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. jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy to Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys in 2006

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous and there has been many controversies over US Attorneys being dismissed. I'm not strongly tied to the proposed name and maybe Bush should be a part of the name. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• What were the other controversies over US Attorneys being dismissed? -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

There was at least one in 1993, but I'm not seeing the information right now. Vegaswikian ( talk) 04:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Well, this one is a royal mess. The main article is currently at Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Just for starters, the word "attorneys" is clearly part of a proper name, and should therefore be capitalized. Obviously, there are other issues as well. But the name question has been raised and discussed several times on the article's talk page, with no real concensus (see this and this and this).

In light of the standard practice of naming categories consistent with the names that have been agreed upon for their main articles, do we have any choice but to deal with that first, and then come back to this? Cgingold ( talk) 08:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, sometimes when the article discussions don't result in a non ambiguous name, the category name is used as justification for renaming the article. In the discussions you listed, I did not see a real debate on what the article name should be to make it unambiguous. So, a rename here should be OK. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:14, 28 May 2008 (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:Star Wars television series. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Star Wars live-action television series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in this category, so no need for it Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Agreed, upmerge to Category:Star Wars television series. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Agreed as well to upmerge. The Wookieepedian ( talk) 22:13, 26 May 2008 (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 Category:Seven Summits Completers to Category:Summiters of the Seven Summits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:Seven Summits Completers to Category:Summiters of the Seven Summits

Nominator's rationale: Per this. No? OK, then, rename to match Category:Summiters of Mount Everest, since I don't think that "completer" is a real word in this sense. Also ... seven summits, seven summiters. Coincidence? ;) – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename. When I typed that category name in, I knew somewhere in the back of my mind there was another name that was both obvious and far superior. Black Falcon has identified what that is. Darkspots ( talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom -- although it would be awfully nice to have Category:Seven Summits for Seven Summiters. Wait -- wasn't that a movie? Cgingold ( talk) 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
  • PS - I just added the missing parent cat, Category:Mountain climbers. Also, I'm puzzled by the following line on the cat page: "Any generally accepted list is acceptable for inclusion in this category." This should be clarified. Cgingold ( talk) 22:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I think it's a reference to Seven Summits#The Bass and Messner lists. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, that should definitely get clarified. Darkspots ( talk) 00:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename - the target is an ugly term, but I cannot think of a better one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:51, 28 May 2008 (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, empty. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Blue October UK songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as empty category, created March 2008. The songs in the discography at Blue October UK are all redlinks so there are currently no articles to be added. Fayenatic (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Maybe C1 as an empty category? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• C1? Ah! WP:CSD#Categories. Thanks, I hadn't noticed that categories could be speedily deleted. Mind you, it's almost as quick to list it here as to watch it for 4 days, and less work for the nominator. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per others. mathwhiz 29 03:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & empty. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:08, 29 May 2008 (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, and empty anyway. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Albums produced by Kyle Lehning ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Kyle Lehning doesn't have a page; no need for a category for a red linked producer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and per my general objections to this category structure. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:09, 29 May 2008 (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 at this time. Even five articles, however, hardly justifies a category. We'll be here again I expect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Alien (franchise) lists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is only one list in this category, upmerge to Alien Franchise and delete. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep as now it has five lists. I must have been interrupted after I created this one! - Fayenatic (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2008 (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 with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 18:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Buskers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overly broad categories and subcategories, no real rhyme or reason for what a busker is (and yes, I've read the definition on Busker). What makes, say Dolly Parton or George Jones a busker? What makes Louis Armstrong a busker? This category and its subcategories are indiscriminate in nature. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 19:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Never mind. Category needs pruning, not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 18:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I think it's pretty clear what this category is for: people who have been street performers. Presumably, the three people you named were buskers earlier in their lives. If there's a question about that (or any other category), the usual approach is to post a question on the article's talk page; if suitable verification isn't forthcoming in a week or two, go ahead and remove the category. I'm puzzled as to why you decided to "go nuclear", TPH, instead of working on cleanup. Cgingold ( talk) 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

PS - If you're serious about extirpating this category, you'll want to tag all 18 of the sub-categories as well. It wouldn't make sense to delete the parent and leave the sub-cats. Cgingold ( talk) 21:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Gah. Stupid Twinkle. I'll get to tagging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, I can name hundreds of singers who were street performers at one point, which is why I think this category is indisrciminate. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 22:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Can someone help me add the tag to the subcategories, which I also wish to be deleted? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• keep all There can be nothing 'indiscriminate about a category with a clearly defined purpose. Read the definition of 'indiscriminate'. Hmains ( talk) 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I think the definition for the category is clear enough when read in conjunction with the main article. This seems more like a question how to correctly apply the category to articles (i.e., questions of 'is it defining or not?') than one of the category itself being inappropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• I can see how this category has the potential to be overused, but it certainly is a defining characteristic for a significant number of musicians: Mary Lou Lord and Graeme Kirkland, to name just two, come immediately to mind. Give it a once-over for trivia, but keep. Bearcat ( talk) 16:03, 28 May 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Video games with stereo sound ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem to be a defining feature of these video games. (Notified creator using {{ subst:cfd-notify}}) – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, trivial. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:09, 29 May 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Vehicles (fiction) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is technically a duplicate of Category:Fictional vehicles; however, it should not be merged since it currently contains only pages in the user namespace. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 17:39, 26 May 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Valy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a musician. Aside from the main article, there is currently only one other article related to the musician Valy, and that article is appropriately and visibly linked from the main article. (Notified creator using {{ subst:cfd-notify}}) – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 17:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and WP:OC. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, OCAT. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:10, 29 May 2008 (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: } not renamed for the reasons given by Peterkingiron and Carlossuarez46. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Telindus Oostende players to Category:BC Oostende players

Nominator's rationale: Telindus ist just the sponsor's name. I'm not so sure about moving the related article, too, as the team is mostly known by its sponsor's name, but since the club has existed since 1970 and the currect sponsor's name was established in 1999, renaming would make the category cover all the club's (notable) players in its history and future. Axolotl Nr.733 ( talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Btw, don't underestimate the impact of such a decision since there are lots of similar articles and categories, but some clubs officially changed their names or were founded as new clubs, while others change their sponsor's names nearly annually, but also keeping the official name. -- Axolotl Nr.733 ( talk) 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep becasue it matches the name of the main article. There is in fact a precedent in another field dealing with the issue raised. The convention is that Alumni of colleges which have merged or changed their name or status are listed as if they attended the present institution. In any event the target is unacceptable because it contains an abbreviation, which should be expanded. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose until article is moved from Telindus Oostende. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:11, 29 May 2008 (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 Category:Villages Thanjavur District to Category:Villages in Thanjavur District, merge Category:Villages Pattukottai Taluk to Category:Villages in Thanjavur District. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:Villages Thanjavur District to Category:Villages in Thanjavur District

Merge Category:Villages Pattukottai Taluk to Category:Villages in Thanjavur District

Nominator's rationale: Rename per the convention of Category:Villages in Tamil Nadu. Merge per WP:OCAT: the two categories contain mostly the same content. For reference: Pattukottai is a taluk (a local administrative division) in Thanjavur District. (Notified creator using {{ subst:cfd-notify}}) – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 17:09, 26 May 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Wrangler Award winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation by award. This is a category for winners of the Bronze Wrangler, an annual award presented by the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum in Oklahoma. In general, we do not categorise people by awards unless the award is especially prestigious (e.g. Academy Award, Nobel Prize). While the Bronze Wrangler award seems to be notable, it does not seem to be significant enough to justify a category for its recipients. Listify to Bronze Wrangler#Recipients; if kept, rename to Category:Bronze Wrangler winners. (Notified creator using {{ subst:cfd-notify}}). – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• There is a category now for Golden Boot Award. So why not Wrangler too? Billy Hathorn ( talk) 17:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The existence of one category does not necessarily justify the existence of another (see here for relevant guidance on categorising people by award). For instance, we have Category:Academy Award winners, and I would not suggest deleting that. Is the Bronze Wrangler award defining for its recipients? That is, are people remembered for being Wrangler Award winners, similar to how people are remembered for being Academy Award winners? – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 17:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Bronze Wrangler is 22 years older than Golden Boot. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 02:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Nice. but it does not explain why the award might be notable for those who receive it. Or to put it another way, why is it defining for the recipients. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete ocat by award, per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:11, 29 May 2008 (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 Category:Luxury SUVs to Category:SUVs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Luxury SUVs to Category:SUVs

Nominator's rationale: Merge, There is no need for a separate category for "Luxury SUVs", especially one that has no recognized definition or that is used in an official vehicle classification system. All of the pages linked within this category are also listed under the broader category of SUV vehicles. A search for the term "Luxury SUV" in Wikipedia redirects readers to the sport utility vehicle article. Therefore, there is no need for further segregation of these vehicles, especially since the term is often applied to almost any vehicle that has some sort of "deluxe" feature, finish, or simply a higher price. The term "luxury" is widely used by marketers, but it is broad, highly variable, ambiguous, and not encyclopedic. Thanks, CZmarlin ( talk) 16:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge per nom; "luxury" is a throwaway adjective that doesn't have any set criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge - CZMerlin couldn't be more right, is there anything left to add? PrinceGloria ( talk) 23:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge - --— Typ932 ^{T | C}  17:11, 27 May 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Crime objects ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Another poorly conceived (and misnamed) category, in my opinion. I might be willing to consider renaming, if there is a persuasive argument to keep as well as an appropriate name. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 12:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - vague inclusion criteria. Any object used to perpetrate a crime, from an automobile to a leg of lamb, could end up here. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all. Professor Plum in the library, with the lead pipe. Johnbod ( talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps I was overly hasty -- clearly we should be considering renaming to Category:Clue (game). :) Cgingold ( talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per all. Ice pick, Polonium. -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 15:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hint to other readers: check out those links. Cgingold ( talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete as poorly defined category; what specifically constitutes an object here? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 22:58, 26 May 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Teaching Tools ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - A poorly conceived (and misnamed) category, in my opinion. Upmerge contents if appropriate. (Category creator has no edits in past year.) Cgingold ( talk) 11:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - vague inclusion criteria. Almost anything could be construed as a teaching tool (and I could give you the names of some of my teachers who were total tools). Otto4711 ( talk) 12:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a ambiguous cat.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 23:26, 27 May 2008 (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 Category:Fictional buildings to Category:Fictional buildings and structures. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional buildings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Fictional buildings and structures - consistent with parent and sibling categories. Cgingold ( talk) 11:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename - per nom and to match parent and siblings. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. No consensus. I suggest proposing the first and last options separately, as there seemed more likelihood of consensus for those changes. jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming

• Category:2005 in Serbia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:2005 in Serbia and Montenegro ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:2002 in Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:2002 in FR Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:2000 in Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:2000 in FR Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:1999 in Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:1999 in FR Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:1998 in Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:1998 in FR Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:1997 in Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:1997 in FR Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:1996 in Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:1996 in FR Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:1995 in Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:1995 in FR Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:1994 in Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:1994 in FR Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:1993 in Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:1993 in FR Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:1992 in Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:1992 in FR Yugoslavia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging

• Merge Category:2004 in Serbia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:2004 in Montenegro ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

to Category:2004 in Serbia and Montenegro ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect historic nation. Matthew_hk t c 08:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment/question. When Serbia and Montenegro existed as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which I assume is what "FR Yugoslavia" means — I don't know why the proposal would propose using an abbreviation), was the common name for the country not "Yugoslavia"? If so, I don't understand the rationale for renaming the Yugoslavia ones. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose renaming XXXX in Yugoslavia to XXXX in FR Yugoslavia as countries change their conventional long form of country name often and adding it doesn't really make it any clearer. Serbia and Montenegro only existed between 2003 and 2006 so I'm not convinced there is a need for a years in Serbia and Montenegro category. Tim! ( talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The name should conform to the current name of the country. "FR" (if retained) should be expanded. Where the name changed during a year, I would suggest the use of the new name. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC) amended Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yugoslavia as is, merge Serbia and Montenegro The name Yugoslavia should not be complicated with the FR prefix. Also, year in Serbia and year in Montenegro are very valid names. However, for the years that Serbia and Montenegro existed as a confederation, a parent category should be created. Events of the confederation should move here. Since these are (practically) all the events upmerge Serbia and Montenegro for now as proposed. gidonb ( talk) 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I would support that. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. The "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" is NOT identical with the older socialist Yugoslavia which existed until 1991. The state was not recognized as the official successor to the SFRY at the international level. -- Wulf Isebrand ( talk) 13:26, 30 May 2008 (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 Category:Big Island royalty to Category:Royalty of Hawaii (island). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Big Island royalty to Category:Royalty of Hawaii (island)

Nominator's rationale: rename: I believe this category should be renamed to the stated because other categories related to Hawaii (island) are named Category:Hawaii (island) and Category:Beaches of Hawaii (island). Also, "Big Island," a nickname for Hawaiʻi island, is not a widely-used term and may cause confusion. Kal ^[talk] 07:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Addendum umbrella proposals: Per User:Cgingold, I also nominate Category:Mauian royalty, Category:Oahuan royalty, and Category:Kauaian royalty for renaming to Category:Royalty of Maui, Category:Royalty of Oahu, and Category:Royalty of Kauai, respectively. Kal ^(talk) 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It's too late to include those here since they haven't been properly tagged. So just start a brand new CFD for those. Cgingold ( talk) 03:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename: I agree with the rationale for renaming. I'm wondering if the sibling categories for Kauaian, Mauian, and Oahuan royalty should also be renamed for consistency, using the "Royalty of X" formulation. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 08:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per both; the others could be done for consistency. Johnbod ( talk) 13:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Cricketers who committed suicide to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: See below.

• Upmerge to Category:Sportspeople who committed suicide, as per the ice hockey category below. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Change to keep, per Cgingold's rationale. I too would support other sub-cats being created. Lugnuts ( talk) 06:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep this particular sub-cat -- do not upmerge, no need to rename. Category:Sportspeople who committed suicide has well in excess of a hundred articles, so it makes sense to have sub-cats -- and with 14 articles, this one is warranted. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 08:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Just a suggestion, if the Cricket category is kept due to size, then theoretically Baseball can be created, Football, Basketball, etc... which I can do. Neonblak ( talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I would support sub-cats for the larger groupings. Cgingold ( talk) 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete suicide by profession is a bad idea, is there much literature linking the two for cricketers? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Carlos is right. What exactly is the connection between the profession of a person and the fact hat he or she committed suicide? Garbage men who committed suicide, dentists who committed suicide, ornithologists who...I don't see any value in it, so I also tend to delete all of these subcats. -- Wulf Isebrand ( talk) 14:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - If we decided not subdivide Category:Suicides by occupation, it would need to be divided along some other lines. What would you recommend instead? Cgingold ( talk) 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, I don't have a better idea. Maybe it's the best way to prevent the parent category from becoming too large and that's the only value (on the other hand: We also have Category:Suicides by method which could be used for such a purpose. But we often don't know the suicide method.). -- Wulf Isebrand ( talk) 08:36, 31 May 2008 (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 and upmerge. jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Ice hockey players who committed suicide to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: See Below.

Rename: per consensus. These are the only two sub-categories for the Category:Sportspeople who committed suicide, and, although it seems morbid really, this needs cleaning up. We need sub-cats that not only include the players, but managers, coaches, and executives as well. I would be happy to start moving these people into their specific sport, if there is a consensus for a conventional name. Category:Baseball suicides, Category:Cricket suicides are just examples. Or, just delete the existing sub-cats and just have the parent Sports suicides category. Neonblak ( talk) 02:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Sportspeople who committed suicide. I don't think there's enough here to justify a separate category.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:Sportspeople who committed suicide, per T. Anthony. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per T. Anthony. Unlike Category:Cricketers who committed suicide, which has 14 articles, this one only has two. As for coaches, managers, etc. -- they can have their own category(ies), but I don't think they should be lumped in with the players, and I doubt there's enough to warrant sub-cats by sport. Cgingold ( talk) 08:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my comments in the above cfd. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Carlossuarez. -- Wulf Isebrand ( talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Slate magazine

Nominator's rationale: This category seems self-serving and redundant, if not abusive, since it only relates to Slate magazine. It would seem to violate the guidelines for Wikipedia Categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitepearl543 ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I don't see where it violates any guideline -- perhaps you could specify that for us. But I would note that there are other magazines that have their own categories. Cgingold ( talk) 08:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for this material and the subcat for Slate people can reside in a general journalists or online journalists category. It does not require a separate parent. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. "Yes it is", in this situation. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Carly Smithson albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Is it really necessary to have a category when only one article exists that belongs in the category? Save-Me-Oprah ^(talk) 01:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. By convention, every artist who has a Wikipedia article on one of their CDs gets a category, even if it's only for one release. It states this on Category:Albums_by_artist. It's been a convention for quite awhile. -- Woohookitty ^Woohoo! 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per well-established precedent. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep per convention. Artists are always allowed to have "(name of artist) albums" category even if they've only had one album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 19:59, 26 May 2008 (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.