category:Health care in Montreal
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Vienna to Category:Health care in Vienna
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Zürich to Category:Health care in Zürich
 * Suggest renaming Category:Health in Calgary to Category:Health care in Calgary
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare journals to Category:Health care journals
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare software to Category:Health care software
 * Suggest renaming Category:Free healthcare software to Category:Free health care software
 * Suggest renaming Category:Types of healthcare facilities to Category:Types of health care facilities
 * Suggest renaming Category:Universal healthcare to Category:Universal health care
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare companies of France to Category:Health care companies of France
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare reform to Category:Health care reform
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare reform in the United States to Category:Health care reform in the United States
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare reform in the United States by state to Category:Health care reform in the United States by state
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare reform in California to Category:Health care reform in California
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare reform in Maryland to Category:Health care reform in Maryland
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare reform in Oregon to Category:Health care reform in Oregon
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare reform in Washington (state) to Category:Health care reform in Washington (state)
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare reform legislation in the United States to Category:Health care reform legislation in the United States
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare navigational boxes to Category:Health care navigational boxes
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in the United States to Category:Health care in the United States
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in the United States by state to Category:Health care in the United States by state
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Alabama to Category:Health care in Alabama
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Alaska to Category:Health care in Alaska
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Arizona to Category:Health care in Arizona
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Arkansas to Category:Health care in Arkansas
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in California to Category:Health care in California
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:Health care in the San Francisco Bay Area
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Colorado to Category:Health care in Colorado
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Connecticut to Category:Health care in Connecticut
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Delaware to Category:Health care in Delaware
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Florida to Category:Health care in Florida
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Health care in Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Hawaii to Category:Health care in Hawaii
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Idaho to Category:Health care in Idaho
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Illinois to Category:Health care in Illinois
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Indiana to Category:Health care in Indiana
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Iowa to Category:Health care in Iowa
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Kansas to Category:Health care in Kansas
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Kentucky to Category:Health care in Kentucky
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Louisiana to Category:Health care in Louisiana
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Maine to Category:Health care in Maine
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Maryland to Category:Health care in Maryland
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Massachusetts to Category:Health care in Massachusetts
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Michigan to Category:Health care in Michigan
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Minnesota to Category:Health care in Minnesota
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Mississippi to Category:Health care in Mississippi
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Montana to Category:Health care in Montana
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Missouri to Category:Health care in Missouri
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in St. Louis County, Missouri to Category:Health care in St. Louis County, Missouri
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Nebraska to Category:Health care in Nebraska
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Nevada to Category:Health care in Nevada
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in New Hampshire to Category:Health care in New Hampshire
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in New Jersey to Category:Health care in New Jersey
 * Suggest renaming Category:Heathcare in New Mexico to Category:Heath care in New Mexico
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in New York to Category:Health care in New York
 * Suggest renaming Category:Heathcare in North Carolina to Category:Heath care in North Carolina
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in North Dakota to Category:Health care in North Dakota
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Ohio to Category:Health care in Ohio
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Oklahoma to Category:Health care in Oklahoma
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Oregon to Category:Health care in Oregon
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Pennsylvania to Category:Health care in Pennsylvania
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Rhode Island to Category:Health care in Rhode Island
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in South Carolina to Category:Health care in South Carolina
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in South Dakota to Category:Health care in South Dakota
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Tennessee to Category:Health care in Tennessee
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Texas to Category:Health care in Texas
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Utah to Category:Health care in Utah
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Vermont to Category:Health care in Vermont
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Virginia to Category:Health care in Virginia
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Washington (state) to Category:Health care in Washington (state)
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in West Virginia to Category:Health care in West Virginia
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Wyoming to Category:Health care in Wyoming
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Washington, D.C. to Category:Health care in Washington, D.C.
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare by city of the United States to Category:Health care by city of the United States
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Boston, Massachusetts to Category:Health care in Boston, Massachusetts
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Buffalo, New York to Category:Health care in Buffalo, New York
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Charlotte, North Carolina to Category:Health care in Charlotte, North Carolina
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Chicago, Illinois to Category:Health care in Chicago, Illinois
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Cleveland, Ohio to Category:Health care in Cleveland, Ohio
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA to Category:Health care in Cumberland, MD-WV MSA
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Dallas, Texas to Category:Health care in Dallas, Texas
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Dayton, Ohio to Category:Health care in Dayton, Ohio
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Galveston, Texas to Category:Health care in Galveston, Texas
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Greensboro, North Carolina to Category:Health care in Greensboro, North Carolina
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to Category:Health care in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Houston, Texas to Category:Health care in Houston, Texas
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Indianapolis, Indiana to Category:Health care in Indianapolis, Indiana
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Las Vegas, Nevada to Category:Health care in Las Vegas, Nevada
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Los Angeles, California to Category:Health care in Los Angeles, California
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in New Orleans, Louisiana to Category:Health care in New Orleans, Louisiana
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in New York City to Category:Health care in New York City
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Oakland, California to Category:Health care in Oakland, California
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Omaha, Nebraska to Category:Health care in Omaha, Nebraska
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Orlando, Florida to Category:Health care in Orlando, Florida
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Category:Health care in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Category:Health care in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Portland, Oregon to Category:Health care in Portland, Oregon
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Raleigh, North Carolina to Category:Health care in Raleigh, North Carolina
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Richmond, Virginia to Category:Health care in Richmond, Virginia
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in San Antonio, Texas to Category:Health care in San Antonio, Texas
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in San Francisco, California to Category:Health care in San Francisco, California
 * Suggest renaming Category:Healthcare in Springfield, Massachusetts to Category:Health care in Springfield, Massachusetts


 * Rationale The main article and main category of the three are Health care and respectively. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Category:Healthcare management to Category:Health care management – C2C: Category:Health care. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Healthcare occupations to Category:Health care occupations
 * Category:Traditional healthcare occupations to Category:Traditional health care occupations
 * Category:Healthcare occupations in the United Kingdom to Category:Health care occupations in the United Kingdom
 * Category:Healthcare quality to Category:Health care quality
 * Category:Healthcare by city to Category:Health care by city
 * Category:Healthcare in Bangkok to Category:Health care in Bangkok
 * Category:Healthcare in Berlin to Category:Health care in Berlin
 * Category:Healthcare in Bristol to Category:Health care in Bristol
 * Category:Healthcare in Dhaka to Category:Health care in Dhaka
 * Category:Healthcare in Montreal to Category:Health care in Montreal
 * Category:Healthcare in Vienna to Category:Health care in Vienna
 * Category:Healthcare in Zürich to Category:Health care in Zürich
 * Category:Health in Calgary to Category:Health care in Calgary (also C2D: per Health care in Calgary)
 * Category:Healthcare journals to Category:Health care journals (also C2A: per List of health care journals)
 * Category:Healthcare software to Category:Health care software
 * Category:Free healthcare software to Category:Free health care software
 * Category:Types of healthcare facilities to Category:Types of health care facilities
 * Category:Universal healthcare to Category:Universal health care (also C2D: per Universal health care)
 * Category:Healthcare companies of France to Category:Health care companies of France (also C2C: per Category:Health care companies by country)
 * Category:Healthcare reform to Category:Health care reform (also C2D per Health care reform)
 * Category:Healthcare reform in the United States to Category:Health care reform in the United States (also C2D per Health care reform in the United States)
 * Category:Healthcare reform in the United States by state to Category:Health care reform in the United States by state
 * Category:Healthcare reform in California to Category:Health care reform in California
 * Category:Healthcare reform in Maryland to Category:Health care reform in Maryland
 * Category:Healthcare reform in Oregon to Category:Health care reform in Oregon
 * Category:Healthcare reform in Washington (state) to Category:Health care reform in Washington (state)
 * Category:Healthcare reform legislation in the United States to Category:Health care reform legislation in the United States
 * Category:Healthcare navigational boxes to Category:Health care navigational boxes
 * Category:Healthcare in the United States to Category:Health care in the United States
 * Category:Healthcare in the United States by state to Category:Health care in the United States by state
 * Category:Healthcare in Alabama to Category:Health care in Alabama
 * Category:Healthcare in Alaska to Category:Health care in Alaska
 * Category:Healthcare in Arizona to Category:Health care in Arizona
 * Category:Healthcare in Arkansas to Category:Health care in Arkansas
 * Category:Healthcare in California to Category:Health care in California
 * Category:Healthcare in the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:Health care in the San Francisco Bay Area
 * Category:Healthcare in Colorado to Category:Health care in Colorado
 * Category:Healthcare in Connecticut to Category:Health care in Connecticut
 * Category:Healthcare in Delaware to Category:Health care in Delaware
 * Category:Healthcare in Florida to Category:Health care in Florida
 * Category:Healthcare in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Health care in Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Category:Healthcare in Hawaii to Category:Health care in Hawaii
 * Category:Healthcare in Idaho to Category:Health care in Idaho
 * Category:Healthcare in Illinois to Category:Health care in Illinois
 * Category:Healthcare in Indiana to Category:Health care in Indiana
 * Category:Healthcare in Iowa to Category:Health care in Iowa
 * Category:Healthcare in Kansas to Category:Health care in Kansas
 * Category:Healthcare in Kentucky to Category:Health care in Kentucky
 * Category:Healthcare in Louisiana to Category:Health care in Louisiana
 * Category:Healthcare in Maine to Category:Health care in Maine
 * Category:Healthcare in Maryland to Category:Health care in Maryland
 * Category:Healthcare in Massachusetts to Category:Health care in Massachusetts
 * Category:Healthcare in Michigan to Category:Health care in Michigan
 * Category:Healthcare in Minnesota to Category:Health care in Minnesota
 * Category:Healthcare in Mississippi to Category:Health care in Mississippi
 * Category:Healthcare in Montana to Category:Health care in Montana
 * Category:Healthcare in Missouri to Category:Health care in Missouri
 * Category:Healthcare in St. Louis County, Missouri to Category:Health care in St. Louis County, Missouri
 * Category:Healthcare in Nebraska to Category:Health care in Nebraska
 * Category:Healthcare in Nevada to Category:Health care in Nevada
 * Category:Healthcare in New Hampshire to Category:Health care in New Hampshire
 * Category:Healthcare in New Jersey to Category:Health care in New Jersey
 * Category:Heathcare in New Mexico to Category:Heath care in New Mexico
 * Category:Healthcare in New York to Category:Health care in New York
 * Category:Heathcare in North Carolina to Category:Heath care in North Carolina
 * Category:Healthcare in North Dakota to Category:Health care in North Dakota
 * Category:Healthcare in Ohio to Category:Health care in Ohio
 * Category:Healthcare in Oklahoma to Category:Health care in Oklahoma
 * Category:Healthcare in Oregon to Category:Health care in Oregon
 * Category:Healthcare in Pennsylvania to Category:Health care in Pennsylvania
 * Category:Healthcare in Rhode Island to Category:Health care in Rhode Island
 * Category:Healthcare in South Carolina to Category:Health care in South Carolina
 * Category:Healthcare in South Dakota to Category:Health care in South Dakota
 * Category:Healthcare in Tennessee to Category:Health care in Tennessee
 * Category:Healthcare in Texas to Category:Health care in Texas
 * Category:Healthcare in Utah to Category:Health care in Utah
 * Category:Healthcare in Vermont to Category:Health care in Vermont
 * Category:Healthcare in Virginia to Category:Health care in Virginia
 * Category:Healthcare in Washington (state) to Category:Health care in Washington (state)
 * Category:Healthcare in West Virginia to Category:Health care in West Virginia
 * Category:Healthcare in Wyoming to Category:Health care in Wyoming
 * Category:Healthcare in Washington, D.C. to Category:Health care in Washington, D.C.
 * Category:Healthcare by city of the United States to Category:Health care by city of the United States
 * Category:Healthcare in Boston, Massachusetts to Category:Health care in Boston, Massachusetts
 * Category:Healthcare in Buffalo, New York to Category:Health care in Buffalo, New York
 * Category:Healthcare in Charlotte, North Carolina to Category:Health care in Charlotte, North Carolina
 * Category:Healthcare in Chicago, Illinois to Category:Health care in Chicago, Illinois
 * Category:Healthcare in Cleveland, Ohio to Category:Health care in Cleveland, Ohio
 * Category:Healthcare in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA to Category:Health care in Cumberland, MD-WV MSA
 * Category:Healthcare in Dallas, Texas to Category:Health care in Dallas, Texas
 * Category:Healthcare in Dayton, Ohio to Category:Health care in Dayton, Ohio
 * Category:Healthcare in Galveston, Texas to Category:Health care in Galveston, Texas
 * Category:Healthcare in Greensboro, North Carolina to Category:Health care in Greensboro, North Carolina
 * Category:Healthcare in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to Category:Health care in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
 * Category:Healthcare in Houston, Texas to Category:Health care in Houston, Texas
 * Category:Healthcare in Indianapolis, Indiana to Category:Health care in Indianapolis, Indiana
 * Category:Healthcare in Las Vegas, Nevada to Category:Health care in Las Vegas, Nevada
 * Category:Healthcare in Los Angeles, California to Category:Health care in Los Angeles, California
 * Category:Healthcare in New Orleans, Louisiana to Category:Health care in New Orleans, Louisiana
 * Category:Healthcare in New York City to Category:Health care in New York City
 * Category:Healthcare in Oakland, California to Category:Health care in Oakland, California
 * Category:Healthcare in Omaha, Nebraska to Category:Health care in Omaha, Nebraska
 * Category:Healthcare in Orlando, Florida to Category:Health care in Orlando, Florida
 * Category:Healthcare in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Category:Health care in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Category:Healthcare in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Category:Health care in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * Category:Healthcare in Portland, Oregon to Category:Health care in Portland, Oregon
 * Category:Healthcare in Raleigh, North Carolina to Category:Health care in Raleigh, North Carolina
 * Category:Healthcare in Richmond, Virginia to Category:Health care in Richmond, Virginia
 * Category:Healthcare in San Antonio, Texas to Category:Health care in San Antonio, Texas
 * Category:Healthcare in San Francisco, California to Category:Health care in San Francisco, California
 * Category:Healthcare in Springfield, Massachusetts to Category:Health care in Springfield, Massachusetts
 * Oppose speedy on all health care items. There is clearly not consensus on which version to use based on how many places it is a single word, so we really should do a full discussion. I don't care which form to use, but thise should not be a speedy issue. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which form is more common but the health care title has been stable since 2003. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't quite matter: C2C "This criterion should only be applied when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination." Again, just look at how many cats you are looking to rename. Ergo, there is some doubt and it needs to go to a full CFD nom. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * neutral for now; not sure I see the value here, since both words are equally used on either side of the pond. One difference I have seen is "healthcare" as an adjective, and "health care" as a noun; in which case, we would have "Health care in New York" but "Healthcare software" for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Healthcare is a compund nound and may be used as a adjective. AS an adjective, it should certainly be a compound (possibly hyphenated).  It is possible that the two sides of the ATlandtic have a different view on this.  For UK, I would prefer the compund noun.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That doesn't apply to the "Healtcare in FOO" categories and . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I see no overriding reason presented to make this change. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think confirming to the main article/category is a very good reason for the change (at least if it's not used as an adjective). Armbrust The Homunculus 19:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to blindly assume that the article is at the correct name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really matter there, the article name is stable. If you think the article is at the wrong name, than Requested moved is that way. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Renames I prefer "Healthcare" as a compound term in one word, but the broad standard in Wikipedia article space (the one place that makes any difference) is to use "Health care" (with two words), except in the limited number of cases where its used as an adjective. Throughout the structure, from the parent Health care to Health care in Iceland to Health care reform in the United States, the standard is clear. There are lots of folks here at CfD who believe that the wishes of the handful of editors who haunt this obscure corner of Wikipedia should overrule those of the broader consensus established throughout the English-language encyclopedia. CfD is a mere flea on the tip of the tail trying to wag the whole dog here, with nothing gained other than foolish inconsistency. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose and propose that Health care → Healthcare and Category:Health care → Category:Healthcare, which both already seem to exist. Technical 13 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That rename should be proposed at Talk:Health care, this isn't the right place for it. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Healthcare is a commonly used compound noun. gidonb (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - both words are extremely common and nothing would be gained by creating tons of redirected categories. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 00:29, 8 January 2014 (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:Bedroom musicians
<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) 04:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting bedroom musicians


 * Nominator's rationale: The only real definition as to what a "bedroom musician" supposedly is is backed up by a broken link on the category page. The main article, Bedroom musician, was speedily deleted four years ago, and a Gsearch came up with nothing. (Why the articles in this category were even placed in this category is anyone's guess.)  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * delete I'm sure many bands these days started out making music on a computer. Not defining at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:07, 1 November 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.

Compound modifiers
<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: no consensus. There was a consensus that these categories needed a variety of solutions rather than the single solution proposed here.  Feel free to renominate in smaller groups. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Japanese American internment to Category:Japanese-American internment
 * Propose renaming Category:Japanese American internment camps to Category:Japanese-American internment camps
 * Propose renaming Category:Japanese American memorials to Category:Japanese-American memorials
 * Propose renaming Category:Asian American theologians to Category:Asian-American theologians
 * Propose renaming Category:Asian American philosophers to Category:Asian-American philosophers
 * Propose renaming Category:Asian American templates to Category:Asian-American templates
 * Propose renaming Category:South Asian American organizations to Category:South Asian-American organizations
 * Propose renaming Category:Filipino American musical groups to Category:Filipino-American musical groups
 * Propose renaming Category:Thai American culture by state to Category:Thai-American culture by state
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic and Latino American women's organizations to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American women's organizations
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic American professional organizations to Category:Hispanic-American professional organizations
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic American organizations to Category:Hispanic-American organizations
 * Propose renaming Category:Japanese American culture to Category:Japanese-American culture
 * Propose renaming Category:South Asian American culture to Category:South Asian-American culture
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Wyoming to Category:European-American culture in Wyoming
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Wisconsin to Category:European-American culture in Wisconsin
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in West Virginia to Category:European-American culture in West Virginia
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Washington (state) to Category:European-American culture in Washington (state)
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Virginia to Category:European-American culture in Virginia
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Vermont to Category:European-American culture in Vermont
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Utah to Category:European-American culture in Utah
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Texas to Category:European-American culture in Texas
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Tennessee to Category:European-American culture in Tennessee
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in South Dakota to Category:European-American culture in South Dakota
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in South Carolina to Category:European-American culture in South Carolina
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Rhode Island to Category:European-American culture in Rhode Island
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Pennsylvania to Category:European-American culture in Pennsylvania
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Oregon to Category:European-American culture in Oregon
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Oklahoma to Category:European-American culture in Oklahoma
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Ohio to Category:European-American culture in Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in North Dakota to Category:European-American culture in North Dakota
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in North Carolina to Category:European-American culture in North Carolina
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in New York to Category:European-American culture in New York
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in New Mexico to Category:European-American culture in New Mexico
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in New Jersey to Category:European-American culture in New Jersey
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in New Hampshire to Category:European-American culture in New Hampshire
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Nevada to Category:European-American culture in Nevada
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Nebraska to Category:European-American culture in Nebraska
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Montana to Category:European-American culture in Montana
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Missouri to Category:European-American culture in Missouri
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Mississippi to Category:European-American culture in Mississippi
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Minnesota to Category:European-American culture in Minnesota
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Michigan to Category:European-American culture in Michigan
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Massachusetts to Category:European-American culture in Massachusetts
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Maryland to Category:European-American culture in Maryland
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Maine to Category:European-American culture in Maine
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Louisiana to Category:European-American culture in Louisiana
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Kentucky to Category:European-American culture in Kentucky
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Kansas to Category:European-American culture in Kansas
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Iowa to Category:European-American culture in Iowa
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Indiana to Category:European-American culture in Indiana
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Illinois to Category:European-American culture in Illinois
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Idaho to Category:European-American culture in Idaho
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Hawaii to Category:European-American culture in Hawaii
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:European-American culture in Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Florida to Category:European-American culture in Florida
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Washington, D.C. to Category:European-American culture in Washington, D.C.
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Delaware to Category:European-American culture in Delaware
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Connecticut to Category:European-American culture in Connecticut
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Colorado to Category:European-American culture in Colorado
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in California to Category:European-American culture in California
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Arkansas to Category:European-American culture in Arkansas
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Arizona to Category:European-American culture in Arizona
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Alaska to Category:European-American culture in Alaska
 * Propose renaming Category:European American culture in Alabama to Category:European-American culture in Alabama
 * Propose renaming Category:Scotch-Irish American history to Category:Scotch-Irish-American history
 * Propose renaming Category:Scotch-Irish American culture by state to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture by state
 * Propose renaming Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Propose renaming Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in Tennessee to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in Tennessee
 * Propose renaming Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in Maryland to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in Maryland
 * Propose renaming Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in Pennsylvania to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in Pennsylvania
 * Propose renaming Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in South Carolina to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in South Carolina
 * Propose renaming Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in North Carolina to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in North Carolina
 * Propose renaming Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in New Hampshire to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in New Hampshire
 * Propose renaming Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in West Virginia to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in West Virginia
 * Propose renaming Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in Virginia to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in Virginia
 * Propose renaming Category:Mexican American films to Category:Mexican-American films
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic and Latino American culture to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American culture
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic and Latino American entertainers to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American entertainers
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic and Latino American actors to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American actors
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic and Latino American actresses to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American actresses
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic and Latino American male actors to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American male actors
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic and Latino American pornographic film actors to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American pornographic film actors
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic and Latino American rappers to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American rappers
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic and Latino American musicians to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American musicians
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic American music to Category:Hispanic-American music
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic and Latino American cuisine to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American cuisine
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic and Latino American media to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American media
 * Propose renaming Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American culture to Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino-American culture
 * Propose renaming Category:Middle Eastern American culture to Category:Middle Eastern-American culture
 * Propose renaming Category:North African American culture to Category:North African-American culture
 * Propose renaming Category:Lists of African American historic places to Category:Lists of African-American historic places
 * Propose renaming Category:Chinese American banks to Category:Chinese-American banks


 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy nomination. These are all compound modifiers, and therefore they should be hypenated per MOS:HYPHEN. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Category:Japanese American internment to Category:Japanese-American internment – C2A: compound modifier. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Japanese American internment camps to Category:apanese-American internment camps
 * Category:Japanese American memorials to Category:Japanese-American memorials
 * Oppose speedy rename - This would make the category inconsistent with the category-defining article, which is at Japanese American internment. The hyphen has been omitted from the article as a result of significant debate and discussion. Changing the category should not be done without reference and discussion in a broader consensus process. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Asian American theologians to Category:Asian-American theologians – C2A: compound modifier. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Asian American philosophers to Category:Asian-American philosophers
 * Category:Asian American templates to Category:Asian-American templates
 * Oppose speedy rename as per above - the article is at Asian American. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and it should not be done without debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:South Asian American organizations to Category:South Asian-American organizations – C2A: compound modifier. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Filipino American musical groups to Category:Filipino-American musical groups – C2A: compound modifier. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Thai American culture by state to Category:Thai-American culture by state
 * Category:Hispanic and Latino American women's organizations to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American women's organizations
 * Category:Hispanic American professional organizations to Category:Hispanic-American professional organizations
 * Category:Hispanic American organizations to Category:Hispanic-American organizations
 * Category:Japanese American culture to Category:Japanese-American culture
 * Category:South Asian American culture to Category:South Asian-American culture
 * Oppose speedy rename as per above - There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:European American culture in Wyoming to Category:European-American culture in Wyoming – C2A. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:European American culture in Wisconsin to Category:European-American culture in Wisconsin
 * Category:European American culture in West Virginia to Category:European-American culture in West Virginia
 * Category:European American culture in Washington (state) to Category:European-American culture in Washington (state)
 * Category:European American culture in Virginia to Category:European-American culture in Virginia
 * Category:European American culture in Vermont to Category:European-American culture in Vermont
 * Category:European American culture in Utah to Category:European-American culture in Utah
 * Category:European American culture in Texas to Category:European-American culture in Texas
 * Category:European American culture in Tennessee to Category:European-American culture in Tennessee
 * Category:European American culture in South Dakota to Category:European-American culture in South Dakota
 * Category:European American culture in South Carolina to Category:European-American culture in South Carolina
 * Category:European American culture in Rhode Island to Category:European-American culture in Rhode Island
 * Category:European American culture in Pennsylvania to Category:European-American culture in Pennsylvania
 * Category:European American culture in Oregon to Category:European-American culture in Oregon
 * Category:European American culture in Oklahoma to Category:European-American culture in Oklahoma
 * Category:European American culture in Ohio to Category:European-American culture in Ohio
 * Category:European American culture in North Dakota to Category:European-American culture in North Dakota
 * Category:European American culture in North Carolina to Category:European-American culture in North Carolina
 * Category:European American culture in New York to Category:European-American culture in New York
 * Category:European American culture in New Mexico to Category:European-American culture in New Mexico
 * Category:European American culture in New Jersey to Category:European-American culture in New Jersey
 * Category:European American culture in New Hampshire to Category:European-American culture in New Hampshire
 * Category:European American culture in Nevada to Category:European-American culture in Nevada
 * Category:European American culture in Nebraska to Category:European-American culture in Nebraska
 * Category:European American culture in Montana to Category:European-American culture in Montana
 * Category:European American culture in Missouri to Category:European-American culture in Missouri
 * Category:European American culture in Mississippi to Category:European-American culture in Mississippi
 * Category:European American culture in Minnesota to Category:European-American culture in Minnesota
 * Category:European American culture in Michigan to Category:European-American culture in Michigan
 * Category:European American culture in Massachusetts to Category:European-American culture in Massachusetts
 * Category:European American culture in Maryland to Category:European-American culture in Maryland
 * Category:European American culture in Maine to Category:European-American culture in Maine
 * Category:European American culture in Louisiana to Category:European-American culture in Louisiana
 * Category:European American culture in Kentucky to Category:European-American culture in Kentucky
 * Category:European American culture in Kansas to Category:European-American culture in Kansas
 * Category:European American culture in Iowa to Category:European-American culture in Iowa
 * Category:European American culture in Indiana to Category:European-American culture in Indiana
 * Category:European American culture in Illinois to Category:European-American culture in Illinois
 * Category:European American culture in Idaho to Category:European-American culture in Idaho
 * Category:European American culture in Hawaii to Category:European-American culture in Hawaii
 * Category:European American culture in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:European-American culture in Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Category:European American culture in Florida to Category:European-American culture in Florida
 * Category:European American culture in Washington, D.C. to Category:European-American culture in Washington, D.C.
 * Category:European American culture in Delaware to Category:European-American culture in Delaware
 * Category:European American culture in Connecticut to Category:European-American culture in Connecticut
 * Category:European American culture in Colorado to Category:European-American culture in Colorado
 * Category:European American culture in California to Category:European-American culture in California
 * Category:European American culture in Arkansas to Category:European-American culture in Arkansas
 * Category:European American culture in Arizona to Category:European-American culture in Arizona
 * Category:European American culture in Alaska to Category:European-American culture in Alaska
 * Category:European American culture in Alabama to Category:European-American culture in Alabama
 * Oppose speedy rename as per above. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Scotch-Irish American history to Category:Scotch-Irish-American history – C2A. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Scotch-Irish American culture by state to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture by state
 * Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in Tennessee to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in Tennessee
 * Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in Maryland to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in Maryland
 * Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in Pennsylvania to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in Pennsylvania
 * Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in South Carolina to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in South Carolina
 * Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in North Carolina to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in North Carolina
 * Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in New Hampshire to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in New Hampshire
 * Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in West Virginia to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in West Virginia
 * Category:Scotch-Irish American culture in Virginia to Category:Scotch-Irish-American culture in Virginia
 * Oppose speedy rename as per above. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Mexican American films to Category:Mexican-American films – C2A. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Hispanic and Latino American culture to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American culture – C2A. Or Category:Hispanic- and Latino-American culture etc. as a "hanging" hyphen as per MOS:HYPHEN? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Hispanic and Latino American entertainers to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American entertainers
 * Category:Hispanic and Latino American actors to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American actors
 * Category:Hispanic and Latino American actresses to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American actresses
 * Category:Hispanic and Latino American male actors to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American male actors
 * Category:Hispanic and Latino American pornographic film actors to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American pornographic film actors
 * Category:Hispanic and Latino American rappers to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American rappers
 * Category:Hispanic and Latino American musicians to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American musicians
 * Category:Hispanic American music to Category:Hispanic-American music – C2A. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest alternative This should be renamed to as C2C per  and . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Hispanic and Latino American cuisine to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American cuisine
 * Category:Hispanic and Latino American media to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American media
 * Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American culture to Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino-American culture
 * Category:Middle Eastern American culture to Category:Middle Eastern-American culture – C2A: Compound modifier Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:North African American culture to Category:North African-American culture – C2A: Compound modifier Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Lists of African American historic places to Category:Lists of African-American historic places – C2A: and main cat. name. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Chinese American banks to Category:Chinese-American banks – C2A: Compound modifier Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose speedy rename as per above. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - MOS:HYPHEN and existing common practice. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Procedural close. These categories are too disparate to be considered in one nomination. I am in favor of hyphenating these compound modifiers, but there are other issues that cannot be considered in a nomination as large as this one. For example, Category:Asian American theologians should be renamed to Category:American theologians of Asian descent, and Category:Asian American philosophers to Category:American philosophers of Asian descent, per Category:American people of Asian descent by occupation. Also, Category:Asian American templates should not be grouped with biographical categories as the templates are not "Asian American" in the same way that a person is an Asian American. Category:Hispanic American organizations probably should include "and Latino" in the title. And so on... -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not opposed to a procedural close, if you're willing to do the renomination of all the categories in separate batches. Otherwise this should run, and the issues mentioned by you should be discussed in a later CFD. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Had you asked at a time when I had the opportunity to be more active, I would gladly agree. However, I am still of the view that these categories should not be considered in one nomination at all. The same circumstances do not, and the same rationale cannot, apply to them all. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This is too sweeping a nomination and should be broken up. I would suggest the following principles:
 * 1) All but American dual-ethnicities were converted to the format Booian of Fooian descent some years ago. There is a lot to be said for applying this in US too.  Possibly, this should be limited to those who immigrated within the last couple of generations, and may retain cultural connections with theri origin, rather than being absorbed by the "melting pot".
 * 2) Unless the theologians have a distinctive approach to their theology due to be of Asian extraction, I would suggest they should be Category:American theologians of Asian descent. This may apply to several more.
 * 3) Only one hyphen: if two would otherwise be required the first two should be hyphenated and not American.
 * 4) Scotch-Irish is a single ethnicity, largely Scottish Presbyterians who emigrated to Ulster and then to southern USA. "Scotch-Irish Americans" should be an acceptable description.  Note that there is no surviving antecedent ethnicity, as there is no such distinction among the Protestant inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
 * 5) If we have to change them at all, it should be North-African American or Middle-Eastern American, but unless we are dealing with Berbers or Middle-Eastern Christians, I would suggest a merger to Arab-American.
 * 6) "European American culture" requires a separate discussion. Is this a valid term? I suspect that the categories need merging back to parents: being the dominant culture, it should merely be American culture or just "culture".
 * However I am in UK, and do not know the nuances of American culture. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If you want to do that, than feel free to do so. In this case this can be closed as moot. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:31, 8 November 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:Killer Klowns from Outer Space
<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) 04:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting killer klowns from outer space


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. small category with zero chance of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 09:00, 1 November 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:Slim Burna
<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) 04:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting slim burna


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. With only 2 subcategories and 3 articles, there's nothing in this category that isn't just as easily navigated from the main article. WP:OC. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 06:35, 1 November 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:Memorial highways
<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) 04:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting memorial highways


 * Propose deleting Category:Memorial highways in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Most of the pages in this category are redirects to articles about roads or disambiguation/set pages. This is an example of WP:OC.  The primary purpose of a road is transport, not to be a memorial.  For one article in this category being memorials is a WP:DEFINING characteristic - that should be upmerged to here and here. For info: Related previous CFDs are this and this. DexDor (talk) 06:33, 1 November 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:Educational institutions in the United States by accreditation association
<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:  no consensus. This closure is without prejudice to making further proposals. The category structure at the time of the nomination did not include another longstanding category, Category:Schools in the United States by accreditation association, which has now been added, and should be considered as well in a future nomination. I did not find Orlady's middle option persuasive, as it would not have dealt with schools; and as for the universities/colleges associations, Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by association might have been a more appropriate merger target than Category:Universities and colleges by association, as these bodies are nationally-focussed. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting educational institutions in the united states by accreditation association


 * Propose deleting Category:Educational institutions accredited by the Council on Occupational Education
 * Propose deleting Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by accreditation association
 * Propose deleting Category:Colleges accredited by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools
 * Propose deleting Category:Schools accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
 * Propose deleting Category:Universities and colleges accredited by the Council on Occupational Education
 * Propose deleting Category:Universities and colleges accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
 * Propose deleting Category:Universities and colleges accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools


 * Nominator's rationale: Which association has accredited a school/college/university is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the institution. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, all of these. Higher education accreditation in the United States indicates that there are specific, recognized sources of different kinds of accreditation, both regional and national. This category is the flip-side of Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning; it is undoubtedly of interest to researchers to know which institutions are recognized as accredited, and by which recognized accreditation sources (since only certain accreditations allow for transfers of credits between institutions). This is at least as defining of a characteristic, if not more, than membership in Category:Association of Independent Technological Universities (or any other subcategory of Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by association) or in Category:Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association teams.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   16:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) The unaccredited category looks equally (if not more) non-permanent and there are already list articles (example), (2) Information that's important to researchers should be in lists (which can have references, dates and can discuss any nuances such as accreditation only covering certain courses) and not necessarily in categories, (3) The "by association" category is now also at CFD, (4) I don't see any relevance of athletics categories to this discussion. DexDor (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. The existence of Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning actually is part of the reason.  Since most schools are accredited, we only need to categorize the exceptions.  Note well that at least one of these is responsible for the accreditation of public and private universities, colleges, secondary and elementary schools in the United States and foreign institutions of American origin.  Do we really want to start categorizing secondary and elementary schools like this?  Just think how many new category trees we could create.  If this is really important, navigation would be better served by listifying which would allow sorting at least by state and maybe school type. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The user who is planning to go to college will want to know that the institution to which they apply is accredited, and may wish to identify all of the institutions that are accredited by the same accreditation association, because they may want to be sure that credits will be considered legitimate and will transfer when they change schools. I agree that a list can do this, but if one of you wants to make a list as an alternative to these categories, I encourage you to do this before the categories are deleted, so the lists will not need to be started from scratch. Also, in response to the earlier point, I brought up the athletic categories because, like the accreditation categories, colleges are members of these categories, and they change from time to time, in fact, probably more often then accreditation status changes.    - WPGA2345 -     ☛   19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely, someone who wants to check that a particular institution is accredited should not be relying on WP categorization; the website of the accreditor would be a much better place for them to refer to. Also, WP categorization should be by permanent characteristics (i.e. whether a college has ever been accredited) not by current (accredited/unaccredited) status. What athletics categories are colleges members of ? (e.g. we don't have a category for colleges that have a woodsman team). DexDor (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, West Virginia Mountaineers, which is about the athletic teams of West Virginia University, is in Category:West Virginia Mountaineers, which is in Category:Big 12 Conference teams, as well as Category:Former Atlantic 10 Conference teams, Category:Former Big East Conference teams, and Category:Former Southern Conference teams. In the past, it would have been in a different set of categories, because it was not yet in the Big 12 when it was still in the Big East. These are obviously non-permanent categories because teams change conferences all the time. There are lots of things we could tell readers to find somewhere other than Wikipedia. However, I don't see why it should be easier to use Wikipedia to find out what athletic conference a school is in than to find out what accreditation association the school is in. This is about general accreditation, not program accreditation, so it is actually a small set of accreditors that we are talking about. Remember, there are only six federally recognized regional accreditation associations in the United States, and every college or university has to belong to one of these six to get certain federal benefits, and there are only a handful of federally recognized national accreditation associations for technical colleges. In higher education, membership in a particular association is pretty close to being permanent unless the school falls into disarray and becomes unaccredited. Whether this is in a category or a list, this is information about the relationships between notable institutions and notable accreditation associations that can be reliably sourced. Let me put it this way, if these were list articles instead of categories, would they be subject to deletion?  One other question I have is why I was notified of this discussion, but the creators of some of these other categories (User:Torritorri, User:Masonpatriot, User:Vegaswikian, User:EurekaLott, User:Orlady, User:Ccson, and User:Scottalter), were apparently not?    - WPGA2345 -     ☛   23:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Re athletics - Thanks, I see what you're getting at now; Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by athletic conference (and subcats) should be under Category:Universities and colleges by association (which is currently at CFD). See also WP:OTHERSTUFF.
 * For both accreditation and athletics, lists (with dates and references) would be more suitable than categories. Also, in general, "Members of " should be a list (rather than a category) because it allows things that don't (yet) have a WP article (or for whom membership of the organization is not an important characteristic) to be in the list (although in this particular case that may not be an issue).  Note: it might be better to create any lists directly from RSs rather than from the current category contents.
 * You were notified specifically because you created the head category. Note: talk page notification is not required at CFD and is not the only way people find out about a discussion (e.g. editors can watchlist categories they create). DexDor (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete the parent category Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by accreditation association, rename the contained categories to include only the name of the organization, and recategorize them into Category:Universities and colleges by association, which currently contains categories for the accredited members of several other U.S. accreditation organizations. I would not voluntarily go to the trouble of populating categories for each of these accrediting organizations (because they are very large), but the categories exist now, so the trouble of populating them is not an issue. The memberships of most of the accrediting organizations (particularly the regional accreditors) are highly stable (e.g., some universities have been members for a century or more), so these affiliations are at least as defining for an institution as its membership(s) in a sports conference, and the categories should be maintainable. I am aware that Category:Universities and colleges by association and all of its contents are up for deletion, but I see that as a misbegotten CFD that lumps together a diverse variety of organizations -- some highly defining and some trivial. As I said at that AFD, discussions should focus on groups of similar categories.
 * The renames I propose are as follows:
 * Category:Educational institutions accredited by the Council on Occupational Education to Category:Council on Occupational Education
 * Category:Colleges accredited by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools to Category:Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools
 * Category:Schools accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges to Category:Western Association of Schools and Colleges
 * Category:Universities and colleges accredited by the Council on Occupational Education to Category:Council on Occupational Education
 * Category:Universities and colleges accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities to Category:Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
 * Category:Universities and colleges accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to Category:Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
 * I don't see any merit in converting these categories to lists, as that would simply put Wikipedia in the position of republishing lists published by the individual accreditors. --Orlady (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Change per Orlady At least in the United States, accreditation association is a defining characteristics of colleges/universities. That said, the naming scheme that Orlady suggests makes a lot more sense to me. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't terribly disagree, but I just don't see the need to rename the categories, if the name is an accurate description of its contents.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   05:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Accrediting bodies of colleges and universities are a strong defining characteristic of these institutions of higher learning. Despite a wish that categories only track immutable and never-changing traits, we do this in Wikipedia all the time and colleges and universities tend to stick with accrediting agencies for time spans that are far longer than they do in sports conferences, as has been pointed out above. Alansohn (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is categorization of a temporary trait of things that last a long time. Many of these institutions existed long before accredidation associations, and some will certainly change associations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 8 December 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:American Middle Eastern studies
<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) 04:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:American Middle Eastern studies to Category:Middle Eastern studies in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: More descriptive and less ambiguous. My first impression was that this was a category for Middle Eastern-American studies. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom -- obviously.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 7 November 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:Time in Belarus
<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 discussion was not helped by the nominator's failure to suggest where the relevant articles would be categorised. The usual solution in cases like this where there is a concern about overly small categories is to merge to one or more parent categories, but that was not offered here. The description of the nomination's scope as "most of the other junk in Category:Time by country" was also unhelpfully vague, as well as inappropriate in tone. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus.


 * Propose deleting time in belarus


 * Propose deleting time in angola


 * Propose deleting time in algeria


 * Propose deleting time in kenya


 * And most of the other junk in Category:Time by country (with few exceptions, like China).
 * Nominator's rationale: pointless, single entry cat  Volunteer Marek   00:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - while it appears there is a substantive Category:Time by country structure of which these categories are part, many of those categories consist of nothing but articles for the country's time zone per the tz database. The articles themselves are poor conveyances for the information (a single list or even a series of lists broken down by continent would be better) and the categories are absolutely unnecessary to hold them. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - my !vote applies only to the Belarus category, which was separately nominated at the time I made it and should not be applied to any other category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * keep part of a broader pattern. You'd have to establish why to delete all of the time-in-country cats; otherwise per smallcat there is an exception and this one can stay.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * comment also can you please group these together so people can !vote on them as a group? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. And are these part of an "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"? Particularly since most of the articles in'em should properly be redirected to the relevant capital cities? And what is the point of having a cat with 1 entry? The lowest unit of a categorization scheme is an article, not a cat.  Volunteer Marek   18:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, when you have cats like Category:Time_in_Australia with 17 members, which groups together timezone articles for Australia, per SMALLCAT, you can have the other countries as well, even if they will always be small. It's just a standard practice.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * SMALLCAT allows for categories that would otherwise be deleted as part of a larger category structure but it doesn't require them. As I noted above, the contents of this structure are rather suspect IMHO based on the number of categories that consist of nothing but a stub article on the country's tz database entry. That there are some legitimate "Time in COUNTRY" categories doesn't mean we have to have ~300 other single-stub-entry categories for every other country on Earth. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The smallcat policy needs to be reviewed. This is another example of is silly application. English Popes and Argentinian Popes are other classics. Just because it may be permitted, doesn't mean that it must be permitted. Sensible clumping of single-member articles into a container clump (e.g. "Popes by sundry countries", "Time by sundry countries") ought to be the way forward. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The other issue here is that most of those two sentence stub articles that exhaust each of these "Time in..." categories need to be simply combined into one single list article or made into redirects to the articles on capitals of the relevant countries.  Volunteer Marek   20:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete four that were mentioned, because this is pushing smallcat too far. "And most of the other junk in Category:Time by country" isn't specific enough; you need to list the pages or give obvious criteria (e.g. "All category members with fewer than X contents") before we can do anything about them.  Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How about all category members with three or fewer articles?  Volunteer Marek   18:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories other than those specifically tagged as part of this nomination cannot be considered as part of the nomination. A separate nomination is required, but I'd suggest holding off on making it until this one concludes. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into a continental category. with a few exceptions categories such as this will never be adequately populated to make a worthwhile category, so we should not keep it, but equally plain deletion would not be right either. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Nominated articles, these take the small cat rules too far. The attempt by Laurel Lodged to advocate for a position on a different issue that has been turned down in multiple discussions is clearly out of line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 8 December 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.