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.
Delete as a small category that is never going to get any larger. Lafe Smith (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLafe Smith has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for being a sock puppet. OCNative (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to prevent confusion and make a category for article related to the TV show. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I placed all the GW articles into the suggested category, I hope it's okay. You can delete the old one, it's empty. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not OK. You shouldn't empty categories that are in the middle of a discussion. I've put the two correctly categorized articles back into the original category and taken out the ones that weren't correctly categorized. Lafe Smith (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2011 (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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are for the whole of Stirling (council area), not just the city of Stirling. So the name of just "Stirling" is ambiguous and confusing. Vclaw (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with stated reference article. (I'm more dubious about the other proposal for a Category:Stirling (city) as (a) the main article is at Stirling and (b) City of Stirling is another place altogether). AllyD (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (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.
Move the main article instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – there is also Rai, from which it is difficult to support RAI. I would suggest Radiotelevisione Italiana as a suitable name for both article and category. Occuli (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; the organization is universally known as RAI, with the full name being much less familiar. Compare at BBC, EMI, MTV.- choster (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2011 (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 for consistency, although "Norges Statsbaner" sounds cooler.RevelationDirect (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2011 (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.
Can we have a redirect, too? The Magna name is still the most well known, in my experience. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would see no problems with keeping a redirect. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:56, 21 March 2011 (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 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 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 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 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: Correct spelling of Kashmir; also usually "Jammu and Kashmir" not with ampersand Hugo999 (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy this or support. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2011 (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, revisit if main article moves, create sub-categories if necessary. The main article may not be at the best location but that's best decided on that talk page. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious about something in light of the older discussion: has there been any efforts made to move the article about the company to SGI instead of having that page as a disambiguation page? I think there's little doubt that it's an ambiguous abbreviation, so unless it is the primary topic such that SGI is the name of the article or at least redirects to the article rather than a DAB page, it seems to me that this category needs to be at a minimum disambiguated somehow, eg, Category:SGI (company). Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:29, 15 March 2011 (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.
Oppose. Timex is the name of the brand. Timex Group USA is only the American subsiduary. The ultimate holding company is Timex Group B.V.. An alternative name would be Category:Timex Group. Cjc13 (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The category is not a brand category. As labelled is apparently a "conglomerate company" category, which suggests it could be renamed after the Timex Group B.V. But if you want it to be a brand category, it would need to be Category:Timex (brand), since Timex has a number of different meanings. But note that there is no article for Timex (brand) (nor is there one for Timex Group or Timex Group B.V.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles relate to the brand, apart perhaps the utility tool which has few links. I am not aware of any other meanings, as it was a word invented for the brand. On the discussion page of Timex Group USA, it points out the need for an article such as Timex Group, as the holding company has separate activities, so I have created an initial page. Cjc13 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2011 (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. This category is for people who worked for Texas Instruments. I suggest expanding the ambiguous "TI" and using "people", since this is the standard format for people who are connected to a particular company. "Alumni" is usually only used in categories for educational institutions. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:27, 15 March 2011 (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 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 per nom. jonkerz♠ 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename To match main article and not being ambiguous. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2011 (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 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. This is categorizing people who have the last name "Magoon". As far as I can tell, the people so categorized are not of the same family, so renaming this to Category:Magoon family would not be appropriate. This is categorizing unrelated subjects by shared name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fully agreed. Pichpich (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2011 (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 to Category:Arts & Crafts (record label) without prejudice to a further deletion discussion or renaming if the article is moved. There's a feeling that a deletion decision should consider the whole category tree; for the moment renaming is the preferred outcome. There is disagreement over the destination name and the main article has briefly been moved & reverted during the duration of this discussion; for now the main article name is the best tie-breaker but the category can be changed again to follow the article. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Deletion seems like a reasonable option to me but the whole category tree seems to be organized in this way so it should be a separate debate. Pichpich (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the reasons for deletion and will open up a separate discussion shortly for the other categories under the category tree. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Arts & Crafts Productions the actual name of the record label [1]. Is this a renaming or deletion discussion? Argolin (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Rename as above. If the article is renamed, to Arts & Crafts Productions or Arts & Crafts Records someone will have to come back an nominate the category for another renaming? Argolin (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Users can be in favour of renaming, or deletion, or neither. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category, which is not needed. The company is "Arts & Crafts Production" & the actual label "A&C" so the recordings sub should really be renamed to one of these, even if the article stays where it is, to avoid ambiguity. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Shouldn't this discussion be closed, speedily renamed, and added to the current deletion discussion [2]? The banner placed on the category states "This category is being considered for renaming" with no mention of deletion: misleading? As creator of the category, I have no objection to it's renaming per User talk:Good Olfactory#Arts_.26 Crafts Productions. Argolin (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Template:Cfd to the category as well since deletion is a consideration that is in play. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rename to Arts & Crafts Productions similar to Category:Beggars Group. To prevent misleading/ambigious categories, the category should be renamed to Arts & Crafts Productions. The label has a roster of artists and releases albums on their sister/sublabel Arts & Crafts Mexico. Unfortunately, there is not a separate article or even a discography article for the Mexico division the label has established. I have added all artists from Category:Arts & Crafts artists to Category:Arts & Crafts artists which I believe is misleading. Some articles (in the infobox) state that A&C is mexico only. Argolin (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2011 (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.
Comments – the difference seems to be an extra space in those on the left, so one can support this. They are tagged as speedies and are all empty; and the nom (also their creator) has been blocked for unconnected transgressions. All in all, one of the more mysterious appearances at cfd. Occuli (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you Occuli, I've been staring at this for like 2 minutes trying to figure out the difference before I read your comment because my browser evidently ignores the extra space.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm creating categories that will be filled soon (I have a list of articles requiring them), but in the process somehow incorporated an extra space and only noticed after first three. Silly, I know. This edit is just for the sake of accelerating the progress of this administrative change, so I'm abiding by the block of not editing articles. However, if any of you are admins, I would appreciate a review of that block 120.22.136.45 (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm dubious about these categories altogether. Can we just delete them as they are & leave it there? Or perhaps the user would like to make the case for them now. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If its easier to delete, then delete. 120.20.200.248 (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2011 (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.
