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 rename C2B. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:White Whale albums to Category:White Whale (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: To dab Category:White Whale Records albums and per White Whale/ White Whale (band) — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Occuli ( talk) 18:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename the current name is ambiguous. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:25, 1 August 2011 (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 and start again from scratch if necessary. There's a general feeling that this category is too much of a mess for even merging to work. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Media by setting to Category:Locations in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Okay, I'm going to take a different approach to this tree by User:Stefanomione than I had planned. He's been been calling books, even novels, "media" in a way that is confusing. If something is "set" in a place, it is a fictional work that belongs in the category tree for Category:Creative works: something distinct from Media and its category tree Category:Mass media, which we reserve more for the instruments of modern communications. The detailed description at Category:Mass media does explain that " Other forms and uses of media generally fall under the heading of entertainment media." But "entertainment media" is just a piped link to Entertainment. User:Stefanomione has, I believe, misunderstood our category trees for Mass media and Creative works, spawning a myriad of poorly named, confusing and inconsistent groupings.

Now, particular to this nomination, if something is "set" (as opposed to "shot" or "produced") somewhere, it is by definition a work of fiction. We are classifying articles by their fictional setting. So what is the difference between the nominated category tree and the pre-existing Category:Locations in fiction? None that I can see. For example, compare any two such categories: Category:Media set in Morocco and the Category:Morocco in fiction.

If this top-level nom is successful, I'll nominate the myriad of sub-cats for merging to the applicable Foo in fiction category, or renaming if no such in-fiction category exists, but it'll take time.

And should we try to block this guy from creating more categories? I've been nominating his stuff for years and he does more damage than good, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Using your example, Media set in Morocco and Morocco in fiction is just a continuum. It's not even a line, or a fine line at that. I think blocking this guy would be a great idea. Years, shesh Curb Chain ( talk) 11:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Works by setting. Compare Category:Works set in the United States and the Category:United States in fiction. Substituting "Media" by "Works" in the subcategories is indeed a logical option. You can explain my confusion by the meaning of the French and Italian words (les oeuvres - le opere) Stefanomione ( talk) 19:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Another venture into Stefanomione's mind-boggling alternative category system ... this is a misbegotten child of the wretched Category:Media by parameter and has in turn spawned Category:Media by setting and by medium. This is just nonsense. I don't see that merging is going to work: it would just move a lot of nonsense into the perfectly rational Category:Locations in fiction (rational that is apart from the additions already made by Stefanomione). We banned User:Pastorwayne from category space altogether. Occuli ( talk) 18:32, 6 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Self-styled orders of knighthood ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcat, subjective, and as used, not appropriate to its claim. the main article should be self-styled orders (of chivalry), but that article itself is a stub, and many of the self-styled orders are so small that they will never qualify for article status, because they're not recognized in the first place, so there is no expandability. The cat was populated incorrectly as well; not with groups as it should have been, but mainly with individuals like Henry Lincoln, who never claimed to be a knight (but wrote a book about the Priory of Sion, and Karl Gotthelf von Hund, founder of a short-lived German Masonic system, which was also not a chivalric system, nor did it claim to be. Also listed was a pretender to the Jacobite throne, who also did not claim to be aq knight, and was listed in the appropriate pretender cat already. Obviously, individuals are not "orders of knighthood" and the creator of the cat did not really know what to do with it. Another addition was the Larmenius Charter, which was a forged document purporting to be Knights Templar related. After taking out the obviously incorrect entries, there are only two left. MSJapan ( talk) 15:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The website that showed Henry Lincoln knighted by the Militi Templi Scotia order at Newbattle Abbey in Scotland has been deleted but here's a pic

[1] Lung salad ( talk) 16:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Just found this [2] Lung salad ( talk) 16:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Category is not only about orders, but about their founders, e.g. Michel Roger Lafosse, who is proven self-styled Prince and founder of "The Imperial and Royal Dragon Court and Order" and "Noble Order of the Guards of St Germain".-- Yopie ( talk) 17:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: And where is that stated? Lafosse has no such citation in his article, a prince is not a knight, and a category about founders should be "members of self-styled orders of chivalry". MSJapan ( talk) 17:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Reply: It is stated in article. For references see Revived and Recently Created Orders of Chivalry.-- Yopie ( talk) 18:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

      • Tertiary source, as it is an encyclopedia that quotes other sources, and there's no indication that it meets RS. MSJapan ( talk) 21:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

        • It is article by respected heraldic. About Lafosse as founder of "Noble Order of the Guards of St Germain" see World Orders of Knighthood and Merit page 2012. Do you have reliable source, that says otherwise?-- Yopie ( talk) 21:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete no secondary references Curb Chain ( talk) 08:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete whether Henry Lincoln was knighted by anyone ever is immaterial. He is a person, not an order, and so would never belong in this cat. This is a poorly thought out cat. Beyond this its name strikes me as an attempt to disparage the content by saying "they claim to be knights, but really are not". I think it probably violates the rule that cat names should not express a point of view. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • No idea what you are talking about. This category was never meant to include articles on people, but such articles as " Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani" and " Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem". There are hundreds or even thousands of such bogus orders in existence, and a couple of them may be worthy of articles as they can have a significant membership and media presence in some cases. The category name is simply the established term, whether you like it or not. Mocctur ( talk) 22:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• ::Keep. Self-styled orders tarnish the existence of bonafide genuine orders of knighthood holding pedigrees dating back centuries by their existence. How can it be "point of view" if an order of knighthood is not officially recognised by any legal authority, and is an obvious fabrication? And there are secondary sources - website articles by authorities like Guy Stair Sainty and books like Rebels, Pretenders & Impostors by Cheesman & Williams. Lung salad ( talk) 10:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Obvious keep. This is the established term for this kind of organisations. It's important to have a separate category, these organisations do not belong in the same category as the one for real orders of knighthood (i.e. the same category as the one including, inter alia, the Order of Malta), which are founded by a sovereign. Mocctur ( talk) 22:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Check out this article on French Wikipedia - there's more than enough material:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_ordres_de_fantaisie

Lung salad ( talk) 09:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

And here's an online article on the subject matter by Guy Stair Sainty:

http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/self-styled/slfstlod.htm

Lung salad ( talk) 10:02, 4 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:False Order of St John ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective categorization and bad choice of title. This is not a title of a chivalric order called "The False Order of St. John", rather it is "False (as in fake/unrecognized/illegitimate) Orders of St. John" as in "Groups called the Order of St. John which are not the recognized Hospitallers but use the name" of which there is only one listing in the cat. Bad titling aside, I see no real expandability in terms of articles of substance. MSJapan ( talk) 15:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per inexpandability. Also, this is a conflation of the fact that only one exists and the fact that the word order misleads readers believing that it is the name of an organization, although this maybe due to the punctuation (capitalization). Curb Chain ( talk) 08:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per NPOV violations. We should not be categorizing things as false, except where there is a clear undisputed outside agreement on such. If the gorup itself claimed it was such a thing than there is clearly not agreement that is was false. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merge. This category can be replaced by Category:Self-styled orders of knighthood, i.e. the main category for this kind of organisations ( self-styled orders), for now. Mocctur ( talk) 22:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 19:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment this category can not just be merged into SSOOK. SSOOK is for articles that are on orders, this category is mainly about things related to a specific order, the contents of this category should not be merged into the other. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:52, 6 August 2011 (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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Cardiff High School to Category:People educated at Cardiff High School

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Dynevor School, Swansea to Category:People educated at Dynevor School, Swansea

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Llanelli Boys' Grammar School to Category:People educated at Llanelli Boys' Grammar School

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Monmouth School to Category:People educated at Monmouth School

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of St. Michael's College, Llandaff to Category:People educated at St. Michael's College, Llandaff

Propose renaming Category:Brecon Grammar School alumni to Category: People educated at Brecon Grammar School

Nominator's rationale: In Category:Former pupils by school in Wales (and generally in UK secondary school categories), there has been little support for 'alumni' in cfds. In contrast there has been substantial support for the 'People educated at' formulation. This change would reduce names in Category:Former pupils by school in Wales from the present 4 formats to 2: 'People educated at' and the 'Old BoodleFoodleians' option. Occuli ( talk) 14:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename. Though I would prefer "Alumni" for all such categories, it's been made abundantly clear that that is a name that just doesn't apply in the UK. So let's wipe it out in that country, and get these to the dominant form. If it changes later, it changes later.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename. I agree that this is the best compromise between the extreme options of using "alumni" vs. "Old THINGians". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename The People educated at X is clearly the emerging precedent in the UK school cats. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:35, 1 August 2011 (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. It is clear there should be some change, but it's impossible to figure out from this discussion exactly what form each one should take. I suggest settling it on the talk page of National Party of Australia and then renominating.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 00:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:New South Wales National politicians to Category:National Party of Australia politicians from New South Wales

Propose renaming Category:Queensland National politicians to Category:National Party of Australia politicians from Queensland

Propose renaming Category:South Australian National politicians to Category:National Party of Australia politicians from South Australia

Propose renaming Category:Victoria (Australia) National politicians to Category:National Party of Australia politicians from Victoria (Australia)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Formatting these in the "STATE National politicians" format can give the impression that there is a political party called "STATE National", since the standard format for politicians is "POLITICALPARTY politicians". I suggest renaming these to use the proper name of the party, which is "National Party of Australia", and then matching the format to Category:National Party of Australia politicians by simply adding the state of origin on the end of the name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment Any reason for excluding the Western Australia category? Two of the state parties have articles, one at National Party of Western Australia, the other at The Nationals South Australia. Timrollpickering ( talk) 08:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I left out the WA one because I knew about the state party article and thought that perhaps it needed to be treated differently in a future nomination, depending on how these turn out. I wasn't aware of the SA party article, which suggests maybe this one could be treated differently as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • There's a bit of a problem with the SA and WA articles - basically the two state parties use the same format for their branding and formal names but the articles have gone different ways. As I understand it the NSW and Victoria (and Queensland before it merged) state parties have the same name forms. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment They're all state politicians (see the dicussion at Category talk:Western Australian Liberal politicians) so add 'state' somewhere in the title, e.g. Category:National Party of Australia state politicians from Queensland. Corresponding federal categories can be added when someone gets around to it. Miracle Pen ( talk) 12:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • That's probably a good idea if they are all meant to be state politicians. With the current names, there's no reason federal politicians from the state in question could not be added to the categories. In fact, I assumed it was for both federal and state politicians, which is kind of why I suggested the names I did. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment Many of these people were never members of the National Party of Australia - the WA and SA ones are explicitly members of separate organisations (the WA one was started in opposition to the NPA's affiliated organisation, ran independently for 7 years then absorbed the affiliated organisation and for 19 years retained affiliation before effectively splitting again). SA's history has always been that of an independent party founded by locals in the 1960s and limited to a couple of electorates - the official Country party merged into the LCL in the 1930s. The WA federal National member in the House of Representatives is not part of the Nationals caucus and sits with the independents (see bullet 4). WA and SA delegates are able to attend national conferences, but this right is occasionally restricted. I could anticipate the Foundation receiving complaints from the WA party if they were to be so classified, as I know some of them monitor Wikipedia. Queensland had its own "national" headquarters for its state party for the Bjelke-Petersen years. Also the NPA only existed from about 1984 onwards - previous incarnations were the National Country Party, the Country Party etc, all of which are included in these categories. Orderinchaos 21:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment Similar to my comments on the Liberals below, these categories should be based on the state parties and use the current/final name - we have the Country and NCP incarnations covered by the National articles already. It's probably best to use the state specific name in each case:
  • New South Wales: NSW Nationals
  • Victoria: Nationals Victoria
  • Queensland: The state Liberal and National parties merged in 2008 as the Liberal National Party The pre merger website seems gone from the internet
  • Western Australia: Website name: Nationals WA Article name National Party of Western Australia
  • South Australia: Website name: Nationals South Australia or SA Nationals Article name The Nationals South Australia
  • Tasmania: There was a brief "National Party of Australia - Tasmania" registered in the mid 1990s but currently there doesn't seem to be any organisation in the state.
  • Australian Capital Territory: No party
  • Northern Territory: The territory Liberal and National (then "Country") parties merged in the 1970s as the Country Liberals
• Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:53, 8 August 2011 (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. It is clear there should be some change, but it's impossible to figure out from this discussion exactly what form each one should take. I suggest settling it on the talk page of Liberal Party of Australia and then renominating. (Also, "Liberal" in Australia simply means "conservative".? No wonder this is confusing.)-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 00:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Australian Capital Territory Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from the Australian Capital Territory

Propose renaming Category:New South Wales Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from New South Wales

Propose renaming Category:Queensland Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from Queensland

Propose renaming Category:South Australian Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from South Australia

Propose renaming Category:Tasmania Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from Tasmania

Propose renaming Category:Western Australian Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from Western Australia

Propose renaming Category:Victoria (Australia) Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from Victoria (Australia)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Formatting these in the "STATE Liberal politicians" format can give the impression that there is a political party called "STATE Liberal", since the standard format for politicians is "POLITICALPARTY politicians". I suggest renaming these to use the proper name of the party, which is "Liberal Party of Australia", and then matching the format to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians by simply adding the state of origin on the end of the name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment / lean oppose It's a difficult one, but it's what happens when one tries to enclose complicated and sometimes quite fluid reality within the straitjacket of naming conventions.

1. Not all historical Liberal Parties had anything to do with the Liberal Party of Australia. The Commonwealth Liberal Party, Western Australian Liberal Party (1911–1917), and the Liberal Country League of SA (1930s onwards) are but three examples, and there were Liberal movements in SA and VIC which weren't part of the party during the party's existence but were still Liberal politicians.
2. Only federal politicians are officially members of the federal branch. State members are members of their state organisation, which could have any number of official names.
3. With all the permutations possible, one arbitrarily divides people into a raft of categories which are not necessarily useful for searching. "Liberal" in Australia simply means "conservative". Orderinchaos 21:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment we categorize politicians by the party they were affiliated with. If there are multiple non-connected liberal parties that at different times existed in the same area, then we should have categories for each of these parties. Not all politicians need to be identified by their party. It is also better to have more, smaller but accurate categories than a few larger categories that make it look like politicians from multiple parties were all part of hte same party. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment These categories should be trimmed to just politicians from the current Liberal Party state divisions as categorisation by party is fairly standard. The problem is what to call the categories as we have next to no articles on the state parties, with just List of leaders of the Liberal Party of Australia (New South Wales Division) giving any guidance. The general trend on the state websites is to give the party name in the long form of "Liberal Party of Australia, [State] Division" (with some variations on full state names or abbreviations or adjectives) and the short form "Liberal [State]". Tasmania is different as is the ACT:
  • New South Wales: Liberal Party of Australia, NSW Division
  • Victoria: Liberal Party of Australia, Victoria Division
  • Queensland: The state Liberal and National parties merged in 2008 as the Liberal National Party The pre merger website seems gone from the internet
  • Western Australia: Liberal Party of Australia, WA Division
  • South Australia: Liberal Party of Australia, SA Division
  • Tasmania: Tasmanian Liberals
  • Australian Capital Territory: Caberra Liberals
  • Northern Territory: The territory Liberal and National (then "Country") parties merged in the 1970s as the Country Liberals
• I'd guess using those names would be best. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:48, 8 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 04:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: Article on subject has been deleted. Mt king ^(edits) 05:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• 'Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:41, 1 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 04:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:SuperKombat events to Category:Kickboxing events

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, which has questionable notability, SuperKombat itself had was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat Mt king ^(edits) 04:31, 30 July 2011 (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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 02:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional New York City Police Department officers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As much as I think this is a perfectly fine idea for a category, this doesn't have any articles in it, except for one redirect. If it is populated, my opinion would change.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• keep and populate. I have trouble believing that there are NO articles here. I am adding some as we speak, we had articles on the starts of Law and Order:SVU, and that's set in Manhattan, for one. This needs to be populated but the articles exist and as you said yourself, it's a perfectly fine idea for a category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HominidMachinae ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Detectives are not officers. Please don't put detectives into this category. They belong in Category:Fictional New York City Police Department detectives.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Apparently so, my apologies. Even so if we have one for detectives why not one for cops? HominidMachinae ( talk) 07:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep the category has been populated. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I finally found some. They were in the Marvel characters, of course. If no one has any objections, I'll withdraw this nomination.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 08:10, 1 August 2011 (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 speedily as a sole editor request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Prisoners who died in Western Australian detetion to Category:Prisoners who died in Western Australian detention

Nominator's rationale: Typo - ie spelling issue detetion -- should be detention Satu Suro 01:07, 30 July 2011 (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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Texas Tech basketball to Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders and Lady Raiders basketball

Nominator's rationale: In all other subcategories of Category:College basketball teams in the United States, the names of both genders of the teams are used, such as in Category:Tennessee Volunteers and Lady Vols basketball.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support Mayumashu ( talk) 06:59, 30 July 2011 (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.