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) 09:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Pope Pius XII writings to Category:Works by Pope Pius XII

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the convention of Category:Works by author, including the other recent popes (e.g. Category:Works by Pope John XXIII). Not speedied since Category:Pope Pius XII is unusually well-developed, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. - choster ( talk) 00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Makes sense; I can't see any reason why it'd be different, except for parallel evolution... Moonraker12 ( talk) 17:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support Rename to match standard used in parent. Alansohn ( talk) 23:39, 9 January 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.

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. I was going to relist this one, but in light of the confusing nature of it all and the inappropriateness of the initial suggestion and the subsequent suggestions for possible better names, I think a well-thought-out renomination might be the best way to go for resolving this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Louisville (NFL) seasons to Category:Louisville Colonels seasons

Nominator's rationale: Rename. If this category included articles for every season played by teams covered by Louisville (NFL), it would include the seasons played by the Louisville Brecks. However, the Louisville Brecks have their own category for their seasons, located at Category:Louisville Brecks seasons. Therefore, this season should be renamed Category:Louisville Colonels seasons. – Pee Jay 23:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Opposed at least to that name- the Louisville Colonels were also a baseball franchise. In fact, since the team's article is at Louisville (NFL) and covers both names, I'd be more inclined to support collapsing the Category:Louisville Brecks seasons into the nominated one. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 23:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I would also support merging Category:Louisville Brecks seasons into this one, but one way or another, the situation needs rectifying. – Pee Jay 01:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Could you propose another target name? The one you proposed is completely unworkable, since it already exists, and contains a dozen or so articles about seasons played by the baseball team. I agree, the current system is a bit of a mess, though. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 02:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Louisville Colonels (NFL) seasons. That's our standard nomenclature; see Category:Dallas Texans (NFL) players, for example.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Louisville Colonels (NFL) seasons as suggested by Mike Selinker. Alansohn ( talk) 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose proposed rename, because Category:Louisville Colonels seasons already exists as a category for the baseball seasons. I would not object renaming to Category:Louisville Colonels (NFL) seasons, although I slightly prefer the current title since it matches the title of the article. Since the article talks about both the Colonels and the Brecks, maybe merging Category:Louisville Brecks seasons would be the most appropriate solution here. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:35, 16 January 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as re-creation that is just more specific; users can't game the system like this. (Same songs were in old category as are in this one.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Country re-recordings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Basically the same as Category:Singles that were re-recorded and released, which was unanimously deleted in April 2009. We don't classify songs by some trivial aspect of their recording. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:54, 8 January 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.

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 keep: withdrawn by nom. Gonzonoir ( talk) 12:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Estonian athlete-politicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Narrow intersection, and small with little potential for growth: contains only one page at present and there is no reason to believe the list is likely to grow. Gonzonoir ( talk) 10:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Reluctant keep per WP:OC#SMALL as part of an established series (see its parent Category:Athlete-politicians). I'd much prefer to see Category:Athlete-politicians and its sub-cats deleted, but CfDs in June 2008 and April 2009 both closed as "no consensus". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Cmt: Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Well, if that's consensus, I will withdraw rather than trying to reopen the whole shebang via this particular article. (I'm a CfD noob; if anyone else wants to close this while I hunt for the documentation on doing so, feel free) Gonzonoir ( talk) 12:48, 8 January 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.

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 16:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Warner Bros. Superman films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category from LGSpears again, that is fairly redundant to Category:Superman films when most of the Superman films are Warner Brothers one, and category is being randomly added to films in the series because the character made an appearance (like the Justice League) one. The existing category is not so crowded that a subcat is needed, and certainly not one so randomly done (the List of locations isn't a Warner Bros. Superman Film nor is a Template). -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete: Nonessential — Mike Allen 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete because Category:Superman films is sufficient; no need to sub-categorize further. Erik ( talk) 15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete redundant. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 9 January 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.

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, without prejudice to re-creation if a referenced article Jungle boy appears. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Jungle boys ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate category created by User:Lg16spears that seems like a derogatory, and made up phrase being randomly applied in an OR fashion. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Strong and Speedy Delete: Whoah. — Mike Allen 05:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a poorly-named category; the existing ones, like Category:The Jungle Book characters, suffice. Erik ( talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete fine, and I agree. But speedy? As what? The listed characters are fictional, so G10 hardly applies, and I can't make any other of the criteria for speedy deletion even seem plausible. If we've done this before, it could be G4'ed, but I can't find any evidence this category has been deleted before. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 23:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination and Erik's comments MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• See also Category:Jungle girls, and the unsourced Jungle girl (stock character). postdlf ( talk) 17:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Hold on a minute What is actually wrong with this category? What is "derogatory" about it? Nothing. Is it being "randomly applied"? No. Do "the existing ones, like Category:The Jungle Book characters, suffice" - no, of course they don't, as they mainly contain fictional pythons & the like, within a specific "franchise", and so are totally different to this general category for human rip-offs of Tarzan and Mowgli. Perhaps rename to Category:Fictional feral children of the jungle, as a sub of Category:Feral children; no doubt some would need to be cut. Claims of OR here are hardly convincing; no doubt there is a sizeable literature on the topic, which is just the sort of thing media studies academics love. Johnbod ( talk) 16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • As you observed, some would need to be cut because not all of the included characters were "feral children" (Ka-Zar and the Phantom weren't). So the stock character this category is trying to capture is something different, based rather on how the character ends up rather than how they got there. It's reasonable to posit that there is probably "a sizeable literature on the topic," but it doesn't seem this category began from a study of that literature, and there is no jungle boy article to describe the concept and provide citations for whom it applies (so we don't even know if this is an apt label elsewhere used). There is a list of feral children in mythology and fiction, but as noted that is something overlapping with this category, but not identical. postdlf ( talk) 17:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Ka-Zar was "raised by the sabertooth tiger Zabu", which sounds pretty feral to me! Johnbod ( talk) 17:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hmm, missed that. Never mind. postdlf ( talk) 21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Rename per Johnbod. This seems to encompass the content in a more appropriate manner. If so, Category:Jungle girls could usefully be merged into it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:13, 10 January 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.

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 16:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Green Hornet films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Created by User:Lg16spears, this is an excessive and extremely limited category for two films and two film serials. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete: Superfluous — Mike Allen 05:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete as too small of a group of articles to categorize. Erik ( talk) 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 9 January 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.

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 16:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Night of the Demons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Another category from User:Lg16spears. Unnecessary and excessive category for a short, three film series and one remake. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete: Superfluous — Mike Allen 05:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete as too small of a group of articles to categorize. Erik ( talk) 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 9 January 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.

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 16:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Blade films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and excessive category for a three film series. Yet another User:Lg16spears creation. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete: Superfluous — Mike Allen 05:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete as too small of a group of articles to categorize. Erik ( talk) 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Erik. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. Again to few films to rate a cat MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 9 January 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.

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 16:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Jason Bourne films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category for five films; redundant to Category:Jason Bourne which has a wider scope. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete: Superfluous — Mike Allen 05:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete as too small of a group of articles to categorize. Erik ( talk) 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Erik. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 9 January 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.

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 (merging contents to Category:Presidency of Barack Obama, Category:Energy policy in the United States and Category:Climate change policy in the United States). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

- Category:Energy and climate change policy of the Barack Obama administration ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename to Category:Energy policy of the Barack Obama administration. Calling it" Energy" and "climate change" is redundant they very closely linked. The category may not get many articles listed (??) since it is getting too specific. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 01:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep.  : Category:Energy and climate change policy of the Barack Obama administration included in the : Category:Energy and climate change policy of the Barack Obama administration . If you want, we can create Category:Energy policy of the Barack Obama administration. -- Nopetro ( talk) 07:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment Energy policy and climate change policy overlap, but they are certainly not synonymous. Oh, you can argue that deforestation affects energy production and electrical utility deregulation affects climate change, but at that level of connection you'd also want to throw in agricultural, urban planning, trade, and transportation policy, at which point you'd have a hard time excluding foreign, fiscal, civil rights, technology, or much else, really.- choster ( talk) 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• I imagine the conglomerate name was chosen because of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, created under Obama. This category is the only subject-specific policy category in Category:Presidency of Barack Obama (there also aren't similar categories for other presidents); I don't see why its three articles can't just be upmerged there, and to Category:Energy policy in the United States and Category:Climate change policy in the United States, both of which have very few entries. postdlf ( talk) 19:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete much too specific, and overemphasis. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 12 January 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.

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Ambassadors of South Ossetia to Russia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate category of Ambassadors of South Ossetia, and since I am not the original author, I have brought it here. ArcAngel (talk) ( review) 01:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep, part of an established and comprehensive structure of Category:Ambassadors by mission country. Note that all of the contents of Category:Ambassadors to Russia are subcategories in this form. In this instance, there simply happens to be only one categorized South Ossetian ambassador, but that doesn't make this more specific one a duplicate. Further, per foreign relations of South Ossetia, it has foreign relations with five other nations, a number probably likely to increase over time, so there will eventually be articles on other ambassadors. ArcAngel, in the future, please don't blank or empty a category you want to list at CFD, because it prevents us from being able to fairly judge it. By removing the one article from this category, you also broke its only connection to Category:Ambassadors to Russia. I've restored the category and the article to where it was while this CFD is pending. postdlf ( talk) 19:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep – it is not a duplicate of Category:Ambassadors of South Ossetia, as Postdlf correctly observes. Occuli ( talk) 01:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep: per postdlf. sephia karta | di mi 17:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- They are not the same, or rather, would not be if South Ossetia were recognised by any one else. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:15, 10 January 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.

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 nominator. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:People from North York to Category:People from North York, Ontario

Nominator's rationale: Place is North York, Ontario. North York is ambiguous. Occuli ( talk) 01:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep. North York redirects to North York, Ontario (which makes one wonder why the article page is at the later?) Mayumashu ( talk) 04:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. In England we have North Yorkshire and 'North York Moors National Park'. Might be better to include the Ontario bit to avoid any ambiguity. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Not to mention York itself. Obviously North York could be part of any York. Occuli ( talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 18:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support to match name of parent. "North York" could indeed be anywhere there is a place named "York". Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 22:18, 14 January 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.