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: as per a recent nomination discussion to change 'soccer' to 'football (soccer)'. It was decided that it should be the other way around, 'soccer', as what is described is indoor soccer of the United States and not futsalfive-a-side or other versions of association football played. Another option with even more clarity would be using 'American indoor soccer' yeilding Category:American indoor soccer players by league etc. as the sport arose in the U.S. in the 1970s with NASL indoor and MISL, although the sport is played in Canada and Mexico (And all 'competitions' for American indoor soccer are 'leagues'.) Mayumashu (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This sport is often called "indoor football" in places other than the USA, so why should we pander to the Americans just because they seem to have monopolised the indoor football market? – PeeJay 00:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 00:52, 12 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 14:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Category name does not comply with MOS:JP#Names_of_modern_figures, and is inconsistent with most or all other use of the name in Wikipedia. Nami Tamaki is a modern figure; her name should be in form given name ("Nami") + family name ("Tamaki"). This would also be consistent with the name of the main article, Nami Tamaki. TJRC (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add'l comment by Nom -- the rename would also be consistent with 6½ of the 8 articles in the category (one article uses both forms). All eight once I correct those two. TJRC (talk) 22:45, 6 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:delete. Kbdank71 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The creator did not provide a description, but this appears to relate to the American academic Isaiah Bowman. At the time of nomination, the only article in this category is a project named after him posthumously. I believe it runs afoul of Eponymous categories for people. If kept, it should be renamed and its scope clarified. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a nautical category, nor an archer category. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:42, 10 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:Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Either rename the medalist categories to by nation to match the competitor categories or the competitor categories to by country to match the medalists. Not to fussed either way but we should go for one or other for some sort of consistency. Waacstats (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the medalists cats from "by nation" to "by country". That is standard throughout Wikipedia. Cgingold (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest withdrawing the first two entries, for competitors, since those are already properly named. As I said, "by country" is absolutely standard -- in fact, the medalists cats qualify for SPEEDY RENAMING. Cgingold (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination of the competitor by country cats and will post the medalists by nation for speedy renaming. As per Cgingold. Waacstats (talk) 12:09, 8 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:procedural close, already deleted by User:Lucasbfr (as recreation, I'm guessing). Kbdank71 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The Artists Rifles is a regiment, not a club, so it doesn't have members. In any case, the existing category title is incorrect, since even if the basic wording is kept it should be Category:Members of the Artists Rifles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Artists' Rifles soldiers for the moment, then recategorise those who were officers to theri category. It is not appropriate to ask the closing Admin to undertake the split. Then delete the emptied old category. I think this is/was not a regular regiment, so that an unusual category is perhaps permissible. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 11 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:African American Supreme Court judges[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. Kbdank71 14:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete An even more obvious case than Female Secretaries of State, proposed for deletion earlier this week: a category that has (and could only have, at this time) two members, and which is highly unlikely to grow any time in the immediate future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dodd (talk • contribs) 12:42, 6 February 2009 Please remember to sign your comments with 4 tildes
Delete - I am a strong supporter of African American occupational categories, but with only two articles, this one is unnecessary. Cgingold (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A category of two entries seems rather useless. Maybe in another 50 years... •••Life of Riley (talk) 23:45, 9 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 Rational: Delete - There is already a category for this topic that is quite full of articles Category:Boinae. Green Squares (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, Keep as a redirect to Category:Boinae by common name. As a matter of fact, we need a whole lot more of these redirect categories using common names, in order to make the whole structure functional -- and usable by the average reader. Cgingold (talk) 20:48, 6 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:Moved to Speedy Renaming. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, gracias. This was my first cfd nomination, so now I know. Cheers. APKis ready for Spring 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've posted it over at Speedy, so I'll just close this out and let it get taken care of there. Cgingold (talk) 22:13, 6 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:delete. Kbdank71 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This could be renamed to Category:Lifeguards, but everyone in the category right now are not notable for being a lifeguard. Right now the category is functioning as a classification system for people's past summer jobs or past employment before they did what they did to become notable. This is kind of like former McDonald's or Burger King employees, both of which were deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just because there's an interesting factoid doesn't mean there needs to be a category for it. A surprising number of well-known people (including one or two Hollywood celebs) actually worked as gravediggers for a short time -- but I would never suggest that we create Category:Gravediggers just so they could all share a common grave-digging category. <sorry, couldn't resist> Cgingold (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. Maralia (talk) 03:50, 7 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:Women state legislators in North Carolina[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:keep. Kbdank71 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Naturally this issue has been discussed on previous occasions, with the existing naming convention being a direct result of the last CFD dealing with this group of categories. The word is very commonly and widely used as an adjective. Please note the word chosen by the following organization: the National Foundation for Women Legislators. Cgingold (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that a corresponding category of "Men state legislators" would sound grating to any mildly-educated speaker of the English language, we do have precedent, and we do have organizations that use the term, as evidenced above. Alansohn (talk) 16:41, 6 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:University of Denver faculty and staff[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:merge. Kbdank71 14:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, This category is essentially a duplicate of Category:University of Denver faculty, and "University of <xxx> faculty" is the much more common naming convention. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 05:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Eastlaw is correct in regards to the common naming convention. APKis ready for Spring 16:25, 6 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.
