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 to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_1#Category:Daredevil.-- Aervanath ( talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Daredevil to Category:Daredevil (Marvel Comics)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main. Not only are there other things that can be titled "Daredevil," there are other Daredevils in comics. CfR to apply to the subcategories as well (they will be tagged.) — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Note For Category:Covers from Daredevil related titles, I propose adding a hyphen as well as a dab. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Full list of the subcategories:
• Category:Covers from Daredevil related titles to Category:Covers from Daredevil (Marvel Comics)-related titles
• Category:Daredevil images to Category:Daredevil (Marvel Comics) images
• Category:Daredevil storylines to Category:Daredevil (Marvel Comics) storylines
• Category:Daredevil titles to Category:Daredevil (Marvel Comics) titles

• Small case of not quite paying attention when creating at least some of the cats... The parent images one should have gone in as Category:Daredevil (comics) images (precedent Category: Flash (comics) images). The point made about the over all parent is a good one, though I'm unsure if it needs to be dabbed as thoroughly as the articles. Yes, it is likely that Daredevil (the profession) would be reasonable (sufficient articles to justify a category) and a more likely search than the comics. However, it is unlikely there are, or will be, enough articles/files related to the Lev Gleason Publications character to justify categories. That makes it unreasonable to dab the cats on "(Marvel Comics)".
  And there are a couple of specific problems with the rename for the cover images cat:
  • Adding the dab becomes very, very awkward in a search. It's an unlikely search argument and it's unlikely that there will be a separate similar category for the other comic book character or one related to any of the "Daredevil" articles. (see Category:Covers from Flash related titles for a similar situation.
  • Unless there is something that can be pointed to that changing "related to Foo" to "Foo related" needs a hyphen, saying it is needed comes across as personal preference. If there is, it may be better that the entire class of categories (currently 23) get moved to "Covers from comics related to Foo" for simplicity (no, I don't think that punctuation in a category title makes for simplicity).

- J Greb ( talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment what are the guidelines on this? Should the category name mirror the article name? This might be unwise because the move of an article would result in the need to rename a whole set of categories (that said this article's name is stable and is unlikely to be moved at any time soon). If there isn't such a guideline then shouldn't we do this renaming if there is going to be another Daredevil category? I can't think, for example that we will need one for other Daredevil characters in comics, so that isn't a problem and there isn't much at Daredevil that shows there might need to be an eponymous category. So basically if there isn't a guideline for this, then shouldn't we do what we always do with disambiguation: wait until there is a sign there could be problem and then deal with it then? If there is such a guideline then this is pretty much cut and dried and it needs to be renamed. ( Emperor ( talk) 01:04, 23 April 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: Anthropocene is a neologism, but more importantly, it only has 1 article in it, and is likely to only ever have 1 article until the neologism gains a larger usage. The 1 article that is in the article category is already placed in the Category:Holocene, which is the most logical parent category. Atmoz ( talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

hmmm. I don't know, it seems kind of scientifically elegant to have that category. not sure. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 21:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete category The article probably fails WP:NEO, but since it was coined by a Nobel laureate, I think the artilce must be retained. However, the category can probably not be populated further, and thus cannot survive. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I have no problem with the article, but there's no need for a separate category here. Robofish ( talk) 05:23, 26 April 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: keep all-- Aervanath ( talk) 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:Football (soccer) referees by competition ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:FIFA World Cup Final match officials, ‎ Category:2006 FIFA World Cup referees, ‎ Category:2002 FIFA World Cup referees, ‎ Category:1998 FIFA World Cup referees, Category:1990 FIFA World Cup referees, ‎ Category:FIFA World Cup referees, ‎ Category:FA Cup Final referees and‎ Category:A-League referees to Category:Football (soccer) referees

Nominator's rationale: Delete/Merge - categorizing football referees by the matches they've officiated is overcategorization akin to performer by venue. There is no theoretical limit to the number of venues or important matches at which a particular referee might officiate, which will lead to category clutter as more of these categories proliferate. The categories for referee by competition by year are also small categories with no chance of expansion as once a competition ends no additional referees can ever officiate at it. Keeping this nascent structure opens the door to categorizing every sports officiator by every specific venue or competition, which will again lead to category clutter along with fragmentation of the sporting official categories, which would be a hindrance to navigation as the parents got divided into ever tinier chunks. If this is really of interest then a list by competition can be generated and/or the individual referees can be listed in the article for the specific by-year championship article. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep all – being a referee in the 1990 FIFA World Cup (say) or a Cup Final is the pinnacle of a referee's career and is defining (just as Category:1990 FIFA World Cup players captures a defining campaign for a player). 'Performer by venue' is irrelevant, a more relevant comparison is something like Category:Athletes at the 1986 Commonwealth Games; the structure is not nascent, and if there is category clutter could we have an example of such? (Eg Graham Poll is well-known and does not seem overwhelmed by categories.) Occuli ( talk) 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep all Agreeing with Occuli chan dler ··· 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep all per Occuli and chandler. – Pee Jay 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep all per Occuli. Giant Snowman 00:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep all per Occuli as well. matt91486 ( talk) 07:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment - WP:SNOW, anyone? – Pee Jay 14:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep These categories track a strong defining characteristic for the top achievement in this profession, organized productively for navigation across similar articles. Alansohn ( talk) 14:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge the World Cup by year ones to Category:FIFA World Cup referees. I suppose Category:FIFA World Cup Final match officials is probably some sort of defining event in an official's career, so weak keep on that one. I don't know enough about the FA Cup or A-League to venture an opinion about those, so neutral. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete we would never categorize the players in this manner, why categorize the refs that way. It also seems not to be done for American football, basketball, ice hockey, or any other organized sport (except one odd-ball cricket cat, getting deleted below.), Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Just because other sports aren't as well categorized as football doesn't mean they should rule over it. For example being a referee at a World Cup is one of the biggest thing in their career. If I'm not mistaken you can only be a referee in a FA Cup final once in you life, there's only been about 130 through out history, and its something very special. And yes we do categorize players as "1998 FIFA World Cup players" or "FIFA World Cup winning managers" chan dler ··· 03:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

That line of reasoning is completely non-sequiturial. Just because a number of games can all be classified as sports or ball games even, does not dictate that their emphases are synonymous, or that they must be dealt with in a completely uniform fashion. Also, the notion that players categorization dictates what must be precluded for referee categorization is also quite non-sequiturial. __ meco ( talk) 09:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe it's called reasoning by analogy. I doubt if he's arguing that how one set are categorized is definitive for the other set. Users usually present arguments at CfD, not incantations that inevitably lead to a particular result. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

If being a ref at a <fill in the blank important level of the sport> is defining then surely, the players who have been in the same game should be defined by it as well and get a slew more categories. We would never do this with any other sport and nothing about association football makes it seem more important to categorize its participants on each type of competition they have played at. The US analogy would be Category:NFL Playoffs referees, Category:NFL Super Bowl referees, Category:NCAA Bowl Game referees, and similar ones for the players. Playing in a playoff, bowl game, Super Bowl doesn't or reffing it or covering it, doesn't seem defining - a career defined by 3 hours needs a pretty important 3 hours like Category:Super Bowl MVPs which is a fine category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep I'm not an all-out football affeccionado, but having perchance watched a few games lately, I am of the distinct perception that soccer referees are to a significant degree rated by what competitions they have officiated. __ meco ( talk) 09:10, 26 April 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:Wheel of Fortune franchise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Wheel of Fortune to Category:Wheel of Fortune (game show)

Nominator's rationale: There are plenty of things called Wheel of Fortune. This category should be renamed to avoid any ambiguity. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per the obvious variation on the articles Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) etc. Occuli ( talk) 19:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• I have no objection to a rename to Category:Wheel of Fortune franchise (see below). Occuli ( talk) 16:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Better rename is Category:Wheel of Fortune franchise - since (game show) remains an ambiguous qualifier. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• How is (game show) an ambiguous qualifier? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• I assume because the category contains a subcategory for video games, which are obviously derived from the game show, but don't necessarily fit in the proposed rename target because an argument can be made that the video games aren't really part of the game show and thus don't belong in the category. Thus, I personally would agree that adding "franchise" instead is a slightly better option. VegaDark ( talk) 21:08, 22 April 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: Speedy close Author of category remedied situation. I'll get on the albums one too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Shenandoah songs to Category:Shenandoah (band) songs

Nominator's rationale: Precedent seems to suggest that bands named after places should have (band) in their categories to prevent ambiguity. Also suggest renaming Category:Shenandoah albums to Category:Shenandoah (band) albums for the same reason. (Why the heck can't Twinkle do bundle cfds?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename both per the article Shenandoah (band). Occuli ( talk) 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Okay, go ahead. Good point. Ryanbstevens ( talk) 01:12, 23 April 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:Single-platform software. Kbdank71 13:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Only-platform software ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Wikipedia:Categorization in describing categories states ...be used by readers to find sets of articles on related topics. This category is a set of articles such that the articles cannot be related. For example, software that runs on a Mac only has no relationship to software that runs on windows only (unless you count "no relationship" as a relation - in which case everything is related). 69.106.242.20 ( talk) 14:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep - it is an umbrella category (with no articles at the top level) for various subcats of articles which are related to each other, such as Category:PlayStation 2-only games. The intro could be improved ... Occuli ( talk) 14:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep All the articles have in common that they operate only on one OS. Clearly within the scope of categorization. I removed the intro that made no sense at all to me. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• If kept, rename - to Category:Single-platform software. "Only-platform" makes no sense. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• That is a much better name. Occuli ( talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• 'Keep per Occuli, and Rename to Category:Single-platform software per Otto4711. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Is the renaming suggestion for this one category or all Only- categories? 71.135.167.14 ( talk) 06:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep If this were a mix of unrelated articles from different platforms, there might be an argument, but as it isn't, this is a perfectly reasonable parent. Alansohn ( talk) 14:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Single-platform software - it's a much clearer name. Robofish ( talk) 05:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename head category only, even though it's a re-creation of a deleted category, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 28#Single-platform software. I still think it makes sense for it to exist, grouping sub-categories that have a defining characteristic, despite the policy arguments against it. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:42, 29 April 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 Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Minas Gerais class battleships to Category:Minas Geraes class battleships

Nominator's rationale: Rename. FAC discussion for Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes (formerly at Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais) has provided the more correct spelling of the lead ship of the ship class. I don't think this qualifies for a speedy rename since the ship and class are also known in some sources under the Minas Gerais spelling. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename (note: I am the primary author of the article above) - the modern English version of the spelling is "Minas Gerais" for both the state and the ship; this was changed around 1943, according to Fvasconcellos ( talk · contribs). This date indicates that the ship was known as "Minas Geraes" for a majority of its service life (1910–1943). In addition, I think that that ship is still known as "Minas Geraes" in official sources—see Os Dreadnoughts Da Marinha Do Brasil: Minas Geraes e São Paulo. — Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. pt.wiki's version of the article also uses the Geraes spelling, which was the only current spelling at the time the ship was commissioned. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 15:28, 23 April 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 Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:ROM Auditor ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Created in 2006, this category has only one entry and is unlikely to ever have another. The single article with this category, GoodTools, is adequately categorized as Retrocomputing 69.106.242.20 ( talk) 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom - not needed at this time. Robofish ( talk) 05:20, 26 April 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a general category, consists of 3 articles related to Glenn D. Paige, all apparently written by a fan Cgnk ( talk · contribs). See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_22#Template:Nonkilling. Listed here separately, as that template does not propagate the category.
-- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 11:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Original author's rationale: Delete. Agree. It is to soon for a category. -- Cgnk ( talk) 11:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete – per author (but categoryTOC is a nice touch). Occuli ( talk) 11:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Whatever404 ( talk) 13:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Zodon ( talk) 01:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete two articles and a redirect all about the same person doesn't serve as an aid to navigation. Alansohn ( talk) 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per all above - neologism, not enough articles to justify a category. Robofish ( talk) 05:20, 26 April 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 Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Oslo T-bane to Category:Oslo Metro

Propose renaming Category:Oslo T-bane lines to Category:Oslo Metro lines

Propose renaming Category:Oslo T-bane templates to Category:Oslo Metro templates

Propose renaming Category:Oslo T-bane stations to Category:Oslo Metro stations

Propose renaming Category:Disused Oslo T-bane stations to Category:Disused Oslo Metro stations

Propose renaming Category:Oslo T-bane stations in Akershus to Category:Oslo Metro stations in Akershus

Propose renaming Category:Oslo T-bane stations in Bærum to Category:Oslo Metro stations in Bærum

Propose renaming Category:Oslo T-bane stations in Oslo to Category:Oslo Metro stations in Oslo

Propose renaming Category:Oslo T-bane stock to Category:Oslo Metro stock

Propose renaming Category:Oslo T-bane stubs to Category:Oslo Metro stubs

Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at Talk:Oslo Metro#Move article, where it was established the the system is officially referred to as the Oslo Metro in English by the transport authority, and is commonly referred to as the metro in both English and Norwegian sources, thus meeting WP:Use English. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. __ meco ( talk) 11:51, 22 April 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 (still empty at close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Video games logos ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicate of Category:Video game logos. SharkD ( talk) 06:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• This can be Speedy Merged. Cgingold ( talk) 07:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support deletion. Or merge in the alternative -- but not really important since the category is empty. Randomran ( talk) 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - obviously redundant. Speedy delete if possible. Robofish ( talk) 05:16, 26 April 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 (single article upmerged to Category:People of Ethiopian descent). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Irish people of Ethiopian descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. extremely small category. unlikely to have any significant number of people LibStar ( talk) 05:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Categories of mixed descent are overcategorization. Similar categories have been deleted in the past. — Σ xplicit 06:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:People of Ethiopian descent. (This is not a category of mixed descent, but it does only have 1 article, which is already in an 'Irish people' category.) Occuli ( talk) 07:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity cat - OCAT. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- this is an expatriate category of a common kind, which have mostly (except in USA) been renamed to this form. The fact that this is a rare intersection provides no reason for deletion. There are 100s of these expartiate categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no need for a separate intersection category in this case. Robofish ( talk) 05:15, 26 April 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 to Category:Cricket umpires. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Sri Lankan Test Match Panel Cricket Umpires ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization in an excssively narrow intersection. The category has only one member, and the parent Category:Cricket umpires has no other subcategories. If kept, it should be renamed to something like Category:Sri Lankan test match panel cricket umpires. -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 04:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Cricket umpires (although there is a good case for creating Category:Test match panel cricket umpires or similar). The article is already in Sri Lankan cats. Occuli ( talk) 07:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge - per Occuli. I would caution against going down the road of categorizing on the basis of umpiring a specific sub-set or type of match within a sport. Otto4711 ( talk) 08:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Too late - the impetuous footballers have rushed off down the road and out of sight. Occuli ( talk) 14:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Down the road perhaps but not quite out of sight yet, thank god. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge per Occuli. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Wikipedians who are FSF members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of users based on membership in an organization. The ability to located members of (i.e. donors to) the non-profit Free Software Foundation is unlikely to facilitate coordination and collaboration on Wikipedia. If kept, the initials should be spelled out because FSF is ambiguous. -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 04:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Keep, the link to FSF may be useful for other people seeking contact with an organization. NVO ( talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. The link possibly being useful "for other people seeking contact with an organization" is not a Wikipedia-related goal, and user categories should have some sort of benefit for Wikipedia in order to facilitate collaboration. At minimum, as the nom mentions, this needs to be renamed for clarification. VegaDark ( talk) 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not relevant to on-wiki collaboration. Robofish ( talk) 05:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Keep The Free Software Foundation is a very important online politics entity and membership among editors give guidance about their capacities also related to Wikipedia editorship. __ meco ( talk) 09:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Please clarify. Are you suggesting that donating money to FSF might make someone a more capable editor on Wikipedia? -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 15:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no collaborative benefit to the project, which is what user categories are supposed to be about, not expressing solidarity with one or another sociopolitical organization. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:42, 29 April 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Grand Hustle singles to Category:Grand Hustle Records singles

Nominator's rationale: The article's full title is Grand Hustle Records, so the full title should be used in the category as well, just as it is in Category:Grand Hustle Records albums — Σ xplicit 00:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Occuli ( talk) 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 02:21, 22 April 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.