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. --Xdamrtalk 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Following up from this discussion, in which we rejected a change from "Kyrgyzstani" to "Kyrgyz" in the name of consistency and it was generally agreed that "Kyrgyz" is an appropriate adjective for an ethnicity and "Kyrgyzstani" is the appropriate adjective for the nationality. The nominated categories are nationality categories, not ethnicity ones. Of course, there will be a great degree of overlap between people who fall into the two classifications, and some of these categories (especially Category:Kyrgyz people) may be able to legitimately be re-created as ethnicity categories, but for now we need to convert them into nationality ones. These are all "people from Kyrgyzstan", not "people of Kyrgyz ethnicity". This proposed system will mirror how things are dealt with re: Category:Kazakhstani people (nationality) and Category:Kazakh people (ethnicity). (For this nomination I haven't included the categories within Category:Kyrgyz culture, which may require a fuller consideration of whether the culture categories are meant to be country or by national ethnic group.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). Since this discussion has not attracted any comments so far, I think it might be appropriate to consider the previous discussion's consensus as support for this nomination. Just a suggestion for a closer. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:59, 18 October 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:Do not rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name seems a tad clunky. Also, aren't BCE and CE preferred over BC and AD? Irbisgreif (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed rename makes it sound like they're time travelers. At any rate, oppose because it follows the conventions observed by every other member of Category:People by century. The use of BC is, for better or for worse, also observed all the way up the category structure to Category:Centuries and all included articles. There's probably a MOS on point somewhere addressing the date issue, as I know I've seen ridiculous edit wars over it. Postdlf (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says you can use either but only one form in an article as I recall. Don't think it mentions category naming. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose
+This would make the category name(s) longer.
+Convention is to begin with the century name in people categories.
+To the contry, Wikipedia policy clearly states that there is no preferrence of BCE/CE over BC/AD or vise versa.
+Per "BC" vs. "BCE" the convention is to follow the pattern of the parent category, which uses BC, as does every other member of Category:People by century.
+Convention is to not change from BC to BCE or vise versa except to follow a convention.
+Use of "from the" would be as if the women are time travelers. Carlaude:Talk 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category follows established naming patterns. Dimadick (talk) 05:11, 9 October 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match name of main article The Specials. --RL0919 (talk) 13:08, 9 October 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:Withdrawn, pending results of TfD for the template that populates it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty; easier to list here than waiting four days since it was just emptied (is there a template somewhere to set a timer for C1 deletion?) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a maintenance category. It is intended to be empty from time to time as issues are addressed (and to fill up as new issues are discovered). bd2412T 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
keep At this time it has 55 articles. Hmains (talk) 03:31, 9 October 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. To match main article and since the contents of the category include more then products with the Ford brand. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 8 October 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:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 11:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete, OCAT. The two included species are widely distributed throughout North America and their articles do not even mention Michigan. The only geographic subcategory of Category:Orthoptera is for Europe. If someone wants to create one for North America, be my guest, but otherwise these are already in Category:Insects of North America so no merging is needed. Postdlf (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles in category are not specific to Michigan, nor is it likely that any significant number Michigan-limited orthoptera articles would ever exist, since insects are not known for respecting human political boundaries. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 11 October 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:Upmerge, OCAT. The only entry does not even mention Michigan; instead, it's an Asian species that was introduced to North America and is now spread throughout the NE United States. Category:Dictyoptera only has subcategories for taxa, none for regions, and certainly none for subnational entities. Postdlf (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. With only one article, the category would hardly be justified even if the article was Michigan-specific, which it isn't. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. I had no idea Michigan had such a vast array of endemic species. Oh yeah, it doesn't. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:10, 20 October 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:Upmerge, OCAT. Neither of the two included articles even mention Michigan, but instead are of much wider distribution; one is even primarily known as a European species. There are no other region-specific subcategories of Category:Arachnids. Aside from Category:Spiders of Chile, the only geographic subcategories of Category:Spiders (which both included "Michigan arachnids" are) are for continents; certainly none for subnational entities. Postdlf (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge for reasons similar to two nominations immediately above. --RL0919 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. I had no idea Michigan had such a vast array of endemic species. Oh yeah, it doesn't. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:10, 20 October 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.
Support merge. The articles have no Michigan-specific content, and I know of no justification for classifying insects based on human political divisions. --RL0919 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. I had no idea Michigan had such a vast array of endemic species. Oh yeah, it doesn't. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:10, 20 October 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:2010 Winter Olympics ice hockey roster templates[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.
The result of the discussion was:speedy delete per author request (G7). JamieS93 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Empty category (replaced by another category). LarRan (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're the author, I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 9 October 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:Keep. --Xdamrtalk 11:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Change from acronym to name of main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename main article), as the current company almost exclusively refers to itself as SGI. In part this is to differentiate "modern" SGI (Silicon Graphics International, the rechristened Rackable Systems) from "historical" Silicon Graphics, Inc.- choster (talk) 16:41, 10 October 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 contents cover the metropolitan area and this is reflected by the parents including Category:Visitor attractions in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. This should not be renamed to indicate it is for the city since only one entry for a defunct coaster is actually in the city. One of the coasters is about 25 miles or so outside of the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 8 October 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 Pittsburgh needing cleanup[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.
The result of the discussion was:delete; category has remained empty. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was populated by {{Cleanup-Pitt}}, a cleanup template used only on The Pitt News at the time. I redirected the template to {{Cleanup}} because its scope seemed too small to have a whole cleanup template, and now this cat is empty. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then wait for four days, and speedy it. You did wisely, especially since the template's creator (who probably was the one who was volunteering to check the category's contents), hasn't been on Wikipedia since April 2008. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know if this would be a controversial discussion because I also redirected the template without discussion; I don't care how the category is deleted, as long as there isn't any major opposition to it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:40, 8 October 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. Category = original research by User:Gospelnous. Category only contains one article. That article also consists of original research by User:Gopspelnous. Citation goes to an unpublished manuscript, a rather thin reed upon which to based a category. I can imagine the the user would like to add articles on various economists like Hayek to the category, but he will most likely fail to obtain consensus since that categorization would also be original research. — goetheanॐ 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better nip this in the bud. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dubious topic with one article. Not useful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 9 October 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.
Merge Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. A sound nomination if I ever saw one. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 8 October 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. Hegel is never referred to as "Georg Hegel". It is either "G.W.F. Hegel" or "Hegel" Google ScholarFrench Wikipedia — goetheanॐ 14:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit unwieldy, but whatever. — goetheanॐ 18:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just "Hegel" is too short. But "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel" is definitely too long. So let's keep what we had. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem being that that's not his name, it's not what people call him, and it makes us look like amateurs. — goetheanॐ 20:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles in the category are not so much about the man as about his philosophy and its legacy. It includes articles about concepts (Aufheben) and about schools of thought which developed after his death (Young Hegelians). So would a renaming to Category:Hegelianism or Category:Hegelian philosophy be more appropriate? AllyD (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Hegelianism per AllyD's suggestion above. Most of the articles appear to be about his ideas and followers more than the person. --RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Renaming to surname would be a very bad precedent, even in cases like Montesquieu; it creates ambiguity and inconsistency, and sets an informal tone. The category should follow the name of the article or default to the full name. I don't understand the "too long" argument; no-one types out category names anyway. So, first preference to Category:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, without objection to Ally's suggestions above. Skomorokh, barbarian 06:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel if at all. If the initialed name is preferred, get the article moved their first. I see no reason to shorten the name to the last name only. "Hegelianism" is OK. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:39, 12 October 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.
I dislike non-standard characters. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match the main article and parent category. --RL0919 (talk) 20:19, 8 October 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.
Comment There is no established convention for that category. The main article is Cinema of Punjab.- choster (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. It's clear that the current name is not how these are named. Whether they should all be "Cinema of Foo" or "Fooian cinema" can be resolved in the future. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Punjwood is hardly used, and merely clone of Bollywood, already causing controversy, plus it only confuse further. --Ekabhishektalk 07:53, 22 October 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/merge per Occuli's suggestion. I realise "international rules players" are how players of this sport are usually colloquially referred to in Ireland, but this is, well, stupid (I'm just feeling very non-eloquent right now, so all the histrionic Wikidramatists out there please don't accuse me of anti-Irishism or other related prejudices, as is your usual practice). They don't play "international rules", they play "international rules football". Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:06, 20 October 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. To match main article, Ibuki-class battlecruiser. Bellhalla (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. After all, a battlecruiser is not a mere cruiser. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main article was just written and it seems that the ship class was a transitional class considered armored cruisers when built, but later re-classed by the Imperial Japanese Navy as battlecruisers (which they were for the majority of their service life). — Bellhalla (talk)
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; category has remained empty and no objections. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The tennis tournament was named Barcelona KIA after a sponsor in 2007 and 2008. It was renamed to Barcelona Ladies Open in 2009. The main article Barcelona Kia was moved but a new category was created instead of renaming the old. Category:Barcelona KIA had two articles and one subcategory. I changed them to Category:Barcelona Ladies Open before officially suggesting this merger. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:27, 8 October 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 both. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. To avoid confusion with the vocal aspirations of the continent. Debresser (talk)
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. To switch from ambiguous name to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. To add to his argument I'd like to point out that Ertl is a disambiguation page. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 8 October 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:No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 11:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: these two seem to be meant for describing the same group of people, and the suggestion here is to merge the considerably less developed 'category tree' into the more developed one Mayumashu (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course typical that the one is not yet categorized under the other as a sub-cat, but i'm not sure a full merge is right. By no means all educationists were or are academics, including many of the most famous like Friedrich Fröbel, A.S. Neill etc. If only to keep it in academics trees, a Rename to Category:Academic educationists & placement as a sub-cat may be best. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 8 October 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.
