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:renamed. --Tavix(talk) 23:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While (game) is included on the parent article's page Many brother categories of bowl game champion seasons that have (game) associated with the title have "Whatever" Bowl included as the category name. I am willing to move associated pages to the new name.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Wrong Venue/Rename Article The Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl categories don't have "(game)" in their category names because thos main articles don't either but the main article here is Citrus Bowl (game). I'm not clear on why a parenthetical is needed (confusing it with a citrus salad, and yet Orange Bowl is clear?) and Citrus Bowl redirects to this anyway with no disambiguation page. I would favor submitting an RM to rename the article and then doing a speedy rename of both categories once that passes. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Citrus Bowl (game) has that parenthetical disambiguation to distinguish it from the stadium formerly of the same name that hosts the bowl game in question. The stadium is now known as Camping World Stadium, but it has been previously be known as Citrus Bowl (1976), Orlando Stadium (1977–1982), Florida Citrus Bowl (1983–2013). Jweiss11 (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you could oppose the RM with the argument that a stadium had that name in 1976 and, if your perspective prevailed and the article was not renamed, this category should also not be renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lizard the Wizard: Having the requested move discussions on the article talk page tends to get editors who are subject matters experts versus the generalists who dominate these CfD discussions. The presence of a similarly named stadium is not directly relevant to this discussion except to the extent that it influences the main article name. Those are, rightly or wrongly, Citrus Bowl (game), Rose Bowl Game, Sun Bowl and Orange Bowl. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lizard the Wizard. Really, this is a non-controversial move, as, obviously, it is impossible for the physical stadium to win any type of championship, so disambiguation is totally unnecessary here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a side note, I would support the addition of a hatnote to the top of Citrus Bowl (game), saying something like, "For the stadium formerly known as the Citrus Bowl, please see Camping World Stadium."Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue per RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Citrus Bowl ambiguity has no application in this category, and there is no good reason to make the category name longer for pedantic reasons when a shorter name would remain just an clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Category:Treatments and potential treatments for Alzheimer's[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.
Alt rename to Category:Treatment of Alzheimer's disease, loosely following our convention in Category:Medical treatments. The scope is sufficiently specificbroad if referring to singular "treatment". This would include research for new treatments that may become hopeful "potential treatments" or not. It also includes treatments that have been discontinued. Either way, categorizing a substance under Treatment of Alzheimer doesn't constitute a recommendation or suggest a treatment would be provenly effective. A main article might clarify the current recommendations. --PanchoS (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REname -- I like Category:Treatment of Alzheimer's disease. This is a terrible and incurable disease, which is slowed by some medication. I see no reason why potential treatments (not yet licensed) should not be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2016 (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:upmerge to Category:Top Gear people. There is consensus that the category as-is fails WP:PERFCAT. Several participants noted that they should be in the people category, which would mean there is consensus to upmerge. --Tavix(talk) 00:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm not sure that Perfcat applies here. Clarkson is surely defined by being a top Gear presenter. A performance is a one-off, such as a film, or a few-off (such as a short series) but these are many-offs. Even Chris Evans (just off). Oculi (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (performer by performance category). If being a presenter on Top Gear defines these folks, they belong at Category:Top Gear people, like how it's done at Category:The Tonight Show, which does not include a presenters or hosts subcat for everyone who for longer or shorter presented or hosted the show but aren't defined thereby. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just to clarify, most of the people in this cat were originally in Category:Top Gear which, as of now, still has has 37 articles. Category:Top Gear people was created to move the articles into a more defining cat but, since there were so many presenters and only a handful of non-presenters, it seemed logical to create a cat just for presenters. Of course, we can get rid of this cat and a lot of others by creating Category:People and things and just moving every article into it. There is no need for all of these subcats anyway, is there? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This Category covers the hosts of both versions of Top Gear. There is no need to upmerge it, as it is fine as it is. GUtt01 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selectively upmerge, it looks like not too many people in this category are really defined by having been a Top Gear presenter. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a performer by performance category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2016 (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:Hell's Kitchen (UK TV series) contestants[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2016 (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: Should be upmerged to Category:American crunk groups. This category is WP:OCEGRS; there are no other ethnic groups which are receiving any sort of notice specifically for making crunk, there are currently no other categories capturing ethnic divisions within this musical style, and the parent category is almost empty, containing only one other group of indeterminate ethnic origin. Chubbles (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose that is true as well. Chubbles (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the overlap of this ethnicity and this specific form of hip hop is not defining. In fact, considering the nature of hip hop in the US, it is tempting to say the notable thing is those in hip hop who are not African-American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2016 (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.
