From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 24

Category:World War II weapons

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. There doesn't seem to be any clear proposal here, and no listing of the affected categories, let alone any tagging of them. The nominator has identified an inconsistency in naming patterns, but there isn't even any consensus that this is a problem worth resolving, let alone any consensus on a particular solution. Editors may want to start discussions on the relevant wikiproject(s) on how to address this. Whether or not it is discussed elsewhere, any further CFD discussion should be properly structured, with the relevant categories all listed in the nomination and all properly tagged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:World War II weapons to [[:Category:[see below]]]
Nominator's rationale: I am nominating not this category, but its subcategories for renaming along some kind of consistent scheme. Right now we have (e.g.) Category:Chinese World War II weapons as well as (e.g.) Category:World War II weapons of Italy. Why the inconsistent naming scheme for these categories? There may be other such subcategories of Category:Weapons by war that need to be rearranged as well, but I figured that WP:CFD is the best place to start a discussion about this. Thoughts? — Justin (koavf)TCM23:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Pool

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. Pool (cue sports) was not renamed in that discussion, so this should be.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Pool to Category:Pool (cue sports)
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article and avoid ambiguity. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: See alternative proposal below, but everything I say in this entry still applies. This was already decided at CfD only about a month ago, maybe two at most. See all rationales already given there, and an admin should close this CfD immediately just for procedural reasons alone. You don't just CfD something over and over again. I think the phrase around here is "asking the other parent"? The summary version is that disambiguation in articlespace does not work the same as it does in categoryspace. Anyone could look for "pool" as an article about swimming or betting or whatever pools. Categoryspace uses plurals, and they would need to be disambiguated - Category:Swimming pools, Category:Betting pools, Category:Tidal pools, etc., etc. But Category:Pool in the singular is not ambiguous. Anyway, this was already hashed out very recently. I know you mean well Armbrust, but this rename would not help, it would only make it more difficult to find and categorize pocket billiards articles. If the category is ever renamed at all it should be to Category:Pocket billiards, and the article should move back to that name as well. The move to Pool (cue sports) was very poorly discussed and involved very few actual participants of WP:CUE. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 20:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename both category and article re-proposed in more detail below. Rename (back) to Pocket billiards, which is not ambiguous in any way and has actually been an industry-standard term since at least the 1920s for the class of cue sports commonly called "pool". The original "pool"-named cue sport was not even a pocket game but a carom game! (Source: Shamos, Mike (1999). The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards. New York: Lyons Press. ISBN  9781558217973 – via Internet Archive.), so using "pool" at all in reference to pocket billiards is in fact ambiguous in and of itself. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'll try to get around to it but have to cook up Yule dinner and stuff. It SHOULD be marked on the category's talk page, but it seems that few closing admins at CfD bother to leave a note about previous CfDs on cat talk pages for some reason. If you AREN'T doing xmas dinner, you could probably find it by digging through my own contributions list and looking for mentions of the category or even of CfD itself - I don't participate here exept when bored or (saliently) when something I care about is up at CfD. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: There is no ambiguity issue at all in the Category namespace because of the naming conventions within it. See details above. If this is renamed, it should be to pocket billiards, with the article name adjusted to follow (though that would not strictly be necessary, it would be a good idea. No one is actually ever going to search for "pool (cue sports)". It's a stupid article name, even for disambiguation purposes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 13:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Did you read ANYTHING I wrote above? A category about pools as bodies of water would have to be called Category:Pools, because we use plurals in category names. Yeesh. Why is no one at all apparently paying any attention to simple near-decade-old WP naming convention basics in this discussion? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename -- The article talk page reveals a discussion for renaming "pocket billiards" to "pool (cue sports)". I proposal to reverse that had no consensus. I think that before we can consider what the category should be called, the question of what the article should be called needs more discussion. "Pool" is unacceptable, because it also refers to a pond or puddle. On the other hand, the disambiguator "pool sports" is inappropriate, becasue this refers to the class of sports of which it is one: it should be "Pool (cue sport)", if we go donw that line. Some contributors to the article rename debate suggested "Pool (game)", but "Pool (sport)" would also be acceptable. Rename probably to Category:Pool (game) and the article to match. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: That would directly conflict with Cue sports and Category:Cue sports. Pool, like snooker and three-cushion billiards is a sport - i.e. a "game" that is subject to widespread amateur and professional competition. "Game" (cf. WP:GAMES) in Wikipedian terms means things like backgammon and Monopoly. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article and eliminate any ambiguity as to the content of the category. Alansohn ( talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. I agree that the category name should match the article name in this instance, mostly because there are a number of places that are called "Pool". I don't think we need to worry about people not being able to find the category because most searchers will probably end up at Pool (cue sports) first, and the category is at the bottom of that page. If users want the name to be something different, we need to get the article moved first, then the category can naturally follow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename both category and article (back!) to Pocket billiards, which is not ambiguous in any way and has actually been an industry-standard term since at least the 1920s to the present day for the class of cue sports commonly called "pool". [Sources: Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards. 1922. Chicago: Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. Table of contents and throughout, e.g. "Chicago Pocket Billiards", "Rotation Pocket Billiards", etc. From that, the first-ever published pocket billiards rules, all the way up to this year: Billiards: The Official Rules and Records Book, World Standardized Rules. 2010. Broomfield, Colorado: Billiard Congress of America. Table of contents and throughout, e.g. "Tournament Pocket Billiards Games", "Other Pocket Billiards Games", "Baseball Pocket Billiards", etc. The term "pool" is only applied to the game chapters "Bank Pool", "Bottle Pool" and "Bumper Pool", of which only the first of the three is still a current game.] The original "pool"-named cue sport was not even a pocket game but a carom game! [Source: Shamos, Mike (1999). The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards. New York: Lyons Press. ISBN  9781558217973 – via Internet Archive. "Pool" entry.], so using "pool" at all in reference to pocket billiards is arguably ambiguous in and of itself, technically. The entire debate can be ended by simply using the industry-preferred term instead of arguing any further at all about whether "pool" is or isn't ambiguous and in what context. There isn't any particular reason to prefer "pool", other than WP:COMMON could apply. But WP:COMMON doesn't actually apply when it results in ambiguity, the existence of which in this case is precisely what most people have been arguing here. The article was renamed from Pocket billiards to Pool (cue sports) on a very flimsy pretext (namely that "pocket pool", which isn't even the same phrase, is a [rather rare] slang term for masturbating through one's own pants pocket), and with nothing like real consensus. Virtually no one actually involved in regularly editing cue sports articles was made aware of the proposal or had a chance to comment on it. I'm a big fan of the KISS principle, and using "Pocket billiards" instead of "Pool (insert some disambiguator here)" is clearly the simpler solution. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Filming locations

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: split as nominated. I will notify the nominator and leave the performance of the split to him. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose splitting Category:Filming locations to Category:Film location shooting and Category:Film shooting locations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a followup to this discussion on film-related districts. This category is all over the map. It contains a set of articles about shooting on location (e.g., Location manager), some about generic places to shoot (e.g., Backlot), and some about places that were used in some films (e.g., MAK Historic District (Decatur)). My thought is to break it up into Category:Film location shooting and its new subcategory Category:Film shooting locations, and purged somewhat. But there might be better approaches.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:53, 24 December 2010 (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.

Flat horse races for fillies and mares

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 (no objections after more than two weeks). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 6 furlongs for fillies and mares to Category:Sprint category horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 7 furlongs for fillies and mares to Category:Sprint category horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 1 mile for fillies and mares to Category:Mile category horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 1 1/16 miles for fillies and mares to Category:Mile category horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 1 1/8 miles for fillies and mares to Category:Mile category horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 1 1/4 miles for fillies and mares to Category:Middle distance horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of at least 1½ miles for fillies and mares to Category:Long distance horse races for fillies and mares (see below)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I originally wanted to merge these all into Category:Flat horse races for fillies and mares, but then I noticed I closed a nomination which changed the equivalent set of categories for all horses three years ago (look all the way at the bottom). To match the Open horse races categories, the ones that are exactly 1½ miles should go into the middle distance category, and those longer should go in the long distance category. The word "flat" was removed in that nomination.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Mayors of Sitka, Alaska

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 to delete by renaming/merging, but I will at least create Category:People from Sitka, Alaska as a parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Sitka, Alaska to Category:People from Sitka, Alaska
Nominator's rationale: Rename: From all indications, the only reason this category was created was because the incumbent mayor at the time ( Scott McAdams) won a major election in Alaska ( the Democratic nomination for United States Senator). There's nothing at present to suggest that this category will be further populated any time soon. The target category covers the bases just fine, and has potential to grow on its own. RadioKAOS ( talk) 08:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Jewish American mayors

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Jewish American mayors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: overcategorisation emerson7 02:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Frank Duval albums

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: nomination withdrawn. ( NAC) Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Frank Duval albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Exact clone of Category:Albums produced by Frank Duval Sven Manguard Wha? 00:03, 24 December 2010 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 24

Category:World War II weapons

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. There doesn't seem to be any clear proposal here, and no listing of the affected categories, let alone any tagging of them. The nominator has identified an inconsistency in naming patterns, but there isn't even any consensus that this is a problem worth resolving, let alone any consensus on a particular solution. Editors may want to start discussions on the relevant wikiproject(s) on how to address this. Whether or not it is discussed elsewhere, any further CFD discussion should be properly structured, with the relevant categories all listed in the nomination and all properly tagged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:World War II weapons to [[:Category:[see below]]]
Nominator's rationale: I am nominating not this category, but its subcategories for renaming along some kind of consistent scheme. Right now we have (e.g.) Category:Chinese World War II weapons as well as (e.g.) Category:World War II weapons of Italy. Why the inconsistent naming scheme for these categories? There may be other such subcategories of Category:Weapons by war that need to be rearranged as well, but I figured that WP:CFD is the best place to start a discussion about this. Thoughts? — Justin (koavf)TCM23:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Pool

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. Pool (cue sports) was not renamed in that discussion, so this should be.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Pool to Category:Pool (cue sports)
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article and avoid ambiguity. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: See alternative proposal below, but everything I say in this entry still applies. This was already decided at CfD only about a month ago, maybe two at most. See all rationales already given there, and an admin should close this CfD immediately just for procedural reasons alone. You don't just CfD something over and over again. I think the phrase around here is "asking the other parent"? The summary version is that disambiguation in articlespace does not work the same as it does in categoryspace. Anyone could look for "pool" as an article about swimming or betting or whatever pools. Categoryspace uses plurals, and they would need to be disambiguated - Category:Swimming pools, Category:Betting pools, Category:Tidal pools, etc., etc. But Category:Pool in the singular is not ambiguous. Anyway, this was already hashed out very recently. I know you mean well Armbrust, but this rename would not help, it would only make it more difficult to find and categorize pocket billiards articles. If the category is ever renamed at all it should be to Category:Pocket billiards, and the article should move back to that name as well. The move to Pool (cue sports) was very poorly discussed and involved very few actual participants of WP:CUE. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 20:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename both category and article re-proposed in more detail below. Rename (back) to Pocket billiards, which is not ambiguous in any way and has actually been an industry-standard term since at least the 1920s for the class of cue sports commonly called "pool". The original "pool"-named cue sport was not even a pocket game but a carom game! (Source: Shamos, Mike (1999). The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards. New York: Lyons Press. ISBN  9781558217973 – via Internet Archive.), so using "pool" at all in reference to pocket billiards is in fact ambiguous in and of itself. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'll try to get around to it but have to cook up Yule dinner and stuff. It SHOULD be marked on the category's talk page, but it seems that few closing admins at CfD bother to leave a note about previous CfDs on cat talk pages for some reason. If you AREN'T doing xmas dinner, you could probably find it by digging through my own contributions list and looking for mentions of the category or even of CfD itself - I don't participate here exept when bored or (saliently) when something I care about is up at CfD. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: There is no ambiguity issue at all in the Category namespace because of the naming conventions within it. See details above. If this is renamed, it should be to pocket billiards, with the article name adjusted to follow (though that would not strictly be necessary, it would be a good idea. No one is actually ever going to search for "pool (cue sports)". It's a stupid article name, even for disambiguation purposes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 13:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Did you read ANYTHING I wrote above? A category about pools as bodies of water would have to be called Category:Pools, because we use plurals in category names. Yeesh. Why is no one at all apparently paying any attention to simple near-decade-old WP naming convention basics in this discussion? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename -- The article talk page reveals a discussion for renaming "pocket billiards" to "pool (cue sports)". I proposal to reverse that had no consensus. I think that before we can consider what the category should be called, the question of what the article should be called needs more discussion. "Pool" is unacceptable, because it also refers to a pond or puddle. On the other hand, the disambiguator "pool sports" is inappropriate, becasue this refers to the class of sports of which it is one: it should be "Pool (cue sport)", if we go donw that line. Some contributors to the article rename debate suggested "Pool (game)", but "Pool (sport)" would also be acceptable. Rename probably to Category:Pool (game) and the article to match. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: That would directly conflict with Cue sports and Category:Cue sports. Pool, like snooker and three-cushion billiards is a sport - i.e. a "game" that is subject to widespread amateur and professional competition. "Game" (cf. WP:GAMES) in Wikipedian terms means things like backgammon and Monopoly. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article and eliminate any ambiguity as to the content of the category. Alansohn ( talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. I agree that the category name should match the article name in this instance, mostly because there are a number of places that are called "Pool". I don't think we need to worry about people not being able to find the category because most searchers will probably end up at Pool (cue sports) first, and the category is at the bottom of that page. If users want the name to be something different, we need to get the article moved first, then the category can naturally follow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename both category and article (back!) to Pocket billiards, which is not ambiguous in any way and has actually been an industry-standard term since at least the 1920s to the present day for the class of cue sports commonly called "pool". [Sources: Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards. 1922. Chicago: Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. Table of contents and throughout, e.g. "Chicago Pocket Billiards", "Rotation Pocket Billiards", etc. From that, the first-ever published pocket billiards rules, all the way up to this year: Billiards: The Official Rules and Records Book, World Standardized Rules. 2010. Broomfield, Colorado: Billiard Congress of America. Table of contents and throughout, e.g. "Tournament Pocket Billiards Games", "Other Pocket Billiards Games", "Baseball Pocket Billiards", etc. The term "pool" is only applied to the game chapters "Bank Pool", "Bottle Pool" and "Bumper Pool", of which only the first of the three is still a current game.] The original "pool"-named cue sport was not even a pocket game but a carom game! [Source: Shamos, Mike (1999). The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards. New York: Lyons Press. ISBN  9781558217973 – via Internet Archive. "Pool" entry.], so using "pool" at all in reference to pocket billiards is arguably ambiguous in and of itself, technically. The entire debate can be ended by simply using the industry-preferred term instead of arguing any further at all about whether "pool" is or isn't ambiguous and in what context. There isn't any particular reason to prefer "pool", other than WP:COMMON could apply. But WP:COMMON doesn't actually apply when it results in ambiguity, the existence of which in this case is precisely what most people have been arguing here. The article was renamed from Pocket billiards to Pool (cue sports) on a very flimsy pretext (namely that "pocket pool", which isn't even the same phrase, is a [rather rare] slang term for masturbating through one's own pants pocket), and with nothing like real consensus. Virtually no one actually involved in regularly editing cue sports articles was made aware of the proposal or had a chance to comment on it. I'm a big fan of the KISS principle, and using "Pocket billiards" instead of "Pool (insert some disambiguator here)" is clearly the simpler solution. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Filming locations

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: split as nominated. I will notify the nominator and leave the performance of the split to him. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose splitting Category:Filming locations to Category:Film location shooting and Category:Film shooting locations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a followup to this discussion on film-related districts. This category is all over the map. It contains a set of articles about shooting on location (e.g., Location manager), some about generic places to shoot (e.g., Backlot), and some about places that were used in some films (e.g., MAK Historic District (Decatur)). My thought is to break it up into Category:Film location shooting and its new subcategory Category:Film shooting locations, and purged somewhat. But there might be better approaches.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:53, 24 December 2010 (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.

Flat horse races for fillies and mares

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 (no objections after more than two weeks). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 6 furlongs for fillies and mares to Category:Sprint category horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 7 furlongs for fillies and mares to Category:Sprint category horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 1 mile for fillies and mares to Category:Mile category horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 1 1/16 miles for fillies and mares to Category:Mile category horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 1 1/8 miles for fillies and mares to Category:Mile category horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of about 1 1/4 miles for fillies and mares to Category:Middle distance horse races for fillies and mares
Propose renaming Category:Flat horse races of at least 1½ miles for fillies and mares to Category:Long distance horse races for fillies and mares (see below)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I originally wanted to merge these all into Category:Flat horse races for fillies and mares, but then I noticed I closed a nomination which changed the equivalent set of categories for all horses three years ago (look all the way at the bottom). To match the Open horse races categories, the ones that are exactly 1½ miles should go into the middle distance category, and those longer should go in the long distance category. The word "flat" was removed in that nomination.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Mayors of Sitka, Alaska

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 to delete by renaming/merging, but I will at least create Category:People from Sitka, Alaska as a parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Sitka, Alaska to Category:People from Sitka, Alaska
Nominator's rationale: Rename: From all indications, the only reason this category was created was because the incumbent mayor at the time ( Scott McAdams) won a major election in Alaska ( the Democratic nomination for United States Senator). There's nothing at present to suggest that this category will be further populated any time soon. The target category covers the bases just fine, and has potential to grow on its own. RadioKAOS ( talk) 08:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Jewish American mayors

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Jewish American mayors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: overcategorisation emerson7 02:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Frank Duval albums

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: nomination withdrawn. ( NAC) Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Frank Duval albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Exact clone of Category:Albums produced by Frank Duval Sven Manguard Wha? 00:03, 24 December 2010 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook