Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 5

< August 4	August 6 >

August 5

Category:Medieval physicians of Croatia

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Medieval physicians of Croatia to Category:Medieval Croatian physicians

Category:Medieval physicians of England to Category:Medieval English physicians

Category:Medieval physicians of France to Category:Medieval French physicians

Category:Medieval physicians of Iraq to Category:Medieval Iraqi physicians

Category:Medieval physicians of Italy to Category:Medieval Italian physicians

Category:Medieval physicians of Persia to Category:Medieval Persian physicians

Category:Medieval physicians of Portugal to Category:Medieval Portuguese physicians

Category:Medieval physicians of Spain to Category:Medieval Spanish physicians

Category:Medieval physicians of Syria to Category:Medieval Syrian physicians

Category:Medieval physicians of Tunisia to Category:Medieval Tunisian physicians

Category:Medieval physicians of Central Asia to Category:Medieval Central Asian physicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standardize on form for this category and related ancient category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. This is part of a group that have recently been subject to tidying. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose The suggested change could, in many instances, result in a misleading description of physicians listed in the relevant category. For example the Medieval physicians of Spain includes, and is intended to include, physicians who lived at some time in Spain, whether Spanish, Arab, Moorish, Jewish or Italian, some of these would also appear under say, Italy, France or Egypt (the latter not listed above). The Medieval physicians of Iraq, would likewise include not just Iraqi physicians, in the usual understanding of the term Iraqi (being a term that did not exist until the twentieth century and accordingly is not really applicable to the medieval period), but also Greek, Arab, Kurdish, Assyrian, Armenian, Jewish and Persian physicians who lived at some time in the region now known as Iraq. The Medieval physicians in England category includes at least one Portuguese physicians who spent some years in England, but who would not normally be considered an "English physician". Similar arguments can be made in all cases.Davshul (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Northland, New Zealand

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:

--Xdamr^talk 23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Northland, New Zealand to Category:Northland Region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following discussion at the Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board, we've more or less agreed to make the names of the categories and articles relating to New Zealand's regions as uniform as possible. Rather than present one enormous group nomination which could turn into a trainwreck, it's probably easier to work one smaller chunks, region by region (consider this one a "test case", perhaps). Here's instalment one: Northland. Apart from the main category there are three subcategories:

FWIW, the main article is at Northland Region, a name which is unique worldwide as far as I can ascertain ("Northland" by itself is not unique, of course). Grutness...wha? 23:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand#Regional categories and articles.-gadfium 00:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support; a good idea to get these standardized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nomination 03:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs)
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ancient physicians

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ancient physicians of Egypt to Category:Ancient Egyptian physicians

Category:Ancient physicians of Syria to Category:Ancient Syrian physicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To follow the form of the other subcategories and better match the name with that used in one of its parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. This is part of a group that have recently been subject to tidying. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose The suggested change would result in a misleading description of physicians listed in the relevant categories. For example the Ancient physicians of Egypt includes, and is intended to include, physicians who lived at some time in Egypt, whether Egyptian, Roman or Greek, some of these would also appear in other categories. The Ancient physicians of Syria, would likewise include Greeks, Romans and others, there being no distinct Syrian nationality ar the time.Davshul (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Johns Hopkins Hospital patients

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete:

Category:Johns Hopkins Hospital patients
Category:Deaths at Johns Hopkins Hospital

--Xdamr^talk 17:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. For the people included in these categories, they are not particularly defined by being hospitalized, let alone for being hospitalized in (or dying in) a particular hospital. These are the only categories of their kind, as far as I can tell. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being treated at or dying in a particular medical facility is not defining of the individual. While generally speaking a person is likely to die in only one medical facility (if at all), one may be treated in countless facilities, leading to category clutter were this to be implemented. Otto4711 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not defining characteristic. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete but~~ Replace When I discovered the category Johns Hopkins Hospital patients, it had just one article. I tried to improve it by adding more articles to it. All this time, I actually did wondered about the validity and did kind of agree with the nom's rationale, though I do not agree with the part "these are the only categories of their kind, as far as I can tell" as a reason for deletion because there is always a first for everything. Still, a small number of these patients are indeed notable only for being patients at JHH, even possibly for dying there. It may be worth creating another subcategory of CAT:JHH that deals with breakthrough treatments at JHH, which often, these patients are notable for. Prior to deletion, we should find some alternative category for some of these subjects that we can agree on and place them in there.Sebwite (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at all of the articles currently in the categories and none of the subjects are notable solely for being a Johns Hopkins patient or dying there. If someone is truly notable only for having undergone medical treatment at JH, then per WP:BIO1E they probably do not pass our notability guidelines and just a brief biographical sketch should probably be included in the article about the medical procedure. Otto4711 (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, the issue is not if an individual is "notable solely for being a Johns Hopkins patient or dying there", which appears to imply that an article can have one, and only one, category. The question is if the individual's treatment or death at the hospital is defining for the individual. There are certainly circumstances where this can be the case if there was a unique aspect of their care (or lack thereof) at a hospital -- such as for Libby Zion regarding her care at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital -- but for most individuals it isn't. Looking through many of the articles, Johns Hopkins is mentioned, but no more than that. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about being notable solely based on being a JHH patient or dying at JHH does not "imply that an article can have one, and only one, category". A little more careful read of the discussion would show that it was in response to Sebwite's suggestion that some of the people already in these categories are notable only for their association with JHH. Otto4711 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-defining, trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Solomon Islander people by ethnic or national origin

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Solomon Islander people by ethnic or national origin to Category:Solomon Islands people by ethnic or national origin for consistency, unattractive though it is... --Xdamr^talk 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Solomon Islander people by ethnic or national origin to Category:Solomon Islands people by ethnic or national origin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per standard usage in subcategories of Category:Solomon Islands people. "Solomon Islander" is a noun but not an adjective. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with considerations of English language put forward by nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Solomon Islanders by ethnic or national origin. "People" is redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant as well. I overlooked the "people". Debresser (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a rename would depart from the norm: overwhelmingly, the first-level subcategories of Category:People by ethnic or national origin use "Fooian people", as do the subcategories of Category:People by nationality and Category:People by ethnicity. One reason is that not all nationalities or ethnicities have a handy term that can be used as a noun. What is a collective noun for French people? "Frenchmen"?; "Frenchpersons"? We've already decided repeatedly to avoid using "Britons" instead of "British people", so I'd prefer to keep some degree of consistency in this matter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Palestinians and the United Nations

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Palestinians and the United Nations to Category:Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. --Xdamr^talk 23:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Palestinians and the United Nations to Category:Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm suggesting that this category be named after the main article Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. It may not be the best possible name for the article, but it is clear that somehow the category name needs to include "Israel", not just "Palestine" or the "Palestinians", since Israel is a UN member and many of the articles in the category explicitly deal with UN actions involving the state of Israel. For example, a subcategory is Category:United Nations resolutions concerning Israel. At this point, I feel matching to the article is the best solution, then if the article name changes we can reconsider. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support best idea:NPOV and reflects the main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whereas the word "Palestinians" is currently accepted as describing the Palestinian Arabs, the word "Palestine" is far less precise, as there is currently no state or administrative unit of that name. Furthermore, the geographical term "Palestine" covers an area that includes all of present-day Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza Strip (and, according to some definitions, much of Jordan). If to be renamed, I suggest "Israel, the Palestinians and the United Nations". Davshul (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply In that case, "Israel, the Palestinian territories and the United Nations" is another option, I suppose, with a possible advantage in that the first two terms are geographical entities. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Having regard to the extensive discussion and dispute on the discussion page of Palestinian territories regarding the term, I believe that the term "Israel, the Palestinians and the United Nations" is far less contentious. Davshul (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, the UN officially refers to "Palestine". Also, much of the content of the category involves UN action prior to the existence of either the state of Israel or the Palestinian territories, when the land was usually referred to simply as "Palestine". The contents of the category refer to the land and the people on it, not just the people on it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see on the article talk page that the idea of changing the title to "Palestinians" has been raised several times, and as recently as four days ago, without consensus. User:Alansohn has repeatedly raised the point in CfDs that category names should follow parent article names, and while I do not know if that would be his position in this particular case, it seems a wise course to follow. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a delicate topic, to be sure. In this case, I agree that we probably can't do better than following the article name, since whatever is the chosen name will be bound to be controversial. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:University of Chicago linguists

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:University of Chicago linguists to Category:University of Chicago faculty and Category:Linguists. --Xdamr^talk 23:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:University of Chicago linguists to Category:University of Chicago faculty and Category:Linguists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Per WP:OC#NARROW, this qualifies as an overly narrow intersection category, I believe. As far as I can see, the two noted existing categories convey the meaning of this category, so there is no need for the intersection category. (LMBM2012 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom; we don't want to start this sort of grouping. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. But the category is not tagged. Occuli (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep and Renominate The category under consideration here has not been tagged. While we generally do a poor job of reaching out to those who might have an interest in discussing the merits of the category, the failure to tag the category as being up for discussion irreversibly damages any result here. This nomination should be closed as a procedural keep and this should be reconsidered after a nomination has been properly submitted. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Category is now properly tagged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Smithing gods

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. --Xdamr^talk 17:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Smithing gods to Category:Smithing deities

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge due to over-categorization. Wizard191 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge This category is part of a rather well-defined parent Category:Gods by association, which uses the standard "Foo gods" as used here for all of its 38 other subcategories. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge – I'm not sure how overcategorisation has any bearing on this; and Alansohn's remarks are persuasive. Occuli (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge Like the kings & queens categories, there is obvious utility in collecting such categories by gender, with deity categories by type also, and this is how the whole tree is arranged. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Smithing goddesses

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. --Xdamr^talk 17:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Smithing goddesses to Category:Smithing deities

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge due to over-categorization. Wizard191 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge This category is part of a rather well-defined parent Category:Goddesses by association, which uses the standard "Foo goddesses" as used here for all of its 37 other subcategories. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge – per gods. Occuli (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - regardless of the development of the sub-categorization scheme, the relevant guideline here is WP:CATGRS. Under this guideline categories based on sex are discouraged unless the sex-based classification has a specific relation to the topic. There is such a specific relationship in the case of gendered deities. Countless books have been written on the subject of paganism and goddess-worship. The parent Category:Goddesses was discussed about two years ago with a pretty clear consensus to keep. Sub-categorizing by type or area of concern is a reasonable division of that parent. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge – per gods & Otto. Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To a brave new world of gods and Otto! Otto4711 (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Communist human experimentation

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: Speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard; category created by banned user. NAC. Otto4711 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Terrible unneeded POV nonsense. The fact that the countries experiment on humans has nothing to do with communism. Delete Triplestop x3 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. No connection between my opinion on this nomination and the one below. They are completely different cases. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Communist countries were and are involved in human experimentation. It is similar to Category:Nazi human experimentation. By the rationale given by the nom, we can say Nazi human experimentation had nothing to do with theoretical Nazism. -- Joklolk (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC) This user is a banned troll. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Joklolk (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC):* I would like to see some sourcing that indicates a lead article for Communist human experimentation could be written along the lines of the Nazi article. I would also like to see sourcing that indicates that human experimentation carried out under diverse Communist regimes is related to one another. Is there sufficient relationship between, say, North Korean experimentation and that of Laos, the Soviet Union and Cuba to warrant a unified parent category? Were doctors working in concert under any sort of united plan of action, or even aware of what other Communist states were doing? Otto4711 (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until such time as we get satisfactory answers to Otto's questions above, which I doubt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Communist terrorism by country

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: Speedily deleted by J.delanoy as a creation by a banned troll in a blatant attempt to troll. Triplestop x3 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This includes all subcategory members. What the communists did does not fall under terrorism and it seems terrible uneducated to call it such. This is highly POV and propoganda, please delete Triplestop x3 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of these categories probably meant Category:Terrorism committed by communist organisations. I would not consider such a name POV. In general, I do not agree with the tendency of Wikipedia editors to avoid the word "terrorism". Just that utmost care has to be taken to use it only where justified. Whether that provision is provided in this case, I do not know. I am just addressing the general question of the desirability of a category named Category:Terrorism committed by communist organisations. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Communist terrorism is a fact and several countries are affected by communist terrorism. These categories only includes organization which are classified as terrorist groups. It is similar to Category:Islamic terrorism. --Joklolk (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Joklolk (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we've seen this before, categorization used to circumvent past consensus to categorize along lines of designations, not characterizations. 'terrorism' is highly subjective (see WP:TERROR), and the only way to do NPOV categorization is to categorized by formal designations. --Soman (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Reading the articles in the categories shows what is going on here and it is terrorism under the WP definition and common usage. Hmains (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I mistakenly named Category:Communist terrorism by Greece instead of Category:Communist terrorism in Greece. Please rename this category. Joklolk (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For example the Malayan Crisis of the 1950s was a conflict between the British military and insurgents (mostly ethnic Chinese) who were referred to as "Communist terrorists". No doubt they claimed to be freedom fighters. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've pretty much put your finger on the problem with the category. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter or Hero of the Revolution. Otto4711 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:InuYasha characters

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 into Category:InuYasha. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category should be merged with its parent category as it contains only one entry (a list of characters). It is unlikely that more entries will be added. G.A.S ^talk 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why not simply recat the single article and leave the cat empty for 4 days? --Farix (Talk) 18:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emptying the category and then nominating for a speedy is considered a subversion of the full CfD process. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see why it would be subversive, since its a simple cleanup matter that has a snowball's chance of being opposed. --Farix (Talk) 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most C1s are now getting a closer look to see if they were emptied out of process. If they were, they are generally brought here for a discussion. Not every category has remained deleted. Some deletions have been overturned. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm still not seeing how moving the "List of" article to the main category and letting C1 take its course is subversive or why a CfD is even necessary for this sort of cleanup. --Farix (Talk) 01:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment recat list under Category:InuYasha and turn this into a race between CSD and CFD. XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:WikiProject Deletionism participants

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Deletionism participants to Category:WikiProject Deletion participants

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The WikiProject has been named WikiProject Deletion for years. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletionism redirects there. It's time the participant category was renamed accordingly. Jafeluv (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Category should match the project page's title. — Σxplicit 18:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent project. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious agree. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Category name should match project name. VegaDark (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.