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. Categories are both small and there appears to be no navigational need for them. If retained they need to be renamed as Kyle is ambiguous. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If kept, rename to Category:Kyle, Ayrshire, etc. However, the two categories seem to do nothing but refer to each other. Can either be populated? Kyle is a disambiguation page, but Kyle, Ayrshire appears to be the intended main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:40, 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.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus - Noting also that the nominator's premise (that there is "a grand total of three pages between them") is apparently no longer valid. And also that the article is at Strawberry Shortcake, so there doesn't seem to be a need for further disambiguation. - jc37 09:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. With a grand total of three pages between them there is simply no justification for these two categories. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep parent category, at minimum. There were a lot of relevant articles that had been left out; there are now 17 articles between them. Some may be merge candidates, but at least until that is cleaned up this should exist. I also don't know that a separate "films" category is necessary; most of its entries are actually television specials, but as they were otherwise categorized as "films" I put them in the films category...I'll leave it to the experts in this particular area (one I never imagined myself editing in) to determine that. Postdlf (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would just merge the films category into the main category. No need to split up such a small set of articles. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 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:Merge - "radio presenter" is not a term in common usage in the US. American sources do not appear to use the term "radio presenter" when referring to an American radio personality. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Category:American radio hosts. "Radio host" is a term frequently used in US media sources as a google search will confirm. It is more specific than the umbrella term "radio personality" and encompasses the existing subcategories under the "Radio presenter" category.--JayJasper (talk) 16:59, 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.
Category:Native birds of Canadian Prairies Canada[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:Rename to Category:Native birds of the Canadian Prairies. Feel free to renominate to discuss the "larger" questions brought up below. (Or perhaps start a WikiProject discussion somwhere?) - jc37 09:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to remove redundant use of Canadian/Canada. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be "the Canadian Prairies." But as this is an oddball category I wonder if another solution is not more appropriate; there is no Category:Fauna of the Canadian Prairies, so subdividing a particular kind of fauna by that subnational region seems premature. None of the included bird species are endemic to Canada, let alone the Canadian Prairies, and most are also included in Category:Birds of Canada. So listifying/upmerging there would probably be the best. If we're just renaming though, I question whether "native" really adds anything here. Category:Birds of the Canadian Prairies is my preferred rename. Postdlf (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the "the" of course but I see that Native is used elsewhere, and so is "Endemic". Go up to the North American level and you'll see them. So we have categories with just Birds, some Native, some Endemic. Endemism in birds has some detail on this. It's all a bit to complicated for me; I just wanted to remove a repetition! Oh well...Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Endemic" means it's only found there, which doesn't apply to any of this category's contents. "Native" just means not introduced, which is an irrelevant distinction if the point of this category is to collect all of the wild birds extant in the region. Postdlf (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to remove "Canada" and to add "the". Whether to have "native" or nothing, I don't know, but not "endemic" per Postdlf. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I don't need to vote on these categories:The birds aren't going to leave these areas because of what some voter's vote-(If "individuals" hide the travellings of the Franklin's Gull from common knowledege-(into the Canadian Prairies), then it should be in your karma, not mine.))—As the creator of some of these original "Bird Categories", one of the difficulties was figuring out the correct name: An example recently Category:Birds of Baja Peninsula Mexico recognizes the indistinction of Baja Norte, versus B.Calif.Sur-(it was just made a Turkish Category); other birds are of the [Sea of Cortez], or cross over the Sea to Baja (only some select migrants). I only did categorization from the bird maps, and many things fell out naturally. The only solution to the birds of the Southwest (of North America, and northern and northwwestern Mexico) is that they are specifically: Category:Endemic birds of Southwestern North America. (they don't recognize the U.S.-Mexico border). ,,,,--Mmcannis (talk) 23:33, 23 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: Do we really need this? A category for victims of acid attacks?? Yossiea(talk) 14:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's not a very convincing case for deletion, IMO. Category:Victims does feature categories on victims of other types of attacks and you haven't convinced me why acid attacks should be any different, particularly when they do seem to be used by some groups to disfigure and intimidate victims, as in the acid attacks on school girls in Afghanistan. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a distinctive and easily definable grouping. Compare with other subcategories of Category:Victims. Postdlf (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining characteristic. Lugnuts (talk) 17:21, 21 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:Towns and villages in Chiniot District[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 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 10:32, 28 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. Far too open ended category. Based on the current contents, absolutely any geographic region or regions could be placed in there. MRSC (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Vernacular geography is the subject of academic study. While care must be taken, it is an appropriate categorisation for such subjects as Provinces of Sweden and Districts of Norway; geographical designations universally used in those countries but which do not fit in any existing category (they are not administrative nor judicial divisions, for example).
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. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename "U.S." should not be an initialism. Proposed name is currently a category redirect. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 06:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Normally we don't allow country abbreviations in category names, but I think "U.S." when used as an adjective can be an exception to this, since "American" doesn't always suggest exactly what is intended. If it's going to be used, then certainly it should be "U.S." and not "US". Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 21 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:Outlines of territorial evolution of US states[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:RENAME per nom. postdlf (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename "U.S." should not be an initialism. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 06:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Normally we don't allow country abbreviations in category names, but I think "U.S." when used as an adjective can be an exception to this, since "American" doesn't always suggest exactly what is intended. If it's going to be used, then certainly it should be "U.S." and not "US". Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to United States. No reason why this shouldn't be spelled out. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd probably need to say "states of the United States" because "United States states" might not be ideally clear. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:05, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME per nom. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename "U.S." should not be an initialism, and this name is more accurate. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 06:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Normally we don't allow country abbreviations in category names, but I think "U.S." when used as an adjective can be an exception to this, since "American" doesn't always suggest exactly what is intended. If it's going to be used, then certainly it should be "U.S." and not "US". Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to United States. No reason why this shouldn't be spelled out. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd probably need to say "states of the United States" because "United States states" might not be ideally clear. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:05, 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete per previous CFDs (one, two, three) which have found "ship class by country" and "ship class by navy" categories redundant. All members of each category are appropriately categorized already, so if consensus is to delete, no re-categorization is necessary. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per previous discussions. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless there is a collection of savage songs that I'm not aware of, there shouldn't be much worry of the ambiguity here. According to the WP:Songs#Categorization, "the artist name in 'Category:<Artist name> songs' should be the same as the name in the title of the article (minus any disambiguation)". I have no problem if consensus says otherwise, however. --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Strike and change to Rename per the find of the Savage (band) article as pointed out by Good Ol'factory. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Since there is a band called "Savage"—Savage (band)—this rename seems to me like a fairly obvious one to make. Savage the band presumably had some songs, too, so we can't assume that "Savage songs" refers to the rapper's songs. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. 'Savage songs' has any number of possible meanings. 78.150.174.170 (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – and all the similar ones below (to match main article) unless otherwise specified. Occuli (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this and all anime/manga cats below per nom (no opinion on the band etc. cats). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per main article and other comics artists categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Do we really have c220 notable ones??? Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the penciller is the "main" artist and in some cases writes or co-writes. Many of these notable pencillers also ink there own work or have inked in the past-- resulting in many "notable" inkers-- I would guess. Carlaude:Talk 15:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main (and only?) article Basilisk (manga). Basilisk is not about manga, and the word is otherwise ambiguous: Basilisk (disambiguation). I'm also fine with deletion if consensus rests there since the category only has one article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's one other article which could be added to this category, but I don't think it's enough to justify keeping it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:41, 23 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; no consensus for deletion, but feel free to relist. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the four articles are all easily interlinked through the main article and each other. Category is not needed for navigating between them. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - while there are only four articles at present, there is immediate potential for a fifth, and I'd expect another article or two after cleanup and expansion; there's quite a bit of stuff in the Black Jack franchise. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:44, 23 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. postdlf (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article Sandro Botticelli. For eponymous categories for individuals, it's normal practice to have the article name and the category name the same. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Merge Not so sure about this - it was decided a while ago to keep his paintings as Category:Botticelli paintings with no Sandro, against the usual pattern. He is usually referred to just by the surname, and very many people won't know his first name. In fact there is no need for the category, which contains only a list that can go in the paintings sub-cat, & the main article, which is linked there. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a "no consensus" decision, so I wouldn't take it as reflective of any consensus. Besides, that was almost 2 years ago, and you guys were crazy back then. :) Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're still crazy, & the fact is you will hardly ever find an art history book talking about a "Sandro Botticelli painting" - that would be Time Magazine. But the category should be downmerged anyway. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, a general encyclopedia is probably more Time and less Jansen History of Art in its approach. A general rule that categories that refer to people should use the same name format as the main article about the person would be nice. If the article moves to Botticelli then it would make more sense. (Not many academic books would refer to the philosophy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, but there you go.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We must be editing different encyclopedias if you think "a general encyclopedia is probably more Time and less Jansen History of Art" - Jansen is a very basic text indeed, & Time should not even be an RS on this. But as I keep saying, the category should be deleted anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 3 November 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. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article Gian Lorenzo Bernini. For eponymous categories for individuals, it's normal practice to have the article name and the category name the same. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. No consensus to delete; feel free to relist. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category whose contents are interlinked without use of a category for three articles. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Eddie's Teddy. The category is unnecessary. Cjc13 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. The subject is an extremely prominent British architect with an interational reputation for some of the most outstanding buildings of this era. Accordingly the category is needed, as will be observed by looking at its subcat Category:Norman Foster buildings. Alternatively rename the present Norman Foster to Norman Foster (disambiguation) and use the space thus vacated for the article on the architect, as he is certainly the most famous person of the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prestige of the person for whom the category is named doesn't seem relevant. Plenty of prestigious people don't have categories. The relevant question is whether there is material about the person that is so complex that categorization is needed for navigational ease. The sub-category is adequately parented in Category:Buildings and structures by architect and presumably Foster's article is linked to all of them and they to his. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. I do not think this category should be deleted. Especially since heis still active. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 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.
The result of the discussion was:DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - category not needed for two articles. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Eddie's Teddy. The category is unnecessary. Cjc13 (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless suddenly more objects would show up in the category. If kept, then rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article Heavy Metal (magazine) and to avoid confusion with Category:Heavy metal. I removed a commons category for "Metal music" from the category, so confusion has in fact resulted in the past. Heavy Metal is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. Seems a no brainer here, as things could easily be miscategorized. --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to avoid confusion. Cjc13 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not convincedRename - Unless you have another use for Category:Dynasty, this seems like unnecessary disambiguation regardless of any perceived ambiguity. Category:Dynasties would be more appropriate for collecting real-world dynasties and empires.— TAnthonyTalk 07:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are other singular versions of "Dynasty" which could potentially be categories, so it remains ambiguous. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean there; though I don't think there'll be an immediate need for any others, I suppose the rename is harmless and ultimately helpful.— TAnthonyTalk 02:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's pretty clear by now that there are not suddenly going to be a vast number of new articles about a TV series that's been off the air for 20 years. The few articles that do exist are already linked through the main article. On a side note, the redirects from the character subcategory and the entirety of the episode redirect subcategory should be deleted and held up as an example of when not to create redirects and why categorizing redirects is often if not usually a really bad idea. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Delete?! The category is useful for navigation, and it's not doing any harm worthy of deletion. As far as your comments about the redirected characters and episodes, they are (nearly) all redirects to specific sections of the episode or character lists. The redirected episode titles (not every one broadcast) are specifically referenced in several articles and will ultimately be more pervasive throughout all of the show's articles. Redirect templates for characters and episodes are a relatively new but now established practice of WP:TV, I suggest you voice your objections there.— TAnthonyTalk 02:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM are not very strong arguments. There are five articles in the category and there are not likely to be any more ever. WP:OC#SMALL says to avoid creating categories for which there will never be more than a handful of articles. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. I do not think this category should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the articles in here were albums and songs, which only need to placed into its respective Duffy songs/albums category. I've clean that up. Recommend Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (do not delete - 4 subcats). Occuli (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. I do not think this category should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Keep rather than delete as it is consistent with categories for other singers. As regards the renaming, is it ambiguous ? There is no other performers under the name "Duffy", apart from a 1970's band who do not have a Wikipedia entry. All other people in Wikipedia with the surname Duffy are listed under their full name. The place Duffy is a suburb of Canberra, so there is not likely to be confusion there. Other singers such as Cher, Ciara and Selena have categories in their name without the need for additional labelling, Category:Cher, Category:Ciara, Category:Selena. Cjc13 (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
extended discussion about primary topic
It's still ambiguous as a self-standing name, which is the point. The main articles for Cher, Ciara, and Selena are are non-disambiguated. Duffy (singer) is disambiguated. I've never seen an eponymous category not disambiguated when the article is. (When the issue is actually discussed, that is. Fans and other users create un-disambiguated ones all the time which need to be corrected, as can be seen from the nominations on this page.) That would be truly weird. If you think it's not ambiguous, you should try to get the article about the singer un-disambiguated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a separate issue and I am willing to nominate it for a rename on the same grounds as above. Given the other category renamings you have nominated here there are several categories where the category is different from the article. Sometimes it may be the name of the article that should be changed. I think each name change should be argued on its own merits. Often the disambiguation takes place without any discussion by simply moving the article. This is the first opportunity to discuss it. Cjc13 (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a separate issue. I often see editors mention at CfD that they intend to get an article moved in support of their position on the category, but I rarely see anything happen in that regard. It's never too late to reverse a move if something does actually happen with the article, but until then ... Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested change of article name on Talk:Duffy (singer) and will follow up on this. As regards being ambiguous, she is well-known under that name and there are no other claims on that category title. Cjc13 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it unlikely that she is the primary usage, but fans would no doubt disagree. ... Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the primary usage if she is not then? I am not aware of any other contender for primary usage. Cjc13 (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is one. In Australia, it would be the locale probably, but I don't think there's one elsewhere. It seems to be a mix-mash. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The locale is a suburb of Canberra with a population of 2,942. Even in Australia, the singer would be better known, see for instance an article in The Australian. Cjc13 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article in an Australian newspaper proves what, exactly? Or are you saying I couldn't find any articles with dateline Duffy or that recount events that took place in Duffy? Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It shows that they know about her in Australia and that she is the primary usage even in Australia. Note the headline "Duffy", not "Duffy (singer)". Cjc13 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Chuckle.) No, it doesn't prove that she is the primary usage in Australia. As far as I know headline writers and newspaper editors never follow Wikipedia disambiguation rules. (I have yet to see "Man bites dog in Georgia (country)"; but if you want to play that game, it's just as easy to say that if she were the primary usage, I suppose opening the article with the explanatory adjectives "Welsh pop singer" may not have been necessary. Anyway, such a debate has less to do with the category name and everything to do with the article name.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the article does show is that the singer is not unknown in Australia which suggests your statement "In Australia, it would be the locale probably" to be unlikely. At least you got the joke. Cjc13 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a basic misunderstanding about what "primary topic" actually means. Anything on Wikipedia can be known to anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection. The fact that something is "known about" somewhere doesn't make it the primary usage in that place. To argue otherwise based on nothing more is just sloppy logic. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is she not a primary topic? Her article has been viewed at least 40,000 times each month this year and over 100,000 in both January and February 2009. In terms of incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere and Wikipedia article traffic statistics, she far exceeds any other article on the disambiguation page. In February there were 53,174 viewings of the disambiguation page. This can only be because so many people were looking for the singer's page and went to the disambiguation page by mistake. Cjc13 (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. To match parent article. Should there be a consensus to rename to article without the disambiguation, the category should be brought back to CfD. — ξxplicit 22:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "(singer)", and keep it there, even if the parent article is renamed, since it is a highly ambiguous name, and rename the subcategories to match. 05:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.209.91 (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:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article Uriah Heep (band). Uriah Heep is about the Charles Dickens fictional character, which is the most common meaning of the name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. No consensus to delete; feel free to relist. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the material in this category were properly categorized as albums and songs rather than being in this category there would be nothing in it except the band's article and the discography. There is no need for this category for navigational purposes. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. I do not think this category should be deleted, even after proper catalogisation of te articles. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all that's in the category is three sub-categories, the contents of which are interlinked through the band's article and through the various templates and infoboxes. The category serves no navigational purpose. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. I do not think this category should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article Bell X1 (band). Although Bell X1 redirects here, I don't believe the lack of a hyphen is enough to disambiguate the name from Bell X-1. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's very surprising that Bell X1 doesn't redirect to the rocketplane... 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. No consensus as to deletion; relist if you choose. postdlf (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Although the main article is The Haunted, indicating that this is the most common usage of the phrase, the category name of the same name is ambiguous because there is another band of the same name: The Haunted (Canadian band). In this instance it is appropriate that the article and category do not match. I'm also fine with deletion if consensus rests there. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the contents of the category do not merit a category for purposes of navigation. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. I think there is enough here for its own category, so I oppose deletion. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. minimal content to warrant its own eponymous category. The main article, a template, and two sub-cats typically don't warrant this level of categorization. However, the sub-cats should be renamed to the disambiguous title. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:49, 29 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. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. I would have though of the prince who was shot in Sarajevo. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article FireHouse (band). FireHouse redirects here, but Firehouse is ambiguous. I don't believe the irregular capitalization is a sufficient disambiguator. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. To disambiguate and match parent article. — ξxplicit 18:52, 31 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. postdlf (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 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.
The result of the discussion was:MERGE. postdlf (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small, unnecessary category, especially since Category:Juice Games itself is small. — ξxplicit 01:30, 21 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. postdlf (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unneeded category named after a musical group. --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. I do not think this category should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article Spindle (band). Spindle is ambiguous. I'm also fine with deletion if consensus rests there. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typically, a category named after a musical group isn't warranted when the only things to put in it are its songs and albums categories. --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Do not think this should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Definitely a good and well known example. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Beyond bird-related items, there's the tv series as well. Disambiguation definitely needed to avoid confusion. --Wolfer68 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 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 per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article Triana (band). Triana is a common Spanish place name and is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 01:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 01:50, 3 November 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. — ξxplicit 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 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.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME to Category:Iron Maiden (heavy metal band). Those opposing renaming based only on the name of the article did not address the argument that more precision may be called for in category naming to avoid ambiguity, which is a commonly recognized exception to the general principle that a category should match the precise title of its parent article. postdlf (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To disambiguate since Iron maiden is ambiguous, even in its capitalized form. (Though the main article for the band is at Iron Maiden.) The band is the most common use of the capitalized form, but it is not the only use of the capitalized form; thus, it is ambiguous and this is an instance where the main article and main category need not match. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Would rather have category match name of article. Will support if article name is changed to Iron Maiden (band). --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with such a move, if anyone attempts it. I believe it's been attempted before, but the consensus has usually been that it's the primary usage in its capitalized form. But that's a different issue than whether its ambiguous at all. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with the same argument used here for the category as primary usage of the term. --Wolfer68 (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a close call, but given the multitude of possible meanings that would include the capitalized form, I would tend to err on the side of caution here, as is typically the case with categories: e.g., see a typical reaction here, when I figured matching to the article name would have been a no-brainer. Anyway, I don't think it's as clear as a Category:London or Category:Paris. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the discussion was a no consensus with no mention of the second band. Not sure that would have made a difference in the discussion, but it could have. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it more difficult to disambiguate, doesn't it?—especially since both are British. I'm not sure what another option would be. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works. Personally I'm a bit lost in the subtle distinctions between "heavy metal" and "hard rock", but if they are distinct and the bands clearly fit into one of the categories, then it's probably the best we can do. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have thought that the subject matter (the famous band) was clear and the other uses of the term were subsidiary. I am not an afficianado of this music and cannot contribute further. What is/was their genre? (edit conflict with last item). Peterkingiron (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the torture device is the primary use. This one breaks down to the issue of a primary use at Iron Maiden v. Iron maiden. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't think a difference in caps is a sufficient disambiguator. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. In spite of the article name, I'd say when cateorising we have to be even more precise. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category name should usually match the article name. If you think the article name is ambiguous then why not try to change the article name? If you are unable to change the article name it would suggest the name is adequate and the same would apply to the name of the category. The heavy metal band is much better known internationally than the 1960s band and are still working as a band today unlike the other band. There is no sign of a category for the torture instrument known as the iron maiden, so there does not appear to be any conflicting category to cause confusion because of the name, so a name change does not seem necessary. Cjc13 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The self-contradiction if any is that it is the same nominator Good Ol’factory in both these cases. In both cases I am arguing that the category title does not need the addition of (singer)/(band) to its name as the name is sufficient by itself as a category title, so there is no self-contradiction in that. I would also point out that I used the term "should usually match" and this does not mean that I think it should always be the case. Cjc13 (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't like that, eh? I can turn that function off if you want. In one case you support matching to the article name; in the other not. In that sense, it is contradictory, though of course it can be looked at in multiple ways. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind it but it looks stupid on your behalf. My position is consistent in that I am against adding unnecessary complications to category names. If you read what I wrote you will see that I used the word "usually" which does not mean "always", so there is no conradiction. I think we can agree that each case should be argued/decided on its own merits. Cjc13 (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is thoughtful of you. I think it looks more silly when users take themselves too seriously, or call other users "stupid", but that's just me. Insert comical emoticon here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant foolish rather than stupid. I was merely replying to your comment. Cjc13 (talk) 10:54, 27 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 09:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best to disambiguate here. --Wolfer68 (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 01:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 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.
The result of the discussion was:MERGE. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Many artist album categories are already listed directly in the parent, and there are no other genre-based subcategories of Category:Albums by artist.- choster 01:57, 29 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 4#Kyle who? postdlf (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)