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 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Washington administration to Category:Presidency of George Washington

Propose renaming Category:Obama Administration to Category:Presidency of Barack Obama

Propose renaming Category:George W. Bush Administration to Category:Presidency of George W. Bush (added after suggestion by Cgingold)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Some of these administration categories have been discussed before in the context of whether or not "administration" is capitalized or not. I suggest that at least for the categories that are named "SURNAME Administration", we change to "Presidency of NAME", where NAME is the same as the main article about the president. The main article for Category:Washington administration is Presidency of George Washington, so it makes sense to have category names correspond to any articles that will be written about the same topic. The only down-side that I see is that many of the subcategories use the "Foo administration" format, as in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Washington administration cabinet members and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Obama Administration cabinet members. But I don't think this naming scheme necessarily has to correspond with that one, and in the context of those categories that group people that work in the administration, that format may make more sense than it does here for the parent categories, which collect articles about laws passed during the presidency, initiatives or programs begun during the presidency, events in the U.S. during the presidency, wars or foreign entanglements during the presidency, etc. Finally, note that this is a test nomination—I haven't included all of the categories for presidential administrations but I've selected two three of them for which a CfD notice will likely will be noticed before, say ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Polk administration. If there is a consensus for a rename, I am willing to nominate the rest of the categories. After those are done we can see if any other related categories should be renamed in any way to reflect the changes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment: An interesting proposal - I'm going to have to give it some serious thought before I make up my mind about it. One suggestion: I'm sure the category for the recently departed Bush admin gets a great deal more traffic than does the other G.W. admin, so it might be a good idea to add that one to this test nom. Cgingold ( talk) 00:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Good idea—done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. Seems clearer to an alien - the Washington one is obviously ambiguous, as would other ones where it could be a place - Hamilton etc. Johnbod ( talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Just want to point out that Category:Washington administration could easily be renamed to Category:George Washington administration. (Hamilton we don't need to worry about -- Aaron Burr saw to that.) Cgingold ( talk) 05:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom for clarity and consistency with the head articles. By the way, "Washington administration" could refer to the administration of a state governor, city mayor, or other politician (e.g. Chicago mayor Harold Washington, unsuccessful presidential candidate George Washington). – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 06:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support The "Presidency of FULL ARTICLE TITLE" leaves no ambiguity as to what is included. There is potential conflict with presidents of other countries, but that can be addressed down the road if it does occur. Alansohn ( talk) 03:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak support The title "Presidency of {{{name}}}" is probably a lot clearer than "{{{name}}} administration", and avoids the niggling capitalization problems which have been occurring with these categories. I'm more accustomed to referring to the "{{{name}}} administration", but that's probably because I'm an American. As long as nobody objects to the subcategories remaining the way they are (with the "{{{name}}} administration personnel" titles), I don't have a problem with the renaming. -- Eastlaw ^talk ⁄  _contribs 21:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think any change to the subcategories should be considered on their own merits. It's not my intent to use these renames to justify changing all the subcategories as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Siupport rename per above. If I saw "Cleveland administration" I'd instantly think of the city council. Grutness... wha? 23:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• As I pointed out above, that issue could easily be remedied by a much simpler change to "Grover Cleveland administration", so I do NOT think this proposed formulation should be adopted purely for that reason, or on account of the capitalization issue either, for that matter. Cgingold ( talk) 23:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I regret to say that I still have not come to a final conclusion about this proposal. Put another way, I continue to have reservations -- the foremost being that, try as I might, I'm having a hard time seeing "presidency" as fully equivalent to "administration". It seems to me that the latter is a little broader, explicitly encompassing the full array of administrative offices, etc., while the former subtly suggests more of a focus on the president himself. Also, I'm not sure that replacing "Xyz Administration" with a different term should be regarded as a "non-negligible change", since it is, after all, the standard term used almost universally in the news media, etc. here in the States. In that regard, it concerns me that, with the exception of Eastlaw, none of the editors who have indicated support for this proposal are US nationals. I'm not suggesting that that invalidates the process, but I do think that it needs to have wider participation from US editors -- who may well support the proposal. Just imagine the consternation (to put it mildly) were some intrepid Yanks to propose a comparable change with respect to the naming of UK government categories! Cgingold ( talk) 23:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. I think 'Presidency of NAME' is less ambiguous and generally better than 'NAME Administration'; I do recognise, though, as Cgingold points out, it has slightly different connotations. 'Presidency of NAME' suggests events and people that the President was, at some level, responsible for, while 'NAME Administration' suggests just a period of time in US government. The former is probably a better idea for a category, but I just wanted to be clear about the difference. (And for what it's worth, I'm not a US national either...) Robofish ( talk) 03:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  Additional note: I hope that this rename does not mean renaming the subcategories, like Category:Reagan Administration controversies and Category:Reagan Administration personnel, to Category:Controversies during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan (or whatever). That would be a bad idea. Robofish ( talk) 03:25, 15 March 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:Cocktails with whisky Erik9 ( talk) 16:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Cocktails with whiskey/whisky or bourbon to Category:Cocktails with whisky or bourbon

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The drink can be spelled "whisky" or "whiskey", depending on the country, which I assume is the reason for the use of "whiskey/whisky" in the category name. In such cases, we usually don't present both spellings, however—we just choose one and use it. I don't really care which one is chosen, but by default I selected whisky because that's how the article is spelled. If there is consensus to use the other spelling, that's fine with me too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Cocktails with whiskey. See Bourbon whiskey if you really think we need to add Bourbon. Vegaswikian1 ( talk) 01:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'll defer to almost anyone's opinions about alcoholic beverage topics. If the current name is even more redundant that I initially thought it was, I have no problem also eliminating the "or bourbon". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Cocktails with whisky (almost) per Vegas, but no "e". Johnbod ( talk) 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep to solve the -ey/-y connundrum. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename - to Category:Cocktails with whisky per Johnbod. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Cocktails with whisky per Johnbod (no "e") since the main article is at whisky. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Cocktails with whisky/whiskey. Bourbon is a whiskey, so the addition of this term is redundant. Using simply "Whisky" would, to many people, rule out the usage of either Irish or American whiskeys in their construction. Grutness... wha? 23:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• No one, when adding an article to this category, would intuitively type "whisky/whiskey" and we should avoid this sort of naming construction based on alternate spellings. Do we want to go down the path of changing every category that includes for instance "color" or "labor" to "color/colour" or "labor/labour"? Lordy, I hope not. Suggest a redirect at Category:Cocktails with whiskey. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:25, 13 March 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: upmerge to Category:Whiskies. Kbdank71 13:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Other European whiskies to Category:European whiskies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The "other" is unneeded. Right now this is grouping whiskies from Europe, not including Scottish whiskies and Irish whiskies, which are the hotbeds of whisky production in Europe. A simpler and more logical approach would be to rename this ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:European whiskies and have ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Scottish blended whisky, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Scottish malt whisky and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Irish Whiskey as subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Hmmm, I know that is the standard approach, but there are only 3 articles on Welsh whisky, & one on a Dutch distillery that produces 77 bottles a day! I would rather Keep or Upmerge to Cat:Whiskies. There are 3 Scotch/Irish cats, & the intervening layer seems unhelpful. If someone decided to divide the Scotch single malts into the traditional 3 areas you would need 4 cats beyond cat:Whisky to find any one. Or rename to Category:European whiskies from non-traditional areas or something. Otherwise upmerge. Johnbod ( talk) 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge would be fine with me, too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:Whiskies, we usually don't segregate these by continent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Well there is Category:Whiskies of Asia, which works well for 6 or so articles. Johnbod ( talk) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Whiskies; I don't think an 'in-between' Category:European whiskies would be helpful here. Robofish ( talk) 03:17, 15 March 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. Kbdank71 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Other archaeological sites in Greece to Category:Archaeological sites in Greece

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a "remainders"-type category for those articles that weren't otherwise categorized in a subcategory of Category:Archaeological sites in Greece by type. We typically delete such categories because they generally will just group together odds and ends and there will often be no similarities between the various articles that are categorized, which defeats the purpose of categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge per nom. This type of category is also unhelpful for readers who see it on an article - what's 'Other archaeological sites' supposed to mean? Robofish ( talk) 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no rename, unnecessary. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Alumni by university or college ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Alumni by university or college (and by country) to better characterize the internal organization of the category, which is entirely sub-cats by country, not merely an alphabetical listing of universities and colleges. (Category creator not known due to previous name change.) Cgingold ( talk) 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• I would prefer Category:Alumni by university or college by country to a title with a parenthetical disambiguator. However, is the change necessary? I understand the nom's rationale and it is technically correct, but is there enough gained in this case to justify adding an additional layer of categorization (the assumption being that a "by country" category would still need Category:Alumni by university or college as its parent, in order to fit into Category:Alumni by educational institution). – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 00:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • You've raised two very reasonable questions, BF - I'll take them in reverse order. The name change is purely to indicate more precisely what type of sub-cats are inside. I certainly don't want or intend to add another layer of categorization -- and I see no requirement to retain the current category for that purpose. The renamed category can stay right where it is parent-wise. As for the name itself, I figured somebody would ask about that parenthetical term (I wouldn't call it a disambiguator) since it's a little unusual -- though not unprecedented [viz. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Scientists by occupation (and by nationality)]. The problem with Category:Alumni by university or college by country is that it's semantically confusing: is it a category for "Alumni by university" and "college by country"? Given the somewhat complex name, I think Category:Alumni by university or college (and by country) is probably the best solution available. Cgingold ( talk) 04:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Your argument about the parenthetical term is most convincing. I failed to consider that "Alumni by university or college by country" could be understood as consisting of two separate 'A by B' statements and agree now that a title with a parenthetical term is more desirable than my suggestion. For the other issue, I see now that I had misunderstood your original proposal. I thought you wanted to move the contents of this category into Category:Alumni by university or college (and by country) and then make the newly-created category a subcat of Category:Alumni by university or college. I appreciate your clarifications and, in light of your response, support renaming to your proposed title. Thanks, – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 07:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong oppose renaming. This seems to me to be an attempt to rename in order to describe the nature of the sub-categories, and I see no need for that in this case. This sort of category-name-which-reflects-its-sub-categories is very useful where the category concerned is one of several subcats of the parent distinguished by a different organisational method: e.g. Category:Skyscrapers might have sub-cats of Category:Skyscrapers by country, Category:Skyscrapers by architect, and Category:Skyscrapers by height. But that isn't the case here, so the "by county" suffix is unnecessary, whether parenthesised or not. It's like applying a parenthetical disambiguator to an article which doesn't need it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
  • PS I have just added Category:Alumni by university or college to Category:Categories by country, where I notice that there is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Coal mines. Same situation exactly: it contains only by-country sub-categories, but because there are is parrallel categorisation of coal mines (coal mines by color of coal? coalmines by year of closure?), there's no need for the "by county" suffix. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• After getting thoroughly confused for awhile by this category, I'm going to have to oppose as nominated. If you want to capture what this category contains, it should be renamed to something like "Alumni of university or college by country". Because that's what this is, alumni by country. Further down each country branch you may have alumni by university, but not in this category. And no, this does not need to state "by university" just because it is that way several steps down. -- Kbdank71 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - per kbdank's comments. (And to avoid adding a parenthetical.) - jc37 11:16, 18 March 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. Kbdank71 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Lists of people by university in Egypt ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Alumni by university or college in Egypt, to better reflect the contents, and consistent with all other sub-cats of the parent, Category:Alumni by university or college. (Category creator not notified, has been blocked.) Cgingold ( talk) 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename – per sagacious nom. Occuli ( talk) 13:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Not to mention, bodacious, as I'm sure you will agree! Cgingold ( talk) 19:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename. I have created Category:People by university in Egypt as a parent to fit the standard scheme at Category:People by university. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus (see cat talk page). Kbdank71 14:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Link protocols to Category:Data Link Layer protocols

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All TCP/IP model Link layer protocols are not included (physical layer is excluded), but the category has been a good reflection of the OSI model Data Link Layer since long time. Mange01 ( talk) 22:24, 8 March 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 all and merge texas as discussed <personal opinion>Look, is there any (good) reason why we are skipping Cleveland, Vegas, SF, NY, Philly, etc, etc? As I've said before, "City" means the same as "City, State". Period. We shouldn't expect readers to be Kreskin and make the assumption that "City" REALLY means "City Metro Area", or "City and the 12.2 counties surrounding it", or anything other than just "City", and if people are coming to CFD and opposing this because of something THEY are assuming, then <nastiness removed>. Stop creating inconsistencies in the category structure. If you want a category to include the area outside of the city limits of any city, CREATE A CATEGORY THAT IS NAMED AS SUCH, and let these renames go through. If that means splitting up the categories a la Las Vegas, Nevada and Las Vegas metropolitan area, so be it.</personal opinion> . Kbdank71 14:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Chicago to Category:Transportation in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Dallas-Fort Worth to Category:Transportation in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Kansas City to Category:Transportation in the Kansas City metropolitan area

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Philadelphia to Category:Transportation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Spokane to Category:Transportation in Spokane, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Transportation of Gary, Indiana to Category:Transportation in Gary, Indiana

Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles bike paths to Category:Bike paths in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Orange County bike paths to Category:Bike paths in Orange County, California

Propose renaming Category:San Diego bike paths to Category:Bike paths in San Diego, California

Propose renaming Category:San Francisco bike paths to Category:Bike paths in San Francisco, California

Propose renaming Category:Chicago area expressways to Category:Expressways in the Chicago area

Propose renaming Category:Highways in Dallas-Fort Worth to Category:Highways in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex

Propose renaming Category:Chicago railroads to Category:Railway lines in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Railroads in Omaha to Category:Railway lines in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Chicago to Category:Streets in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Cleveland to Category:Streets in Cleveland, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Dallas to Category:Streets in Dallas, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Minneapolis to Category:Streets in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Propose renaming Category:Streets in New Orleans to Category:Streets in New Orleans, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Omaha to Category:Streets in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Philadelphia to Category:Streets in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Pittsburgh to Category:Streets in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Saint Paul to Category:Streets in Saint Paul, Minnesota

Propose renaming Category:Streets of Seattle to Category:Streets in Seattle, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Toll roads in Dallas-Fort Worth to Category: Toll roads in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex

Propose renaming Category:Trails in Dallas to Category:Trails in Dallas, Texas

Nominator's rationale: In accordance with many nominations to add the state to city categories, plus some general cleanup. I seem to be settling on not putting the state with metro areas. As per many of these, I've left New York City and Las Vegas out due to thorny naming issues there. And yes, it did take a considerable bit of fortitude not to propose Category:Streets of Philadelphia.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Not to mention " Streets of San Francisco". Cgingold ( talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That too.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom except Category:San Francisco bike paths to Category:Bike paths in the San Francisco Bay Area since only 1 of the 4 listed is completely within the city. Also others may change with research. As to Vegas, using the metro area is the safe way if you really want to rename away from simply 'Las Vegas'. Vegaswikian1 ( talk) 22:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Category:Trails in Dallas to Category:Transportation in Dallas, Texas. Single entry category with no other parent. Vegaswikian1 ( talk) 22:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • No objection to the trail merge. I would say that if part of something is within the city, it's in the city. (This is not the same as the Vegas debate.) Otherwise, a whole lot of streets would have to leave their categories. So I'd keep the bike paths in the San Francisco category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
      • OK. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename per nom Erik9 ( talk) 15:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:EU waste legislation to Category:Waste legislation in the European Union

Propose renaming Category:United States waste legislation to Category:Waste legislation in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to CFD 2009 Feb 27. To match parent categories Category:Waste management in the European Union and Category:Waste management in the United States, respectively, and to expand an abbreviation in the first case. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 19:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Tim! ( talk) 17:26, 10 March 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) 03:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Violent incidents in Australia to Category:Violence in Australia

Propose renaming Category:Violent incidents in India to Category:Violence in India

Propose renaming Category:Violent incidents in Ireland to Category:Violence in Ireland

Propose renaming Category:Violent incidents in Moldova to Category:Violence in Moldova

Propose renaming Category:Violent incidents in Romania to Category:Violence in Romania

Nominator's rationale: As direct subcategories of Category:Violence, these categories are more useful as topic categories rather than list categories (see here for definitions). Also, per precedent of CFD 2009 February 27. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename All per nom. The same rationale I made for the US sub-cat applies here as well. Cgingold ( talk) 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom (although note that this will also mean expanding the contents of the categories: e.g., Category:Violence in Ireland should probably contain The Troubles, while Category:Violent incidents in Ireland would not). Robofish ( talk) 03:13, 15 March 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. Kbdank71 14:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Arab architecture to Category:Arabic architecture

Nominator's rationale: Not sure what the naming conventions are, probably Arabic preferable, but two categories for this are unnecessary. meltBanana 19:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. "Arabic" refers to the culture (including architecture), while "Arab" refers to the people. Cgingold ( talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Looking more closely at these categories, I think it's somewhat problematic to conflate architectural style and location. So I'm not sure the sub-cats for Iraqi and Yemeni architecture belong here, unless we are to presume that all buildings in those countries are examples of "Arabic architectural style". It's a bit of a muddle. Cgingold ( talk) 21:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom, though possibly both should be merged to Category:Islamic architecture, where in fact the vast majority of examples of "Arab/ic architecture" are located. This is the usual, perhaps over-sweeping, term in the West, not least because the styles of, especially Iranian & later Ottoman architecture were largely the same as in the Arab world. Johnbod ( talk) 21:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• What about the issue I raised vis-a-vis the Iraqi and Yemeni sub-cats? Cgingold ( talk) 21:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't see that as a problem, except for Category:Archaeological sites in Iraq, where most are pre-Islamic and Pre-Arab in the usual terminology. But no doubt Category:English architecture contains similar issues. The Yemeni one has only one article & the usual buildings & structures cat, where most of the architecture actually lurks. If anything the boot is on the other foot & the architecture is more Arab or Islamic than Iraqi etc. Johnbod ( talk) 03:05, 9 March 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: relisted on march 16. Kbdank71 15:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Kalvan series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category itself shouldn't be deleted, but all of its subcategories are fairly redundant and useless -- there was apparently a whole series of stub articles that have now been merged and redirected away. AnonMoos ( talk) 13:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete all subcategories. The only one with a significant number of articles remaining is Category:Books in the Kalvan series, and that one's not needed either - the books are all included in Category:Kalvan series anyway. Robofish ( talk) 03:11, 15 March 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. the wub "?!" 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Free terminal emulators ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete It's an empty subcategory included in an already thinly populated category. Mecanismo | Talk 11:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Proposed for deletion 3 hours after creation? Guess I have to work faster. And there are still another 155 articles in Category:Free software to move to subcategories if anyone would like to help. tooold ( talk) 15:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• keep Now sufficiently populated, as are each of its 3 parents. Having 3 parents makes it non-obvious that its contents could/should be upmerged. Hmains ( talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The parent categories are poorly defined (emulators in particular), since they're using their nominal term inconsistently. Tedickey ( talk) 18:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep as the first criterion of the nom is now false, and the 2nd one does not specify which of the 3 parent categories is thinly populated (or indeed why this matters). Occuli ( talk) 18:23, 8 March 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. the wub "?!" 00:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:People from Citigroup to Category:Citigroup people

Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicate categories. Merge target is older and conforms with standard naming format for "people by company". The first category is formatted as "people by place" categories are usually formatted. Citigroup is not a place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Clear duplicate, merge target is conventional name format for this sort of category
  But what's this "Citigroup is not a place"?? They say "the past is a foreign country", and at that rate Citogroup soon will be a place. ;-) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sense a new marketing slogan: "Citigroup: it's not a place—it's a state of mind". (The fact that the current state of mind seems to be rank panic is irrelevant—I clearly should be running Citi's marketing department ... They get bonuses, right?) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge - duplicate categories. Versus22 _talk 15:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge - duplicate cats. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 17:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge to eliminate duplication. Alansohn ( talk) 03:47, 10 March 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 based upon the arguments put forth by BHG. Kbdank71 14:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Kennedy Scholar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is an excellent example of how category clutter is created. It categorises notable people by an attribute which in most cases is irrelevant to the reasons for their notability, and by cluttering the category list at the bottom of an article it reduces the usability of the category system. Per WP:CAT#What_categories_should_be_created, categories "should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects" .. and a scholarship is not a defining feature of the people categorised here.

There is already a list of notable Kennedy Scholars embedded in Kennedy Scholarship, and if it grows beyond manageable size it could be split out to a standalone list. There is no problem in mentioning a Kennedy scholarship in a biographical article, but categorisation by scholarship is excessive.

Note that this category has already been tagged for speedy renaming to Category:Kennedy Scholars, which seems quite appropriate. If the speedy renaming proceeds, it may mean that by the time this CfD debate closes, the category title above may appear as a redlink. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. List is enough, and seems a bit longer. Speedy opposed, but if kept, rename with "s". Johnbod ( talk) 16:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep (renamed into plural) - This is an award formerly held by a lot of notable people. The present list classifies awardees by subsequent field of work, with biographic details: this is muddly. It might be better to convert the list to a single able listing awrdees in date order, with subsequent columns for field of work (law, politics, academia, etc). Curriculum vitae material in article can probably be deleted or trimmed to one or two items. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I don't actually see a reason to keep in Peterkingiron's !vote. The fact that an attribute is shared is shared by some notable people doesn't seem to me to grounds for making it a category. If we categorise notable people by every possible shared attribute, we end up with the sort of category clutter seen on Tony Blair, who has 12 categories relating to awards, religion, education and pre-politics career.
    As to lists, sortable lists can be used quite effectively for this sort of data. In this case, a list could have sortable columns for name, year of birth, year when scholarship awarded, field of work (the existing sub-headings of law, academia, politics and govt, etc), and institution studied at (Harvard or MIT), with the biographical note left intact as an unsorted column. Many lists which don't appears to be sortable can be made so: compare this old version of the List of Irish by-elections with the current sortable version. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I can't see that this is defining for the people who received it. Otherwise pluralise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment (leaning toward Delete) - When I first saw this CFD, I thought it was about "Scholars of JFK and/or the Kennedy Family". Unlike the Rhodes & Fulbright Scholarships, these are never mentioned in the US news media, which is why I was unaware of their existence. Even allowing for the insular nature of the US media, given their general preoccupation with all things Kennedy, it suggests that the Kennedy Scholarship is not on a par with those other two. While we're on the subject, I rather doubt that any of the other seven Scholarships with sub-cats in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Scholarships are sufficiently noteworthy to have categories either. But as with this one, I'm not sure I know enough to render a final judgement on them. Cgingold ( talk) 21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep we have category:Rhodes scholar, for which this is the exact equivalent. it's so far been consensus that merely having such an award does not make one notable, but a great many notable people do have them. Its regarded as a distinction worth public notice, and I think does characterise the early part of someone's career. I would regard its omission in a bio as evidence of an incompletely researched article. Lists and categories have complementary functions--if there are more than 2 or 3 items in a list,-- as there are -- its sufficiently populated for a category. DGG ( talk) 01:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Reply The existence of category:Rhodes scholars merely invokes WP:OTHERSTUFF; I have some doubts aboiut the merits of that category. In the case of this one, I quite agree that a biographical article ought to mention a public scholarship like this, but that doesn't mean that it needs a category. The category system cannot reflect every aspect of people's lives, which is why some groups are best recorded by lists. The Kennedy scholarship lends itself very well to a list, because the list has a small and finite number of members which can be checked against central sources; this is a contrast to categories such as "Alumni of X", which n most cases are simply too big to be completed in a list. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete OCAT by non-defining award. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep (renamed into plural) A Kennedy Scholarship is a leading scholarship in the UK. I would argue that it does have a significant impact on a recipient's career. Four members of the British Cabinet have this award, which is noted in all their biographies as a main feature of their education. I can see the argument to rename in the plural but not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarbre ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC) — Oscarbre ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment. I would suggest that significance of the scholarship in these careers may not be so much in the scholarship itself as in the fact that they were thereby able to study at a prestigious institution. There are in fact a lot of different forms of scholarship and bursary which have allow students to take a degree; in the UK, for example, grants from Local Education Authorities (and before them, local councils) allowed hundreds of thousands of people to study at university, even though they would otherwise have been unable to afford it. Those grants changed lives and changed British society, and many notable politicians got them. If we are going to categorise people by scholarship, why stop at those with a more recognisable name? I don't think it's a good route to go down, because it would lead to a proliferation of extra categories on biographies. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:23, 13 March 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. Kbdank71 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Acquisitions by Juniper Networks to Category:Juniper Networks

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent. Unnecessary‚ or at least premature. Only contains List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks and one other article about one of the acquisitions. A list would seem preferable, and it already exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep : such categories for acquisitions of other major companies do exist. I am planning to make article stubs for the rest of the acquisitions mentioned in List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks very soon -- Tinu Cherian - 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Juniper Networks acquisitions per the convention of Category:Acquisitions. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 07:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment do we really need Category:Acquisitions? If that one is going to be kept, it needs renaming to remove the ambiguity. In the case of Category:Acquisitions by Juniper Networks, all of the articles also appear to be in the parent, Category:Juniper Networks. I'm thinking that maybe we want to Upmerge this as nominated and nominate Category:Acquisitions for renaming to Category:Lists of corporate acquisitions. I'm not sure what purpose the category serves here over a list especially when the acquisitions are also listed in the article. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Removed the category Category:Juniper Networks from the template {{ Juniper Networks}} to prevent the category inheriting for the articles in Category:Acquisitions by Juniper Networks -- Tinu Cherian - 08:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per nom. Given the template and the list in the article, I don't see an advantage to also having the category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that the top level category is removed from the template. -- Tinu Cherian - 04:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • That is not the issue. As a general rule, templates should not be used to categorize articles that they are contained in. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per nom, and per Vegaswikian. Robofish ( talk) 03:08, 15 March 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:World's Fair sites Erik9 ( talk) 14:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Former World's Fair sites to Category:World's Fair sites

Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need for this category to use "former" since there can only be one World's Fair at any one time and by grouping "sites", it is implied that all but a few (either current or future) will be "former". And just in general, we avoid the "former" vs. "current/future" distinctions in categorization. (Some may argue for deletion because we generally don't categorize places by the events they have hosted. In my view, if applied to entire cities, this category would probably be inappropriate, but as it is now defined and applied it's being limited to relatively specific areas within cities, so I think it's a marginally OK categorization scheme in most cases.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:World's Fair venues, as a World's Fair would seem to be a defining event. That is assuming it is kept, as numerous venues categories already exist, mostly for sporting topics, e.g. Category:Summer Olympic venues, Category:Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball tournament venues, Category:Football (soccer) venues by competition, Category:Solheim Cup venues, Category:Land speed record venues, and so on.- choster ( talk) 09:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • This category (which I created) isn't about venues -- i.e. buildings and such -- but districts. I believe using "venues" in the cat name might create confusion, causing people to include pavilions, as well. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. The only objection to the present name is the word "former". It is not necessary to distinguish "former" from "present" and "future". If you are concerned about the inclusion of individual pavilions, that can be dealt with by adding a brief note on the category page defining its intended scope. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. I'm not concerned, if we follow Good Ol’factory's recommendation and simply remove the word "former." Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:15, 9 March 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.