The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename Category:Property owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Properties of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Foo of ... matches other subcats of Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Property owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Properties of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Trying to make long name simpler and less wordy. Snocrates 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints properties is shorter still. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

All categories that use the name of the LDS Church use the captial-T "The", much to my chagrin. For consistency, your proposal should probably be Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints properties? I'd be more than happy to ditch the "The" in the categories where it makes sense to remove them, but I think that should involve a more expansive discussion of Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its subcategories. Snocrates 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Shōjo-ai ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The Category:Shōjo-ai is just a duplication of Category:Yuri. Forthermore, Shōjo-ai redirects to the Yuri (term) article, which explains that the name of the genre and themes involving attraction between women, whether sexual or romantic, explicit or implied, in Japanese entertainment media ( manga, anime, etc) is called Yuri, while Shōjo-ai is just a western coined term which doesn't represent the whole meaning of the subject. The term Shōjo-ai is not used in Japan in relation to this kind of media, and English publishers like Seven Seas Entertainment don't use that term either. In fact, Seven Seas has a specialized line for this kind of manga, and they refer to it as Yuri. Therefore, I suggest deletion of this category. Kazu-kun ( talk) 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per redundancy with Category:Yuri, which all encompasses any girl-girl pairing from anime/manga series.-- 十 八 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete, while in America there is considered there to be a difference between yuri and shojo-ai in terms of explicitness, the terms are not universally applied and contradict the Japanese meansing, so yuri should be used by itself to ensure neutrality. Collectonian ( talk) 00:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Two categories with the same subject typically need a merger. Since this one contains no articles in its current state, just delete it. Dimadick ( talk) 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename Category:Military organizations by year of establishment to Category:Military units and formations by year of establishment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Military organizations by year of establishment to Category:Military units and formations by year of establishment

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To differentiate between organizations related to the military (but not of the military) and the organization of the military in units units and formations. Jaraalbe ( talk) 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment Is this really a useful categorisation at all? Are there really none established between 1959 and 2007? The category name is enough of a mouthful already without making it longer. Either keep it as it is or delete the whole tree. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

There are plenty of categories to be placed in this hierarchy, including between 1957 and 2007, but I was awaiting this discussion before creating any more categories. The proposed category would fit naturally as a sub-category of Category:Organizations by year of establishment and will help the high level category Category:Military history to establish structure by time period. I agree that the category name is slightly long, and if you have a better one please tell us. Please also refer to the discussion on User_talk:Jaraalbe#Military_organizations. Jaraalbe ( talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom; as Jaraalbe points out, there's an intent to create the entire tree, but the category name needs to be fixed to reflect what's actually in it (cf. Category:Military units and formations and its many children). Kirill 04:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename Category:Styles to Category:Styles (manners of address). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Styles to Category:Styles (manners of address)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To clarify meaning of an ambiguous word which could mean a number of things. Main article is at Style (manner of address). Snocrates 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Rename per nom, many uses of Style. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename Category:State of the Union to Category:State of the Union addresses. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:State of the Union to Category:State of the Union addresses

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity and to mirror main article State of the Union Address. We can debate whether "addresses" should be capitalized. I would say no, because the main article seems to say that the formal name is "State of the Union". Snocrates 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Rename per nom, for clarity, so Rhode Island isn't added for it surely is a state of the Union. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• 'Rename per nom for clarity. (The other kind of "states" of the union would be: broke, at war, depressed, really pissed off, etc....) -- Lquilter ( talk) 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was keep as is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Energy in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Energy in Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Although I understand the logics to have separate categories for Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, in this case it creates only confusion. At the moment, the categorization into one or another category doesn't have any system. Same applies also to the subcategories of these parent categories. Beagel ( talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Merging there is indeed a logic for having these cats separately - one refers to the whole island (ie including Northern Ireland), the other refers to the state of the Republic of Ireland only. To merge them means if you want to find out only about the Republic in one cat, you can't. I accept there is as yet no full separation of all cats in this way, but I have been trying to get them separated for some time. It's the right thing to do, so lets not do the wrong thing, just because we haven't got all cats right yet. Help us get all the other relevant cats separated instead. Ardfern ( talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Merging per Ardfern. The parenting of categories may not be perfect in every case (thoiugh this one looks fine), but nearly all subcats of Category:Ireland are divided into foo-in-Northern-Ireland and foo-in-the-Republic-of-Ireland categories. In any case, energy markets are controlled and taxed by national governments, so the issues in the Republic are difft to those in Northern Ireland. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose merger - Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. Eire is only part of Ireland. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose merger - For the reasons above (excepting Peterkingiron's error) and for the fact that such a merger will trigger more "troubles" type edit warring. ( Sarah777 ( talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Shōjo-ai as a minor theme ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Shōnen-ai as a minor theme ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The categories Shōjo-ai and Shōnen-ai represent known genres of Japanese anime that deserve categories as would other forms of art that are exclusively known for having homosexual themes. The problem is that if we start making categories such as Shōjo-ai as a minor theme it opens the door to subjective interpretations of forms of art as to whether it has homosexual themes and more importantly, whether it is truly intended or just a minor interpretation. Therefore, I suggest deletion of these categories to prevent the opening of a pandora's box of subjective interpretations of anime and other media. Gdo01 ( talk) 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• deletion by nom., as well as Category:Shōjo-ai, which is just a duplication of Category:Yuri. As the Yuri (term) article explains the name of the genre is Yuri, and Shōjo-ai is just a western coined term, which doesn't represent the whole meaning of the subject. Even English publishers like Seven Seas Entertainment use the term Yuri to refer to their Yuri manga line. The case with Shōnen-ai is different because, unlike Shōjo-ai, it's used by Japanese and English publishers. Kazu-kun ( talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Completely non-notable category, may we well have "TV shows that have guns", "Shows where someone swears" or the like. The fact it states "as a minor theme" just says it all. Plus the majority of the shows the creator has added the cat to don't use it as a theme, some contain one or two instances, some none at all. Ben W Bell talk 23:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete both, non-notable and being used far too much to make subjective interpretations about character relations and fan-desires rather than what what the show actually says. Also agree with Ben on issue of it being "minor". Collectonian ( talk) 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete both, since both are repetative with other already established categories, and who is to judge whether something is minor or not?-- 十 八 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Both All reasons above. SuperGodzilla 2090 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Entirely subjective. -- Masamage ♫ 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge Category:Yuri and Category:Shōjo-ai. TigressofIndia ( talk) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete both as redundant and pointless. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete both . Per Juhachi. Distictions between major or minor themes are way too specific and subjective. Dimadick ( talk) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose for Deletion Category lacks significance to exist. Possibily created due to fan's vanity. Contains only very few article with very narrow application.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 19:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete unwarranted eponymous category. LeSnail ( talk) 04:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per LeSnail, and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete unnecessary eponymous category. Maralia ( talk) 05:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was relisted on jan 22. Kbdank71 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Australian Aboriginal words and phrases to Category:Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Some editors have apparently misinterpretted the category as being for "words used by Aborigines" or "words for Aboriginal things" (e.g. bush medicine, honeypot ant have been added to the category). Ptcamn ( talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete' as categorization by name. I have no problem with a category of things from Australian Aboriginal culture, but a category for things that happen to be called in English by names derived from one of the Australian Aboriginal languages is improper categorization. These topics have no more in common with each other than they do with, say, bush medicine or honeypot ant. LeSnail ( talk) 04:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• So are you saying that the parent cats: Category:Australian Aboriginal languages or Category:Words and phrases by language will cater for the words and phrases subcats? Three of those subcats will have no parent cat if this is deleted? Sting_au Talk 06:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• • • • Not really. I'd like to see them deleted too. A quokka is not a Nyungar word or phrase; it is a small, brown, fuzzy animal. The fact the the word quokka comes from Nyungar is not a defining aspect of quokkas. If their name happened to be derived from Dharuk, they would not then have more in common with koalas. LeSnail ( talk) 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per LeSnail, the origin of various words makes good articles, but a poor basis of categorization of items. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. I see no reason to deprive Category:Words and phrases by language of an Australian Aboriginal sub-cat. Discuss that head category as a whole, but don't pick off its sub-cats one by one.

The origin of the word quokka is a defining aspect of the word quokka, and I would expect Category:Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin to be on the article quokka. I'm not sure that the sub-cats e.g. Category:Nyungar words and phrases are worth keeping, as they are so small; listify them in the relevant language articles and nominate them for upmerging instead. But keep the nominated category, and remove articles whose titles are English or Latin words. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Update on sub-cats: I have populated the sub-cats as much as I can from internal links. Category:Yagara words and phrases only has two and I suggest nominating it for upmerging, along with Category:Nyungar words and phrases with three. Yagara doesn't even have an article so I've added it at WP:RA. Category:Dharuk words and phrases has eleven now; seems worth keeping, especially as several are well-known words. In case anyone disagrees and wants to nominate it for deletion too, I have also listified it. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. also agree with above comment of not to deprive the parent cat of what I see as a useful subcat. Sting_au Talk 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was merge Category:Iranian Azeri scientists to Category:Iranian scientists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Iranian Azeri scientists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Iranian scientists, ethnicity is irrelevant here. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Snocrates 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom, redundant intersection of ethnicity. Siba ( talk) 00:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge ethnicity is not a basis on which WP should categorize: "here", "there" or "anywhere". Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was merge Category:Mobile phone makers companies to Category:Mobile phone manufacturers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Mobile phone makers companies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Mobile phone manufacturers, a much less awkward name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom and convention. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom - "Manufacturers" fits with most of the subcats in here: Category:Manufacturing companies. Sting_au Talk 07:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge Mathiastck ( talk) 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was merge both into Category:Cities and towns in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Cities and towns in Delhi NCT ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Cities and towns in Delhi, convention of Category:Cities and towns in India by state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge - I assume that the two categories are covering the same territory. However, Delhi is both a city and the name of National Capital Territory (of which it is part). Yesterday, we had a discussion over Utrecht (city) and Utrecht (province). If we are not careful we will get the same problem arising here. However NCT should be expanded, that is, unless its meanins is as well known as the DC suffix for Washington. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge both into Category:Cities and towns in National Capital Territory of Delhi to match the article List of towns in National Capital Territory of Delhi - insertion of the word "the" before National is possibly in order as well. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Shouldn't that be Category:Cities and towns in the National Capital Territory of Delhi? Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge both, expanding the acronym and fixing the grammar, into Category:Cities and towns in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. it appears that the afd'ed articles are going to be merged or deleted. Kbdank71 16:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Episodes of Oz (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Oz (TV series) episodes, convention of Category:Television episodes by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - none of the articles in the category passed WP:NOT#PLOT as they were nothing but plot summaries devoid of real-world content and context. All have been redirected to List of Oz episodes and the category is empty. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• The articles' creator has undone the redirects so now all of the articles are at AFD. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Unattached footballers

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Do we really need a separate category for football players without a current club ( free agents)? There are no categories for NBA/NFL/MLB free agents or golfers without a tour card, which would be similar (and equally unnecessary) categories. Besides, many of the players in the category have been without a club for more than two years and are de facto retired. -- Badmotorfinger ( talk) 13:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category that if of any use would continuously have articles moving in and out of it. Besides being difficult to main, not an encyclopedic distinction in the long term. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - the category sounds like unemployed soccer players to me. It is for their agents to try to get them a cub not WP. If retained, it should be renamed to make clear which of the various "football" sports is meant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete a current category with all the ills inherent in them: maintainability, not defining, usually temporary... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep or at the least listify. I was rather amazed to see that several members all were up to date. We categorize players by club, so should categorise those with no club too. Is "footballers" ambiguous? If so rename. Johnbod ( talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename Category:Parting habits to Category:Parting traditions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Parting habits to Category:Parting traditions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I would have called them Category:Parting conventions or Category:Parting customs but since the main article is at Parting tradition, I can go with that. "Habits" isn't quite as accurate, in my opinion. Snocrates 07:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 21:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename Category:Tongs to Category:Tongs (organizations). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Tongs to Category:Tongs (organizations)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add DAB term so it doesn't look like category is about Tongs. It is actually a category for more than one Tong (organization). I don't think it would be proper to use Category:Tongs (organization) since a single one of these is one organization and one "tong". Snocrates 07:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 21:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Crip Sets to Category:Crips sets

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Gang is the "Crips", not the "Crip". "Sets" do not need capitalization. Both changes qualify as a speedy-rename but since there are two changes it comes here. Snocrates 07:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete; I think that Category:Crips isn't so large to be split this way, but if kept, a rename as nominated is correct stylistically. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Crips. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename Category:MS-13 to Category:Mara Salvatrucha. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:MS-13 to Category:Mara Salvatrucha

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. "MS-13" is one of the abbreviations for this gang, the Mara Salvatrucha. Snocrates 07:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Darkwing Duck video games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization. A very broad category that isn't likely to get populated ever. RobJ1981 ( talk) 03:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep It has two articles and lets them use this single category instead of three separate categories: Disney video games, Video games based on television programs, and Darkwing Duck. The first two of those have a number of similar subcategories. I might see a point in deletion if there were but a single article in the category, but with 2 articles and a large number of similar categories, it's an obvious keep for me. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Over cat. Yes, you can use categories to eliminate multiple categories in articles. But only two members is simply too small. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete OCAT. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Central North Island, New Zealand ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Currently a subcat of Category:Regions of New Zealand, but it is not one of the 16 official Regions of New Zealand. From the description, it seems as if this is part of Waikato Region so propose upmerging the articles and categories here to Category:Waikato. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Since knowledgeable editors have indicated that it is not entirely in Waikato, I'm changing my opinion from upmerge to plain deletion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• This is not entirely part of the Waikato, but includes parts of Manawatu-Wanganui and it may include parts of Hawke's Bay. Moving the articles contained to a single category as suggested would not be suitable. Category:Taupo District could become a subcat of Waikato. I'm not sure whether this category is useful - no vote.- gadfium 05:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• As the creator of the category, several years back, I'll add two cents to this. The area overlaps several distinct administrative regions - it's mainly in Waikato and Bay of Plenty, but also includes parts of Manawatu-Wanganui, Hawke's Bay and Gisborne. It was created mainly because the region is geographically separate, even if not administratively separate, from the rest of these regions. I actually suggested deletion of this category myself at WPNZ about a year back, but several editors responses that they found it useful. If they had not, I would have nominated it here myself before now. As such, weak delete, but no merger, since there will need to be sorting of articles into their correct categories. Grutness... wha? 07:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete user-created region, not government defined or definable in objective NPOV way. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Taper-friendly musical groups ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not defining trait of musical groups or are we going to start naming names on the other side: Category:Musical groups who have been plaintiffs in file sharing lawsuits? No, because that's not particularly defining either. I seem to recall a similar set of categories about authors and their views on fan fiction, but could find that these had been discussed before. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I am also nominating Category:Taper-friendly musicians.
• Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete both - per nom as non-defining. Also POV in deciding what constitutes being "friendly" to tapers. I spotted these a while back but never got to nominating them. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete both per nom and Otto LeSnail ( talk) 03:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.