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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 9. Dana boomer ( talk) 02:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Construction projects to Category:Buildings and structures under construction or Category:Proposed buildings and structures

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Most of the items in here are questionable as to really belonging rather then being in other better categories. Inclusion in this and the previous Category:Building projects was mostly based on ongoing construction activity. In how many cases does retaining a construction related category work correctly past the construction phase? Project City Center was a construction project. However, the article morphed over time into the post construction name and purpose, CityCenter. Since it no longer is an under development project, it probably does not belong in this category. Also I'll note that the introduction here is for Building and structures that are proposed or under construction. Which just happens to be the names for two of the subcategories. So at best if we keep this, it's parent should be Category:Buildings and structures under construction and/or Category:Proposed buildings and structures. I think that once we decide how to deal with this category, it may be acceptable to allow recreation of this category for notable building projects like Big Dig, Project City Center and maybe a few others. However the introduction for the category needs to establish objective inclusion criteria unlike the current version. Clearly over time we have not devoted articles to major construction projects like the Pyramids. Even something more modern like the Panama Canal does not have a construction article but History of the Panama Canal comes close. I'm still considering how to address Category:Development projects. I'll add in closing that virtually everything in Category:Buildings and structures under construction could be called a construction project so do we really have just have this as an unnecessary level of categorization that does not improve clarity? We lack articles on construction project and development project so we lack a common form of guidance. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Merge with Category:Buildings and structures. We do not like current and former categories. This one offends against the same principle. A building under construction is already a "structure" even if it is not yet a "building". Those that are merely planned are likely to fail WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Category:Buildings and structures should not be the target since it is for categories and not articles. Needs to go into a subcategory or subcategories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:34, 3 October 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. Dana boomer ( talk) 22:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Variations of hockey ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No !vote at this time. This category appears to me to have been created to say that field hockey is hockey, and all the others are "variations". My reason for that inference is that field hockey was not added, and the creator comes from the UK. I have for now added field hockey to the cat, and as long as it stays there, the category is not entirely implausible, though I also don't see any particularly good reason for it. Trovatore ( talk) 21:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep Above nominatator very quick to jump the gun. I had not even got round to fully populating category. Perfectly valid cat see for example Category:Variations of rugby union Djln Djln ( talk) 21:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Question Were you planning to put field hockey in it? If so, then what purpose does the cat serve, over having all the articles directly in category:hockey? -- Trovatore ( talk) 21:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete This category replicates what the category Category:Hockey does. - DJSasso ( talk) 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Djln. This is a very neat way of organising the hierarchy of categories relating to the different types of hockey. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Which is what the category hockey does. Hockey is an overall name, no one variation is just hockey through the entire world. So Hockey is the name of the family of sports which fall under it. Why have two cats which are identical in purpose. His example is different rugby union is a sport in itself and the things in the category are a variation of it. This is not true of hockey. - DJSasso ( talk) 10:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Please look again at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Hockey. It has sub-cats such as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Hockey players and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Hockey by country, which in turn have sub-cats relating to variants of hockey; lumping the variants directly in with them would be placing apples and oranges together. The current structure is incomplete, but the best solution is to complete it rather than demolish it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Right but if I am going to the hockey category which is just the overall name of the group of sports and not a sport in and of itself. I expect the subcategories of that category to be the different sports that make up the family called hockey. I shouldn't have to go to a middle category to get there. The different types of hockey are a direct sub category of hockey. Just like you would do Category:Provinces and territories of Canada and the sub-category would not be "variations of canadian provinces" but the actual provinces themselves like Category:Ontario. - DJSasso ( talk) 23:57, 30 September 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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:LGBT case law to Category:LGBT rights case law

:Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the parent, the child and many of the siblings in Category:Case law by topic. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 05:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 16:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC) :Rename per CoP. Roscelese ( talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Rename per Bbb23 as I am doubtful about the existence of LGBT case law that does not pertain to LGBT rights. Roscelese ( talk) 04:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisting comment: Per QuAz GaA, the nominator is being ignored; as only one other user has commented, this nomination is being treated as a nomination where no one but one user (usually trhe nominator) has expressed any opinion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. Original rationale is inaccurate - it's not consistent. Category:Case law by topic has 23 subcategories, of which Category:LGBT case law is one. Only two of the 23 (besides LGBT) use the word rights: Category:Student rights case law and Category:Reproductive rights case law. LGBT case law itself has only two subcategories, one of which uses the word rights ( Category:United States LGBT rights case law) and other does not ( Category:Same-sex union case law. The real issue is whether there any LGBT cases that are not about LGBT rights. If not, then renaming it is more descriptive, even if not more consistent. If we rename it, we should rename the others that are similar to LGBT. If, on the other hand, there are LGBT cases that are about issues other than LBGT rights, then the new name would be imprecise.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Tend to concur on rename given that one of the parents is Category:LGBT rights. If there were case law references about same-sex unions that didn't deal with their validity I think there would be a better argument for the present name. Mangoe ( talk) 15:20, 27 September 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: withdrawn by nominator. — ξ ^xplicit 06:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Public transport in Maine to Category:Public transportation in Maine

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Public transportation in the United States. TM 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Rename to maintain consistency with Category:Public transportation in the United States by state. Alansohn ( talk) 01:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh I didn't even see that. Withdrawn.-- TM 04:03, 27 September 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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 9. Dana boomer ( talk) 02:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Category:People from the Southern United States
• Category:Musicians from the Southern United States

Nominator's rationale: Delete. To coincide with the nomination below, these categories are just an extra category level that does not aid in navigation. These two Foo from the Southern United States are also the only two of their kind, as the other regions aren't covered at all. — ξ ^xplicit 04:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete – these are redundant to the 'by state' schemes. Occuli ( talk) 11:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• keep Category:People from the Southern United States. This is a proper subcategory of its only parent: Category:Southern United States which has other subcats pertaining to this unique US region. It is not redundant to anything Hmains ( talk) 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

  I didn't call these categories redundant, but needless. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Southern United States already categorizes each state, which all lead to their respective People from Foo categories. — ξ ^xplicit 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep as appropriate parents for the categories within them organized by state. Alansohn ( talk) 01:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unclear. Which states are the Southern United States#Geography? There is no one answer. I am amused when I am told that Virginia is not really part of the South, whereas Richmond was the Confederate capital. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 07:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• comment regarding Category:People from the Southern United States. I have now more fully populated this category so that it contains other pertinent subcategories, not just state ones. Hmains ( talk) 21:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete as redundant, unclear, and unnecessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:19, 5 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Category:American musicians by region
• Category:East Coast musicians

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Essentially, these are useless category. It's equivalent to the American rappers by location scheme that was deleted in May, which serves no purpose, as any page categorized here at any time would need to be refined into the state-specific categories. Best to delete this now before it grows. — ξ ^xplicit 03:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support – but what about Category:East Coast hip hop musicians and Category:East Coast hip hop groups? It should probably be an upmerge rather than delete. [Redundant to 'by state' schemes.] Occuli ( talk) 11:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) reply

  The nominated categories are categories articles by region. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:East Coast hip hop musicians and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:East Coast hip hop groups specifically pertain to East Coast hip hop. The former is a subcategory of the ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Hip hop musicians by genre, while the latter is a subcategory of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Hip hop groups by genre. — ξ ^xplicit 21:36, 26 September 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.