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: Defer to the Task force/WikiProject - Once the WikiProject becomes a task force (which may already be the case), they may ask any admin to delete the category (as housekeeping), if that's the consensus at the project and/or tf. If further help or clarification is required, please feel free to drop me a note. - jc37 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:WikiProject Nintendo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete WikiProject Nintendo is transitioning to a task force under WikiProject Video games, no longer necessitating the need for this category. MuZemike ( talk) 22:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• rename - Couldn't the article simply be renamed and turned into a subcat of WP:VG? SharkD ( talk) 22:37, 3 September 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. Kbdank71 14:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Fundamentalism to Category:Religious fundamentalism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fundamentalism is ambiguous in that it covers religion, finance, beliefs and 'Strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles' according to wictionary. While the main article titled fundamentalism only talks to religion, the lead begins 'Religious fundamentalism' so even there it is shown that the full description is needed for clarity. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• rename per nom as this is what the contents include; article also needs to be renamed, but the rename won't take. Hmains ( talk) 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Where are the Jewish, Hindu etc ones? Johnbod ( talk) 18:26, 6 September 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: Speedy delete, either per WP:SNOW, by WP:CSD#C1 with an added WP:IAR or simply because it's a test or vandalism, although very funny vandalism. Will list at WP:DAFT per discussion. Hiding T 10:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Potentially Good Names For Heavy Metal Bands ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Despite being very funny, it's really not encyclopedic or helpful to anyone. I think it was created as a joke. Eastlaw ( talk) 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Good topic for a Dave Barry column. Bad topic for a category. -- Russ (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. (Damn, why was it emptied? I needed a good laugh and would have liked to see the contents.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete cat per nom and move name to a lol Wikipedia page (bad cat names anyone?).-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete and list at WP:DAFT per Lenticel. Grutness... wha? 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. It would have been much funnier if the category were populated (I don't know whether it ever was). But it still would have been unencyclopedic. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 4 September 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, noting that Black Falcon has indicated a revised nomination will be made. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming

• Category:Clothing companies of Australia to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Australia
• Category:Textile companies of Australia to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Australia
• Category:Clothing companies of Canada to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Canada
• Category:Clothing companies of France to Category:Clothing and textile companies of France
• Category:Clothing companies of Japan to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Japan
• Category:Clothing companies of New Zealand to Category:Clothing and textile companies of New Zealand
• Category:Clothing companies of Spain to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Spain
• Category:Clothing companies of Turkey to Category:Clothing and textile companies of Turkey

Nominator's rationale: To match the subject-oriented parent category Category:Clothing and textile companies by country (as opposed to the location-oriented Category:Companies of Foo by industry). – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 18:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - although I initiated the CFD that got these and all of the clothing and textile categories named uniformly, in thinking about it I have come to believe that there's no good reason for combining these two industries under a joint category. In fact, I was about to nominate the combo categories for deletion. Most (all?) of them are serving as nothing other than a container category for the clothing companies and textile companies sub-cats. These two industries seem arbitrarily stuck together, I guess because they both deal with cloth. But one is dealing with cloth as its finished product and the other with cloth as its starter material. If the nominator is amenable, I'd like to suggest adding all of the existing combo categories (including the parent Category:Clothing and textile companies) to this nomination so that we can be assured of a consistent result. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps it would be better to close this nomination as "withdrawn" and initiate a new nomination so that there is less confusion regarding exactly what is being proposed? I do not feel strongly about it one way or the other, and my main goal is consistency in naming. Incidentally, in addition to these Clothing companies categories, we have Category:Clothing brands and Category:Clothing retailers. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 00:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Clothing retailers would be for sellers of clothing and clothing brands would be for, well, brands, which are not necessarily the same as manufacturers. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:08, 10 September 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: Never mind Messed around with the categories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Country fiddlers to Category:American country fiddlers

<s.:Nominator's rationale: All of the people in this category are Americans. Furthermore, it's a subcat of Category:American country musicians by instrument. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Not convinced Here are two reasons not to change it:

1. The article for the music genre is country music
2. If the genre is "country music," not "American country music" (and I don't know enough about country music to make an argument one way or the other), then naming the category 'A. c. f.' would seem to imply that it's the category of country fiddlers from the U.S. as opposed to the country fiddlers from outside the U.S. In that case, because of Shoji Tabuchi we'll need a parent "Country fiddlers" category (entries: Shoji Tabuchi, and the American country fiddlers category) (or, if the genre is American country music, a parent "American country fiddlers" category with Shoji Tabuchi and an "American country fiddlers from the U.S." category). Since so far the only non-U.S. ("American?") country fiddler is Tabuchi, it doesn't seem worth the heirarchy.

Of course, if the subject of the "country music" article should really be called "American country music," (and there is the fact of the "American country musicians by instrument" category to take into account there, I guess) my position would change. In short, I think people over at country music need to be involved in this discussion. — eitc h 23:46, 4 September 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. Kbdank71 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

These categories were accidentally created on Wikipedia when they were intended for Commons and should be deleted. Dough4872 ( talk) 16:23, 3 September 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. Kbdank71 14:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Hong Kong children ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This now-empty category is ill-defined and is meaningless. Ohconfucius ( talk) 09:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment – who emptied it and when, and why is it less meaningful than say Category:American children? Occuli ( talk) 11:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment/Questions - First, I want to point out that this is one of 33 sub-categories by nationality of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Children by nationality. Under the inclusion criteria for the parent cat, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Children, that category -- and its sub-categories -- are for "Articles about individuals who became notable as children (before age 18)." I see that you've removed Joyce Cheng from the category -- were there any others that you know of, or was that the only one? As for Joyce Cheng, the question is when did she become notable? Judging purely by the article, it appears that she probably achieved notability in her teens -- which, if true, would mean that she was properly included in the category. (She would also belong in one or more other sub-cats, such as ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Child actors and/or ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Child singers.) Cgingold ( talk) 11:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above comments. Assuming that Category:Hong Kong people and Category:Children by nationality are valid categories, this one certainly would be too. I've restored Joyce Cheng to the category for now per Cgingold's comments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 3 September 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. Kbdank71 14:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:LGBT anime and manga to Category:LGBT-related anime and manga

Nominator's rationale: To match other related categories such as Category:LGBT-related films, Category:LGBT-related plays, and Category:LGBT-related songs. See related discussion. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 06:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename - per nom and because inanimate objects do not have a sexual orientation. I would suggest adding Category:LGBT media and its children to this nom and get them all done at once. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and precedent.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:07, 4 September 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. Kbdank71 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:People from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean Region to Category:People from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean

Nominator's rationale: I look at the category Category:Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, and there is a few categories. There's Communities in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Incorporated places in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and Radio stations in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. but the one Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean category that I'm worried about is Category:People from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean Region. This category is propose for renaming without the Region category name. This category will be renaming Category:People from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. So, this category has to be renamed without the "Region" name. Steam5 ( talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support 'Region' (or 'region') should only be added as a disambiguate Mayumashu ( talk) 02:07, 3 September 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 all except for the deliberate one, which was struck (and no consensus even if it wasn't). Kbdank71 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming

• Category:Airliner crashes caused by lightning strike to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by lightning strike
• Category:Airliner crashes caused by instrument failure to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by instrument failure
• Category:Airliner crashes caused by maintenance errors to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by maintenance errors
• Category:Airliner crashes caused by mechanical failure to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by mechanical failure
• Category:Airliner crashes caused by pilot incapacitation to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by pilot incapacitation
• Category:Airliner crashes caused by design or manufacturing errors to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by design or manufacturing errors

* Category:Deliberate airliner crashes to Category:Deliberate airliner accidents and incidents

• Category:Airliner crashes caused by pilot error to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by pilot error
• Category:Fuel exhaustion on commercial airliners to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by fuel exhaustion

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The base categories are Category:Aviation accidents and incidents and Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners, the word crash is imprecise and less inclusive than accidents and incidents, which the categories already include. Most of the accident categories are already named "accidents and incidents". Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• You can't have a "deliberate accident;" that one should be "deliberate airliner crashes and incidents." Postdlf ( talk) 14:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Really, isn't any "accident or incident" that is not an "accident" an "incident"? Every act of terrorism aboard an airliner would be a "deliberate crash or incident". I would say rename all, but keep Category:Deliberate airliner crashes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Do we really need "accident and incident"? Aren't all accidents, incidents? (Plus, by removing "accident", we remove the need to "assign blame or cause", which would require additional references.) - jc37 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • In aviation circles accidents and incidents have two definitions (see: Aviation accidents and incidents). The standard name for articles, lists, and categories in this subject area are generally titles "X accidents and incidents" (see: Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents). - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Sure, I realise that, but the question here is can you have a "deliberate accident". And if it's not an "accident", then it's an "incident", which suggests it's deliberate. This makes the use of "accident" with "deliberate" nonsensical and the use of "deliberate" with "incident" redundant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I'll remove that category from the rename request. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 23:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Well, according to the article, both are an "occurrence". And while an incident may not be an accident, an accident would surely seem to be an incident... - jc37
      • So on that view, incidents could be accidental or deliberate, whereas accidents could (I presume) only be accidental. In that case, I'd have no problem with Category:Deliberate airliner incidents, though as I said it could conceivably contain every case of terrorism aboard an airliner that didn't result in a crash. I'm not sure—it may be better than the current name, though. What do you think, Trevor? Is there any possible way we could call an airliner accident deliberate in order to keep the names consistent? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Howabout:
  • 1.) Category:Deliberate airliner crashes to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by sabotage
  • 2.) Category:Deliberate airliner crashes to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by deliberate interference
  • 3.) Category:Deliberate airliner crashes to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by deliberate intent
  • 4.) Category:Deliberate airliner crashes to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by intent
• Sometimes the crash is not the result desired by the interference, so it would still be an accident resulting from sabotage or interference, if you follow me. I'm not sure what the best one is, although I lean towards number 2. Hiding T 10:31, 10 September 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 to Category:Video game external link templates. Kbdank71 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Video game journalism templates to Category:Video game journalism and external link templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Broaden the scope of the category a bit to include templates that aren't numerous enough to have a category of their own. SharkD ( talk) 00:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Video game external link templates per Category:External link templates, and prune. (For example, remove any navboxes - see Category:Video game navigation templates). - jc37 21:26, 8 September 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: relisted Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_10#Category:Video_game_hardware_templates. Kbdank71 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Video game hardware templates to Category:Video game platform and technology templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Broaden the scope a bit to include software technologies and make the name more descriptive. SharkD ( talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oppose/Rename instead to Category:Video game console templates per Video game console and Handheld game console. Suggest that the intro be clarified/updated. - jc37 21:26, 8 September 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. Kbdank71 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Video game character templates to Category:Video game character and location templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Broaden the scope of the category to include fictional locations which aren't numerous enough to warrant their own category. SharkD ( talk) 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - Category:Fictional characters and Category:Fictional locations are separate "trees". - jc37 21:26, 8 September 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. Kbdank71 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Video game templates by game series to Category:Video game templates by series

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Mentioning "game" twice is redundant. The category also includes games belonging to series originating in other media. SharkD ( talk) 00:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. -- Koveras  ^☭ 07:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Weak Oppose - I don't think that that's accurate enough. "series" could refer to a film series, a TV series, a book series, etc. - jc37 11:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Yes, as I already said, games belonging to all sorts of series are already a part of this category. SharkD ( talk) 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Let me try to clarify: These aren't templates about a book series, so "series" with no adjective would be problematic.

  That said, in looking over the cat, I think Category:Video game series navigation templates (per Category:Video game navigation templates) would seem to be more appropriate. - jc37 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  The category already has 'video game' in the title, so the distinction is already made that the template must deal with video games somehow. I don't think it's important to distinguish between 'video games series based on a books' or 'books series based on a video games'. The latter is highly unlikely and does not warrant the creation of a new category.

  As for the nav templates cat, I think Category:Video game navigation templates by series would be better, but this would require that nearly all the subcats be renamed in this manner. Other types of templates are outnumbered by navboxes by such a high number that the usefulness of recategorizing them all would be minimal, IMO. SharkD ( talk) 02:31, 10 September 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.