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.Petsmart?Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles aren't primarily about the double meaning of their titles, and we generally organize by article subject, not article title. Compare the deletion of Category:Palindromes. Puns is next on the list to go.-choster (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Choster. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 17 February 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:NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series races[edit]
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.
Slight change... meant to CFR to "...Truck Series races", not to "...Truck Series". — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it not be better to drop the sposers name completly, Category:NASCAR Truck Series races. I can't think of any other sporting event where we include the sponsers name. Waacstats (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the truck series, your suggestion might make sense; I have no objection to that change. However, for the two national car-based series, it won't work because there's no nonsponsored name in general use today. In fact, the nonsponsored name "Grand National Series" has been used by BOTH of the car-based series—from 1950 through 1970, it was used by what is now the Sprint Cup Series, and from 1986 to 2003, it was used by what is now the Nationwide Series. — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:33, 17 February 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.
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. Kbdank71 17:32, 23 February 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename - category should specify the medium for clarity. "Musical television episodes" is also fine if people think it reads better. Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Category:Musical television episodes -- yes, it does sound better, and clearer: these are explicitly not episodes of television musicals (not that I can think of any of those). - Fayenatic(talk) 20:37, 16 February 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article of this category was moved, uncontested, from Abortion-related violence to Anti-abortion violence. This category renaming request reflects that move. Also, all articles in this category refer to perpetrators of, specific instances of, and responses to anti-abortion violence. User:Whatever404, 14:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Rename both per nom to the more accurate names proposed by the nominator. Cgingold (talk) 15:26, 16 February 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Rugby union and rugby league are tow different sports and have separate categories for everything including films. There is only one film (Murderball (film)) that would not naturally fit into a league or union category. Unless any more films are made then this category is useless. GordyB (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both sports are forms of rugby football and clearly related. This category serves as a logical parent for the two subcategories, plus any other films (such as Murderball) which would not fit anywhere else. Also a logical child category of Category:Rugby football (we can probably lose Category:Rugby football media, though). Hardly "useless". PC78 (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They are two different sports that just happen to both have "rugby" in their name and there is only one film that cannot fit into either category. Would anybody support a category such as Category:Association and American football films on the grounds that they are both "forms of football".GordyB (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not completely different sports; your comparison with association and American football is rather fallacious. Both rugby union and rugby league are subcategorised under Category:Rugby football – do you have a similar problem with that category? Why should this be any different? PC78 (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are completely different sports, the Rugby football category exists only for article on the pre 1895 sport before "the great schism" and for sports such as Wheelchair rugby that don't neatly fit into either "union" or "league" categories.GordyB (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is like having a Category:Gridiron football films category instead of a Category:American_football_films and Category:Canadian_football_films films categories Gnevin (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For those unaware of the schism between league and union, this is the perfect reference point. League films and union films are already there as subcats, and those film that fit neither code but are clearly related to Rugby (ie Murderball), they have a home. McMuff (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is that a category should have at least three articles to justify its existance. This category has one article and can only have one unless anyone makes a film about underwater rugby (and that is staggeringly unlikely).GordyB (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Even if Murderball is put into its own subcat (ie Wheelchair Rugby Films), it would still fit within an overall 'Rugby Films' cat. Conversely, 'Rugby League Films' and Rugby Union Films' make for pretty small independent cats, but work just fine as subcats in an overall 'Rugby Films' scheme.McMuff (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rugby league films and rugby union films are subcats of rugby league media and rugby union media which are subcats of rugby union and rugby league which are subcats of football. Rugby football just simply doesn't fit into the hierarchy. The people voting "Keep" are those who don't edit these sections and haven't looked into the issues.GordyB (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objective criteria showing how much about the subject the film must be and what WP:RSes will tell us it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 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.
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 each as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles of the Pea Ridge Campaign of the American Civil War[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category has only one entry. McMuff (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. My !vote applies to all of the related Civil War categories below into the recommended categories as well. Scope for original categories is too narrow that they could only contain a single article. Valley2city‽ 06:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Ditto for all similar categories below. Occuli (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Ditto for all similar categories below. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as with similar nominations in recent days. And all similar categories below. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles of the Expedition from Brazos Santiago of the American Civil War[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Again, Category only has one entry. McMuff (talk) 05:36, 16 February 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge to Category:Tajik folk instruments to remove the "s" from Tajik, no consensus on the change to "musical instruments". Kbdank71 17:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Half-support: yes to renaming, to the extent of correcting "Tajiks" to "Tajik"; but the article is very clear that it is about folk music, and there are another 9 cats in the form "Foo folk instruments". If these are to change to "Foo musical instruments", really the whole group needs to be looked at together, and I think I would oppose changing this one on its own. HeartofaDog (talk) 15:10, 19 February 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.
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. Kbdank71 17:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same province, different spelling. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ordinarily, the older, better established/populated category (Category:Ruse Province) would take precedence over the newer one. But the "newer" spelling ("Rousse") appears to be favored in article names, a point in favor of the proposed merger. All the same, I'd like to hear from the older cat's creator before I make up my mind. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm not here in favor of one name over another, just saying that a merge should take place since only one category should exist. The direction of the merge I suggested is such that it is consistent with the current naming of the article. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nom. The main article is Rousse and this spelling is used other article titles. This is a question of the correct transliteration of a name from Cyrillic script. This should be determined by contemporary usage outside WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; if that's where the article is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 18 February 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.
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 per article title. Kbdank71 17:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same province, different spelling. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question who decided that Bamyan is the standard spelling on Wiki? Do we have a reason that someone won't just come back next week and change them all back to Bamiyan? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge - It always helps to review the edit histories for earlier CFDs before opening a new CFD. This issue was settled in the previous CFD for these categories. The same editor has re-created the same category (Category:Bamyan Province) that was merged into Category:Bamiyan Province back in June 2008. Unless Chanheigeorge has a new argument he wishes to make on behalf of using "Bamyan" rather than "Bamiyan", this can be SPEEDY MERGED per the previous CFD. Cgingold (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm not here in favor of one name over another, just saying that a merge should take place since only one category should exist. The direction of the merge I suggested is such that it is consistent with the current naming of the article. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Reverse Merge We have a conflict over the correct spelling of the name of the province in Latin script. The main article is Bamyan Province. The town article also uses this spelling. Transliteration of names from other scripts - in this case Arabic script of Afghanistan - is problematic. Can we find an authoritative source on this? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is an "authoritative source" -- which is why we went with the most commonly used version in the previous CFD. Cgingold (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; that's where the article is and seems to have been steadily since March 2008. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos, when we settled on "Bamiyan" in that CFD last May, it was on the basis of your research & recommendation. So I'm just curious about your change of views. Cgingold (talk) 09:36, 18 February 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:National Basketball Association lore[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete criteria for inclusion is too subjective Mayumashu (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague and subjective inclusion criteria. What constitutes "lore"? Current contents are a mish-mash of players, records and notable games, no unifying categorizable theme. Otto4711 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hard to use this category and not violate POV Valley2city‽ 06:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and purge to conform to the description at Category:Sports lore: "Single events or plays in sports that are memorable and have become part of their sports' history and legend." - Eureka Lott 16:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That description is too POV - have put this page and its subcategories up for nomination on February 17 page Mayumashu (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Category:Sports lore: "Single events or plays in sports that are memorable and have become part of their sports' history and legend;" I suppose this description includes lots of stories which didn't occur on the court itself. It's not exactly a mish-mash either, and please cite some WP:POV guideline(s) if WP:POV is to be included in the discussion, flagrant and superficial mention of a guideline page is unfair and distracting. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of an event on this list, as to an event being deemed "legendary", is determined by strictly by one's POV. Those seen to be historical (=deemed to be notability) belong to a collection of the history of the NBA, and as such should be listed at Category:National Basketball Association. Perhaps a Category:National Basketball Association history is in order, with 'history' taken to mean anytime before the current season? Mayumashu (talk) 17:39, 18 February 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.
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.
Rename logically, this should be a music synthesizer category. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename placing disambiguation items on the top line. I consider disambiguation categories to be unsatisfactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 18 February 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: DeletePapua has a half-dozen geographical meanings. With only one article in the category, it's difficult to guess what the intended scope of this category is. I asked the creator but so far have gotten no response. Stepheng3 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see considerable potential for expansion, and would be delighted to see the category renamed as you suggest. I therefore amend my nomination to Delete or rename. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Bduke. The category has one item, which relates to Indonesian West Papua. It is desirable that we do not have a category that could cover both this and Papua New Guinea in a single category. That would be a recipe for confusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to confuse the issues, but I have changed my mind. The one article is already also the only article in Category:Ethnic groups in Western New Guinea, so that category should be populated and only split into ones for the two provinces if it gets too large. I will do some work on it. So this category can be depopulated and deleted. --Bduke(Discussion) 00:52, 18 February 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.
