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, without prejudice against a renomination to delete, merge or rename. The root of the problem appears to be a lack of clarity about whether we want to categorize military personnel by nationality, by country of service or both. The Guernsey category is empty (it used to contain Isaac Brock), so I've marked it for speedy deletion in four days under criterion C1. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 19:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category:Guernsey military people and Category:Jersey military people
• Nominators rationale The parent category is for people to be divided by the military they served in. Guernsey and Jersey do not have militaries. In general these people served in the British military. They should thus be in Category:British military personnel or an apropriate sub-category of that category, not in these categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge both to Category:British military personnel from the Channel Islands. Though the UK only has armed formces at the UK-national level, we tend to get these split by the four home nations. We need parallel category for those from the Channel Isles and from the Isle of Man, which are not part of any of the four home nations. I doubt the categiories will ever be big enough to need to keep Jersey spearate from Guerney and its dependencies. Peterkingiron ( talk) 01:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge to British military people. As Guernsey and Jersey do not have there own militaries, a category about soldiers from there is overcategorization. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 13:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep - no different than by-state categories for the U.S.; however they should be renamed to Category:Military personnel from Guernsey and Category:Military personnel from Jersey. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply

  Comment The only "by state" military category in the United States is for California. In that case about half the people in the category were actually in the Mexican military before California was annexed to the United States. I would actually support deleting the California category as well. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 08:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There's no rule that says a place has to have a separate military to categorize it's nationals as military personnel. This is simply an intersection of nationality and occupation. If there are Jersey people or Guensey people who were military personnel, they are Category:Guernsey military people or Category:Jersey military people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC) reply

  Comment I am pretty sure that as these categories are used they are defining what military the person served in. A German person who joined the United States military during World War I would not be put in German military personnel, unless he had at some point been in the German army. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:19, 25 January 2012 (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, without prejudice (as almost always) to any follow-up nomination or discussion. As in the discussion above, there is no clear consensus on what the exact scope of this category should be. I was tempted to rename to jc37's suggested name, but the fact that the category contains non-U.S. Californians means that a more focused discussion would be needed to implement that change. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename Category:California military personnel to Category:Military personnel from Califronia
• Nominators rationale This is a subcategory of Category:People from California by occupation. Also it is not personnel of the Californian military but military personnel who are Californians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge to US military personnel as California doesn't have its own military. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 13:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose; California does have its own military in a sense, as it has a National Guard, and prior to that there were forces of other militias dating back to prior the California being a U.S. State and it being Alta California. Furthermore, the above comment brings up another possible group of categories United States Military personnel from X (Where X is the state where they come from. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename - proposed name is appropriate and reasonable. The National Guard isn't a "state military"; militamen and such can be categoried as (say) Category:People of the Bear Flag Militia and whatnot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• New Vote I side with DONDE in favoring upmerging the category, except for people who do not belong in the US military. Especially since we do not have a Category:Military personnel from Texas with its actually having an organized military for close to a decade, this category has no reason to exist at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 08:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename (for now) to American military personnel from California, per Category:American military personnel by state. That said, from the discussion above, this category inclusion criteria is rather vague and ambiguous. The names of the subcats of Category:Military personnel by nation should all be by country name, I would think? And military personnel prior to joining the US should be categorised separately for clarity reasons if nothing else. (Presumably, the same should go for something like Military personnel of The Republic of Texas.) - jc37 19:15, 27 January 2012 (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, as no rationale was offered for subdividing Medal of Honor recipients by state or territory. If such a scheme is desired, then it may be advisable first to seek consensus for it, perhaps involving the United States military history task force. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete Category:Californian recipients of the Medal of Honor

Nominators rationale This is the only by state subdivision of this category. If we are going to keep this one we should at least rename it to Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor from California. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Agree with renaming; furthermore, each state, territory, and former territory (such as the Philippines) should also have its own similar category. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment The Nom is to Delete, not to rename. No one has explained why California should get unique treatment in this matter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 08:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I see no need to break these down by state. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The Medal of Honor is given out at the national level, not the state level. - jc37 19:15, 27 January 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename Category:Texas country musicians to Category:Country musicians from Texas
• Nominators rationale The other 21sub-cats of Category:American country musicians by state use the form "country musicans from FOO". John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 31. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 21:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Taiwanese emigrants to the United States to Category:Republic of China emigrants to the United States Category:Taiwanese emigrants to the United States
• Nominator's rationales This category is for people who have emigrated from the Republic of China to the United States. They do not have to have come from the island of Taiwan, and they do not have to be Taiwanese in any sense of the term. What I am unsure of is if we should include in this category all emigrants from Republic of China territory to the United States from 1912-1949. This nomination assumes this will in general be people who came to the United States from 1949 on. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- if they came from Taiwan (at any time) or from the post 1949 republic they are "United States people of Taiwanese descent" (or extraction). If they came to USA direct from mainland China, they should be "United States people of Chinese descent" (or poissible, "mainland Chinese"). This formulation has been adopted for dual nationality categories of all nations, except USA where the issue has not been tackled. We need to avoid getting hung up about the political status of the area they left when they left, and concentrate on the geographic entity. Peterkingiron ( talk) 01:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

  Comment Category:American people of Chinese descent is primarily for people birn in the United States whose ancestros came from China. This here is a category for people who migrated from the Republic of China to the United States. See for an example of what I mean by multiple categories Category:Russian emigrants to the United States, Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States and Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to the United States. On the other hand we have categories like Category:American people of Tamil descent so the issue is not what the place is geographically. I also find it hard to believe that we could focus on the geography, that would require us to treat as the same group people who came to the United States from Danzig in 1870 and clearly identified as German and people who came to the United States from Gdansk in 1970 and were without question Polish. They could have left from the same house, but they do not belong in the same group. This is even more clear in the more heavily German parts of East Prussia, which are now essentuially completely Polish. Also you can not call German speaking Jews who emigrated from the area of what was then Lemburg in 1890 "Ukrainian emigrants to the United States" even if though you can apply such a term to someone who left from the same house in 1995. The United States is not the only country we have as a destination for emigrant categories, so the claim that the United States is unique in this matter is incorrect. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment Israel also has the separation of the Russian and the Soviet emigrants into multiple categories, as well as different categories based on the political state of Yugoslavia at various times. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

  Comment Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Romania, Turkey and the United Kingdom also have sepeate categories based on whether people emigrated from Russia, the Soviet Union, or Imperial Russia. Not all have all three but all clearly are trying to delineate by political entity at the time of emigration. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I would assume this category is for those who emigrated since 1949. A parent category for those who emigrated before Category:Republic of China emigrants to the United States could be created if needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'm confused. The initial nom would seem to be proposing renaming it to its current name? - jc37 19:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

  Corrected to Category:Republic of China emigrants to the United States per diff. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 21:30, 31 January 2012 (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) 00:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Worcester Art Museum faculty to Category:People associated with the Worcester Art Museum

Nominator's rationale: Rename Merge to the larger scope. I'm not even sure what "faculty" means in this context but the new title would allow us to place people like Francis Henry Taylor and Stephen Salisbury III in the category. Note also that this type of category title seems to be commonplace for museums (see Category:Museum people by museum). Pichpich ( talk) 19:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• • Procedural note: I originally proposed renaming but found it made more sense to create the proposed replacement so this has become a proposal for a merge. Pichpich ( talk) 19:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support. I think the idea was "faculty" at a museum are people who do teaching there in some way, but since they are generally not given that title, the new name works better. It might relate to broad use of faculty for university categories we still have some places, where it basically says if a person was faculty or staff at a university they can go in the faculty category. This rename is a good one. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• REname (and broaden) - if kept at all - to Category:Worcester, Massachusetts Museum people. Faculty to me implies the teaching staff of a univeristy. The curator of a museum is not (to my Enlish mind) part of a faculty. We do not have a category for the museum, so I do not think we really need one for its staff. Peterkingiron ( talk) 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• I don't think Category:Worcester, Massachusetts Museum people makes sense. It would include people associated with other museums in Worcester but it would also include people born in Worcester who became curators in Chicago. I don't see how such a category could be of any use for readers. Pichpich ( talk) 12:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 21:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment we have songs by artist categories where the artist does not have their own category. The general standard is we categorize people by institution they are associated with as employees (most notably as faculty of a university), we do not categorize people by being associated with one of several not connected institutions in a given place, although we sometimes do group categories of people by institution by place since it would just be too much to have Category:Academics by university contain every category of faculty by univeristy directly. We do not however have categories like Category:Worcester, Massachusetts faculty where we just group together people at Worcester Polytechnic, Clark University and several other universities in the city. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 08:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment I just placed this category in its proper parent category (it had none at all until just now) Category:Museum people by museum. That title seems ackward, but it may well indicate what we should rename this category to. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 08:19, 16 January 2012 (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) 00:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:User simple-3 to Category:User simple

Nominator's rationale: Merge See here for a debate from way back when. The arguments given there are still valid. It does not really make sense to say that someone has an advanced knowledge of simple English or it's at the least very ambiguous. Pichpich ( talk) 18:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge - I actually tried to speedy delete this recently, but the Babel extension bot recreated the category after I salted it. I'm currently waiting on a bug report I filed at Bugzilla to resolve this. If the category members are moved, however, I will guess the extension will not recreate the category. If it still recreates the category then we will have to wait for the bug to be resolved, or possibly block the bot. VegaDark ( talk) 08:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I just noticed that Category:User simple-N was recreated as well. The merge should apply to that category as well. VegaDark ( talk) 08:51, 10 January 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Films produced by Cameron Crowe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is pretty much redundant to Category:Films directed by Cameron Crowe. Almost the same exact films listed, not diverse as Category:Films produced by Steven Spielberg or even Category:Films produced by Danny DeVito, in comparison. Quasy Boy 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge this category and Category:Films directed by Cameron Crowe to Category:Films directed and or produced by Cameron Crowe. John Pack Lambert ( talk)
• Oppose Merger into one director/producer category, neutral on deletion. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Merge into one director/producer category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:44, 17 January 2012 (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 (speedy C2C/C2D). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:2012 theorists to Category:2012 phenomenon theorists

Nominator's rationale: Per main article/cat. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:36, 9 January 2012 (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) 00:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Births of the last 123 years ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Deaths of the last 123 years ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: How does this actually work? Does anyone use these to perform any maintenance tasks? Why is it Category:Possibly living people can't do the trick? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete The births category seems to make a tiny bit of sense but I'm baffled by the deaths category. Note that this was already debated six years ago and the result was keep mostly on Docu's insistence that this is handy. It may just be that I'm lacking imagination but all potential uses I can see would be better served by Category:Living people. Pichpich ( talk) 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment Maybe some countries have rules about when you can assume someone must be deceased by now. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

  I'm sure most countries do but I'm willing to bet that they don't use the Jeanne Calment benchmark. Pichpich ( talk) 21:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment Previously nominated nearly six years ago here. User:Docu makes a comment about the CategoryIntersect tool. I don't know what that is or how valid that comment is (now). Maybe some egghead can interject? Lugnuts ( talk) 19:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

  Not a certified egghead but I'm guessing he finds this useful to use in CatScan. But I'm not sure what queries this is good for. If you intersect the births cat with Category:Living people you are presumably just getting Category:Living people once more. If you intersect with, say, Category:Mathematicians then you'll get mathematicians that are alive or dead in the last hundred years or so. I'm not sure I get the point. Note that if the objective is to identify articles about dead people which are not categorized as dead then this is a task already performed by a bot at Wikipedia:Database reports. Pichpich ( talk) 21:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The deaths category really makes no sense at all. The births category should be reassigned to "possibly living people" if there is no death date. Among other problems this is one of the very few categories that is inherently not fixed. There are many people who belonged in this category when this was last debated who do not now. We have Category:Living people, Category:possibly living people and maybe a few other categories that are dependent on changed circumstances. However the vast majority of categories we have are fixed. If someone is a mathematician or a politician, they do not lose the category if they stop doing it. If they were born in 1888 they qualified for this category last month, but no longer do. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- This is based on a wholly arbitrary time period. The fact that one man may have lived 122.5 years does not change that. Furthermore the use of "last" means that we have a moving target. It ought to include 1879 births (and deaths) this year, but does not, though we ought gradually be be removing those as the yeart progresses, which all goes to show how ludicrous the whole idea is. Peterkingiron ( talk) 01:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete; Wikipedia should almost never categorize on a criterion that's so continuously in flux. Bearcat ( talk) 02:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Historians of motorsport. Timrollpickering ( talk) 00:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Motor racing historians to Category:Historians of motorsport

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Historians of motorsport or perhaps Category:Motorsport historians (I really have no preference). Motor racing is a redirect to motorsport and although the proposed renaming results in a slightly larger scope, I expect the category to stay quite small. Pichpich ( talk) 16:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I am curious to discover how many there are. The first four people I thought of all had Wikipedia pages so I suspect there'll be plenty more when I give it some more thought. I have no view on the name of the category - whatever is the Wikipedia standard will be fine with me. Allen Brown ( talk) 18:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I was surprised that there were four! But when I say that I expect the category to stay small I'm thinking a few dozen, something small enough that it's not necessary to break the category down into tinier pieces. Oh and if you're looking for a writing project, I was surprised to see that the following don't exist: History of motorsport, History of auto racing, History of motorcycle racing, History of air racing and so on. Pichpich ( talk) 18:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Cheeky young whippersnapper! I already have a writing project: http://www.oldracingcars.com Allen Brown ( talk) 16:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Nice website. All you have to do is change "© Allen Brown" to "cc-by-sa" and we can start pillaging away. :-) Pichpich ( talk) 04:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Don't get me started... Allen Brown ( talk) 14:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Historians of motorsport. The "historians of" form is generally the most used, such as Category:Historians of Protestantism or Category:Historians of France. One issue we might ask is, do these historians specialize in the history of motorsport particularly, or do they touch on it in a wider work that is about the history of sport in general. If most of them are the later than it might not be worth having this particular category. If several of them are historians of particular nations who study broad issues well beyond sport, but have significantly written on motorsport history, than this category would be useful. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

While I agree that "historians of" is a bit more common, your first example is in fact under the name Category:Reformation historians. As for your question, I think the four people currently in there are strictly historians of auto racing and in a sense their field of study is not strictly wider than motorsport but strictly narrower. I don't think that's a big problem for now. Pichpich ( talk) 21:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Prefer Category:Historians of motorsport. Categories frequently treat nound as if they were adjectives, but it is not grammatically satisfactory. Peterkingiron ( talk) 01:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Historians of motorsport, for preference. Nothing major, it's just that the "Motor racing historians" formulation seems to me to indicate a collection of historians who all lead secret lives as racing drivers. Silly, but that's how it struck me. Pyrop e 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment Motorsports needs to be pluralized. 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 04:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment Reformation historians are not historians of Protestantism. The subject can cover people who are historians of the Catholic Reformation. Anyway the history of Protestantism can include studies that do not reach back to the reformation. Someone who studies the Methodists or the Great Awakening is studying Protestantism, but not the reformation. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 08:54, 16 January 2012 (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) 00:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in Canada into Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings in Canada.

Nominator's rationale: Both categories contain articles on individual church buildings/congregations; and the term “church building” is preferred as less ambiguous. I think they all relate to the same branches of Orthodoxy, but would welcome some comment on this. And could the article on the Profitis Ilias Greek Orthodox Church (in Canada) also be included in this category? The overall category Category:Church buildings in Canada by denomination was renamed from “churches” after discussion, see July 19, 2011. Hugo999 ( talk) 13:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge. The term "Eastern Orthodox Churchs" would indicate some structure, at least a diocese/eparchy if not larger and more autonomous. These are about the buildings/parishes. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:48, 9 January 2012 (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 (speedy C2C). The subcats should be sent to WP:CFDS. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:USL W-League to Category:United Soccer Leagues W-League

Nominator's rationale: To expand the abbreviation, as per the general naming conventions for categories, and because " USL" is ambiguous even in the context of sports. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 06:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename No-brainer D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 21:55, 10 January 2012 (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) 00:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Kitty Media ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Parent article is a redirect to a larger article, so I suspect WP:OCAT. Also, three entries generally do not a category make. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 06:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete - 2 of the articles are games produced by Kitty Media, the other a film licensed by Kitty Media, neither of which is clearly defining. So this is borderline on 2 borders. Occuli ( talk) 12:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 08:55, 16 January 2012 (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 (speedy C2C). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Tasmanian musicians to Category:Musicians from Tasmania

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Australian musicians by state or territory.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. We general avoid using the adjectivised form of sub-national entitly names, thus we have Category:Musicians from Nevada not Category:Nevadan musicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:50, 9 January 2012 (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.