The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep, no consensus to delete at this juncture. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Grand Street (New York City) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The vast majority (like 99.99%) of New York streets do not have their own category. The few that do are much more notable and better known than Grand Street, which is a fairly minor thoroughfare. For instance, there is no category for Park Avenue (Manhattan), 42nd Street (Manhattan), or any of dozens of streets more prominent than Grand Streets. It is, quite frankly, a do-nothing category. If this pattern were continued, it would lead to an explosion of difficult-to-maintain non-notable street-related categories. Marc Shepherd 22:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Note - All of the content of this category was deleted/removed by the nominator before he nominated it for CfD. -- Petri Krohn 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry about that...it seemed (and still seems) uncontroversial, and frankly obvious. I was just boldly re-categorizing articles that were clearly misplaced. Marc Shepherd 00:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Note2 - There is also related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City#Category for Deletion: Grand Street (New York City). -- Petri Krohn 02:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep - In fact there are other streets in New York City that have their own categories, some of them far less "notable" than Grand Street. What makes Category:Grand Street (New York City) stand out, is that it is the only street category included in Category:Streets in New York City, while other street cats are in Category:Streets in Manhattan or some other borough category. This is natural, as Grand Street is the only street on Manhattan spanning multiple boroughs.
  I do welcome a category for your favorite street, provided, of course, that a substantial number of articles can be grouped in this category. Grand Street has no problems in this respect. It has almost as many articles as Category:Wall Street (or had, before the nominator attacked the category.)
  As for the notabilty of the street: As the name implies, this was the Grand street, the main street or thoroughfare connecting the cities of New York and Brooklin with Queens.
  While Grand Street (Manhattan) may now be a minor street on the Lower East Side this is not really relevant. Most of the articles in this category are about historic structures no longer existing. Unless Wikipedia stops covering history, the category should stay. -- Petri Krohn 23:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Petri, it is m understanding that there is in fact no historical connection between the two streets except the coincidence of the name. Brooklyn & NY were separate cities at the time each of the streets were laid out. There would then be no basis for this particular category, and there should be separate ones for the two boroughs. (& Grand St, manhattan is hardly a minor street--its the traditional heart of the Jewish Lower East Side -- [[ DGG ( talk) 00:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

No, this is no naming coincidence, Grand Street (Manhattan) and Grand Street (Brooklyn) are / were parts of the same street - connected by the Grand Street Ferry. The location of the ferry and thus the main street across the route again was no coincidence, this was the shortest route across the East River. This is evident from the location of the Williamsburg Bridge, which approximately follows the route of Grand Street. The road / street extended to Queens, evidently crossing this old bridge. [1] The Grand Street was in fact the east-west analogue of Broadway (New York). -- Petri Krohn 01:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

P.S. Outside the cities the road was called South Post Road. (See also Boston Post Road.) -- Petri Krohn 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

DGG is correct. There are numerous streets with the same name across multiple boroughs, but none of them were "promoted" to "super-streets" like this one. That classification is basically an invention of User:Petri Krohn. I just hope that no one else will fall for this nonsense. There are hundreds of streets for which some kind of historical case can be made, but (quite sensibly) most of them are not categories. Marc Shepherd 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Week keep The creator of the category has re-categorized it, making it less objectionable than it was before. I still think that the articles in the category are only weakly related, but the category does no great harm either. Marc Shepherd 14:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep and no merge. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 04:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Canadian human rights activists to Category:Canadian activists

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Category is a reincarnation of Canadian social justice activists deleted here. Also see similar discussion here. People were asked not to create such a category here here. Deet 19:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per ample precedent. Snocrates 21:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep
  1. Category:Canadian activists has 120 articles and hundreds more in its subcategories. It is already far to large.
  2. Category:Human rights activists has 14 subcategories based on nationality.
  3. Category:Canadian human rights activists has 12 articles. This is a sutable number for a category. -- Petri Krohn 23:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep enough for a category of its own. DGG ( talk) 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep - Notwithstanding Deet's perception that this category is a "reincarnation of Canadian social justice activists", this is, in fact, nothing more than a perfectly valid sub-category by nationality of Category:Human rights activists. Deet is, of course, welcome to scrutinize the individuals who have been placed in the category, but I note that it currently has 12 people in it, which is considerably fewer than the 83 people who were in Category:Canadian social justice activists before it was deleted. Cgingold 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - "Human rights" is different than "social justice", and "Human rights activists" is a perfectly reasonable and useful category, and a perfectly reasonable useful category to subdivide nationally. -- lquilter 15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep all, and no merge. Part of an overall scheme. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:1 births to Category:0s births

Suggest merging Category:2 births to Category:0s births

Suggest merging Category:3 births to Category:0s births

Suggest merging Category:4 births to Category:0s births

Suggest merging Category:5 births to Category:0s births

Suggest merging Category:6 births to Category:0s births

Suggest merging Category:7 births to Category:0s births

Suggest merging Category:9 births to Category:0s births

Nominator's rationale: I've moved all the articles in these categories to the category Category:0s births. These categories were extremely small (with some only containing one article) and are very much likely to remain so if kept. The deaths categories like Category:1 deaths etc. similarly should be merged into Category:0s deaths and deleted. Voortle 01:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Commentary. I've reverted the pre-emptive merge, but fixed the nominations. The proposal should be argued on its merits, which I find slight, but plausible. See also #Lower number CE births for the closed nomination below. Previous comments added below.— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Commentary. Now I've fixed the links. Grumble. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Question How can we call this "0s births" when there was no "year 0" in the calendar? Snocrates 07:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Tricky. It seems like there was a zeroth decade, but it only had nine years? :) Xtifr _tälk 07:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, and also you should not have pre-emptively merged the contents. The only reason I can see that someone should be is 0s birth is if their exact date of birth is unknown. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth for discussion of small categories: this is part of a larger scheme, so even if they have a single member they should be kept. Tim! 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, because the categories were not labelled with {{ subst:cfm}} of {{ subst:cfd}}. Thus no warning was provided and no notice given. I don't rate this cfm based on its merit, just on it's incorrect process.— Markles 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Part of a consistent pattern, and with articles for them. There will be more as we do more articles of serious historical topics. DGG ( talk) 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose (1) Improperly nominated CfD. You must do it right to give people fair and ample opportunity to discover the CfD and weigh in on it. Letting these sit there incorrectly nominated for the better part of the day is just wrong. (2) Regardless of that, the name just doesn't make sense. There is no 0th decade or century. Doczilla 05:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

  Comment. The original nomination was out of process, but I think I submitted the nomination in the correct form. And there is the decade 0s (with 9 years), unless you are proposing removing that article and category. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose why reduce accuracy, for some of the people who'd fit in these cats we know pretty certainly in which year they were born, for a number of others the ambiguity of what year the birth occurred doesn't resolve at the decade (was it 9 or 10 or 11 AD?) (was it 1 BC or 1 AD?), so we're still left with some imperfection because the time distance here. Carlossuarez46 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose For what it's worth, I concur with DGG as for the rationale. I was just trying to get a fair hearing for the original nominator. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was No Consensus -- Xdamr ^talk 00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Diving to Category:Underwater diving

Nominator's rationale: To match the articles Diving (which describes diving from heights) and Underwater diving (which describes the practice of going underwater with or without breathing apparatus. // S MARTSKAFT | ¿ 12:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. It sounds like we do need a Category:Underwater diving, but shouldn't there also be a category for diving from heights? If we just do a renaming, the article diving has no specific category, which seems inappropriate. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Split. Not sure what the names need to be. One option is for Category:Diving (underwater) and Category:Diving (swimming). I don't object to Category:Underwater diving, but we really need a discussion on the best solution. Vegaswikian 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment I agree a split is needed - does "Diving (pool)" work? Johnbod 11:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'd say no, since you generally learn underwater diving in a pool. Vegaswikian 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

They call them tanks for underwater diving, in the UK at least. You can't learn much in a pool, I think. Johnbod 08:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You can actually learn a lot. Basic breathing with the regulator, buddy breathing, clearing a mask and most of the other basics. Given the lack of input to this discussion, I would be happy if the closing admin makes a decision for the move target/split name. Any of the proposals is better then the current name. If a better solution comes along later we can always rename again. Vegaswikian 23:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was No Consensus. -- Xdamr ^talk 01:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Ohio election results to Category:Ohio elections

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Election results articles should be merged into the elections articles. Therefore, the categories should be merged as well.— Markles 11:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. If and when the articles are merged, we can adjust the categories, but this nomination puts the cart before the horse. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Tentative support : does it matter whether articles or categories are merged first? If not, I can support the merge. If articles must be merged first for some reason, I agree with BHG. I personally see no reason in principle why change cannot be initiated from the category side. Snocrates 00:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Reply categories exist to group related articles. If those articles exist, then this category serves a useful purpose and should not be deleted; but if the articles have been merged, then the category will be empty and can be speedy deleted. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Based on that reasoning, I would agree that changing the articles would be the better first step before merging the categories. Snocrates 01:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:LGBT civil rights timeline to Category:LGBT rights by year

Nominator's rationale: Rename, A more accurate description of the contents of the category in accordance with other categories in Category:Categories by year. Tim! 10:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 21:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Beloved Freak 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. "(Subject) timeline" might be appropriate in an article title, but not in a category. Bearcat 22:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 19:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Young Men Organization to Category:Young Men organization or Category:Young Men (organization) or Category:Young Men organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

• Category:Young Women Organization to Category:Young Women organization or Category:Young Women (organization) or Category:Young Women organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Nominator's rationale: The actual names of the organizations are simply "Young Men" and "Young Women", with nothing else as part of the official name. The articles are named Young Men (organization) and Young Women (organization). I'm unsure which are the best rename options, so I'll open that up to comment. Snocrates 10:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Young Men organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Category:Young Women organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Pakistani cricket seasons from 1953-54 to 1969-70 to Category:Pakistan cricket seasons to 1969-70

Nominator's rationale: A general restructure of Pakistan cricket articles necessitates inclusion of events prior to 1953 in this category and the category title needs to reflect this. -- BlackJack ^{talk page} 10:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. There don't seem to be enough pre-1953 articles to justify a separate category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Beloved Freak 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename adding LDS. Vegaswikian 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:General Presidents of the Relief Society to Category:General presidents of the Relief Society

• Category:General Presidents of the Primary to Category:General presidents of the Primary.

Nominator's rationale: Capitalization housekeeping. "General president" is not a proper noun. Snocrates 10:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename but with LDS suffix for clarity:
  • Category:General Presidents of the Relief Society to Category:General presidents of the Relief Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are lots of relief societies, so let's be clear about which ones we are referring to.
  • Category:General Presidents of the Primary to Category:General presidents of the Primary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, again for clarity. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 19:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:General Presidents of the Sunday School to Category:General presidents of the Sunday School of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Nominator's rationale: Rename to resolve possible ambiguity, as there are many Sunday Schools. This will bring category into conformity with its parent Category:Sunday School of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Snocrates 10:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom - make it unambiguous. -- Beloved Freak 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 19:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Presiding Bishops of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Presiding bishops of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

• Category:Presiding Patriarchs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Presiding patriarchs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Category:Stake Presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Stake presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Nominator's rationale: Capitalization housekeeping. Main articles for first two are Presiding bishop (LDS Church) and Presiding patriarch and they are not proper nouns. Snocrates 10:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename both per nom, if we are sure patriarch is not a proper noun. Johnbod 11:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was split as proposed. Sam Blacketer 13:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:San Diego films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Split into standard categories. Split contents into Category:Films set in San Diego and Category:Films shot in California Category:Films shot in San Diego. Vegaswikian 06:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Split per nom. Aitch Eye 06:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Split per nom. Lugnuts 07:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. After thinking about this, the shot in category should remain at the city level. Category:Films by shooting location includes several cities already. Vegaswikian 19:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was split as proposed. Sam Blacketer 13:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:North Carolina films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Split into standard categories. Split contents into Category:Films set in North Carolina and Category:Films shot in North Carolina. Vegaswikian 05:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Split per nom. Aitch Eye 06:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Split per nom. Lugnuts 07:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was No Consensus'. -- Xdamr ^talk 01:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:Schools in Colorado Springs → Category:Education in Colorado Springs —( Discuss)— To be in line with "Education in Denver" and other wikified categories — Chris 06:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Not the right venue. Please relist at WP:CFD. Dekimasu よ! 09:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

This has been multiply bounced and removed from other areas by well-meaning but not considerate editors, I had to hunt to find it again, apparently belongs here. Thus far no objection to move in 13 days. Chris 04:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose merge. By all means create a new Category:Education in Colorado Springs, per Category:Education in the United States by city or town, but there's no need to make Category:Schools in Colorado Springs less specific. It's well populated, and there are plenty of other types of educational institutions in Colorado Springs, so worth separating out the schools. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• reply okay, I live here, what are these "plenty of other types of educational institutions in Colorado Springs", such that it warrants two categories, one of which I mistakenly named when I created it, meaning the other? Chris 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • See Colorado Springs#Education: the others include Colorado College, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Technical University, and DeVry University. Keeping the numerous schools in a subcat helps distinguish the different types of educational institution-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

All of which are schools, three of which are already in the category, so your point is still missed, I think. It's a midsized city, which I love, but it simply does not warrant two separate categories, as say Chicago would. Chris 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I presume that you are using the American usage of "school", which can include third-level institutions, but wikipedia categorises third-level institutions separately under Category:Universities and colleges, in this case Category:Universities and colleges in Colorado. So best to rename this category to Category:High schools in Colorado Springs to clarify its purpose, and remove the non-high schools. The category is already a sub-cat of Category:High schools in Colorado, so this appears to have been the intention of the category creator. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I am the category creator, and while I appreciate your work and your passion on this, please do not ascribe intentions to me. My intentions are exactly as I state them, which is to rename this category Education in Colorado Springs (see above where I say "I mistakenly named when I created it, meaning the other") There is a similar category Category:Education in Denver, which is inclusive of high schools, universities, libraries and museums, and it is exactly this I propose to do, my intention in the first place. There, you should have no further questions about "the intention of the category creator" Chris 03:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It would be easier to see you were the categ creator if you sig displayed your username, but I stand by my point that it would be better to split the category. There are enough articles on High schools to make it helpful for navigation to have them in a subcat of Category:Education in Colorado Springs. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• request anyone else want to weigh in? This is going nowhere with this editor that refuses to see (from someone who lives here and is the creator the cat being discussed), that this is simply not a large enough city to warrant two categories, nor will allow an upmerge. Any voices of reason? Chris 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • WP:CIVIL please. You have stated your reasons for wanting one outcome, I have stated mine for preferring another; please don't claim that you have a monopoly of reason. I fail to see the relevance of who who lives where, but if you feel that there are local knowledge gives you further insights, then why not share those insights? It seems to me that this is largely a matter of what numerical thresholds make for appropriate categories, and of other questions such as whether it is appropriate to have a third-level institution such as Colorado College categorised in a sub-cat of Category:High schools in Colorado. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you, you just illustrated my point precisely. Numerical threshold. That wasn't so hard, was it? I wasn't being uncivil, I am simply tired of uninvolved editors forcing points just because they have to win, which is also what you appear to be doing at the Jewish football player discussion. As I say, you've done some great things at Wikipedia, this is not one of them. I have stated from the beginning that I created this category accidentally, meaning to create the larger one. The civil thing to do would be to concede that it is not such a taxing demand, that it seems to be only you and I that care about it, and of the two, I am the one that actually edits those articles and so would have some familiarity with the topic at hand. My local knowledge extends to the size of the town itself, this is not Boston or Miami or San Diego, and having two categories for the same basic set is bureaucratic overkill. If I saw you as a regular editor on these specific articles, I would concede you might have a point yourself. Please don't be inflexible for its own sake. I have made valid points, and your stonewalling is not justified by the situation on the ground. Please don't sully your very good editorship by fighting a bad fight. Wishing you the best, and hoping you will honor the logic for its own sake. Chris 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Separately, I am also re-moving your note to the closing admin to the bottom where it will be seen and not be stuck in the middle of our discourse. It's more for when this closes, and was insightful for you to add. Chris 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Note to closing admin. When moved from speedy, this category was not re-tagged for CfR, so the 5-day clock on CfD debates should run from now (I have just tagged it). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Both-Keep and split Create the "Education in Colorado Springs" cat and put universities, trade schools, etc in it directly. Make the current "Schools in Colorado Springs" a subcat of that education one, having high schools and below in it. Rlevse 21:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merging this and Category:Cotton Technologist into Category:Textile scientists. Many of the articles in this category need significant cleanup.-- Mike Selinker 06:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Cotton Scientist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Textile scientists, perhaps a little too narrow, or at least Rename to Category:Cotton scientists. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom without prejudice to future creation of the category when (if) it can be justified by more than one entry. Snocrates 07:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom and Snocrates. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - There's nothing else in Category:Textile scientists. Is the thinking this will eventually include silk scientists, cotton scientists, and other agronomists? I think it's a reasonable category structure to set up, and I added it to Category:Agronomists. But we should keep an eye to see if it populates. -- lquilter 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge as nominated, not needed. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 04:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:200-299 to Category:Integers

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Arbitrary collection of numbers; no reason to break them up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge per nominator; pointless category. Terraxos 23:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge per convention there. Johnbod 01:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete. Despite alternative suggestions, consensus seems to be to follow WP:OCAT and delete. -- Xdamr ^talk 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Jewish football players to Category:Jewish players of American football

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Every other nationality is ala Category:German players of American football, it is especially confusing because people assume it means football (soccer) and not American football based on the category's name. NYC2TLV 01:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Being "Jewish" is a religious affiliation, not a national or racial affiliation, and so this amounts to a non-notable intersection of religion and other status. Snocrates 07:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non-notable intersection. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as Sportspeople by religion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Jewish isn't a nationality. Kolindigo 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Eliyak  T· C 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. — Eliyak  T· C 16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Jewish is an ethnicity as surely as German, as all ethnicity+occupation should be deleted as a first step to reduce OCAT, this might as well be first to go. Carlossuarez46 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Further comment although these various categories are under a "nationality" label, they are being used for ethnic or other categories - I've just pruned the German one a bit. Again showing the general lack of utility of these: is a person born of American parents stationed in Germany a "German"? German law says no; American law says the baby is an American. And why would/could/should WP say "yes" - what basis is there for such an assertion? In most countries, accident of birth on its soil confers no rights to citizenship or nationality - yes, the US is different (by the 14th amendment I think) but WP should not be purely US-centric, and these categories if kept need severe prunings, and all BLP members without sourcing as to membership in the category ought be dropped from it as contentious denial of their American heritage. Carlossuarez46 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable intersection. -- MPerel 05:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as it's Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference; Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Thank you, IZAK 11:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Er, Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue - how would that work? Johnbod 12:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom -- but restrict parent categories. Cgingold 12:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • PROPOSAL - I guess the time has come to propose a categorization scheme that is tailored for use with ethnic and religious subcategories that engender opposition purely out of concerns over non-notable intersection. These concerns focus entirely on the aspect of occupation rather than on religion or ethnicity, and revolve around the notion that an individual's religion or ethnicity has no discernible effect on how they perform a particular occupation. The problem is, this single-minded focus on occupation completely ignores the tremendous interest that many readers (especially in the United States) have in learning about specific ethnic or religious groups, and in particular, in learning about the array of occupations that individuals in those groups are involved in. (This is precisely why we have high-level parent categories such as Category:Jews by occupation and a number of other, similar categories).

Given that we are unlikely in the foreseeable future to achieve true concensus on the existence of this sort of category, I would like to outline a compromise proposal which offers something to both camps in this debate. Rather than simply eliminating Category:Jewish football players, why don't we first rename it, and then remove it from one of its parent categories, Category:American football players by nationality (where it most certainly doesn't belong) -- and instead of putting it into Category:American football players, leave it out of the occupation-related category-tree entirely, thereby making those who have expressed opposition to this category very happy. At the same time, we can let it stay as a sub-category of Category:Jewish sportspeople (which is itself a sub-category of Category:Jews by occupation). Leaving it there serves the needs of those readers who wish to find articles about Jewish people who play various sports (in this case American football), without the need to insert a subcategory-by-ethnicity into Category:American football players. As I said, I think this is a fair compromise that addresses the concerns of people on both sides of the issue -- and I hope my fellow editors will give it serious consideration. Cgingold 14:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I can see where you are coming from, but I think that it would help to step back a bit. The reason we have Category:Jews by occupation is as a container category for those occupations where Jewishness is an important attribute of the people categorised, such as in the arts, but not for example maths (that category was deleted earlier this year). But we don't create categories merely to satisfy curiosity; if we did, there'd Category:Jewish diabetics and all sorts of other trivia. Wikipedia's categorisation system retains a degree of coherence only because we try to follow a consistent approach in deciding what makes a good category and what doesn't. It seems to me that the principle of not categorising irrelevant intersections is one of the most important categorisation principles, and I don't see any evidence that this intersection amounts to a relevant one. You might find it helpful to re-read Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 14#Category:Jewish_mathematicians, particularly the very thoughtful summing up by the closing admin. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, BHG, for pointing me to the CFD for Category:Jewish mathematicians (whew! groan... ) which was even longer than the recent CFD for Category:Jewish atheists (which, thankfully, went the other way). I'll return to that shortly. But first, I want to take up a couple of other points you touched on. I don't think you looked very closely at Category:Jews by occupation, as it really isn't merely a "container category for those occupations where Jewishness is an important attribute". I almost shudder to point this out, for fear that it will result in a rash of CFDs -- but there are a goodly number of non-religious occupations there, as well.

As to why we have categories -- it's true, of course, that "we don't create [them] merely to satisfy curiosity". (my emphasis) But we certainly do create categories -- and articles, as well -- to satisfy legitimate curiosity. That's what this whole undertaking is all about, if I'm not mistaken. I have to say, my dear, I was disappointed that you resorted to a bit of reductio ad absurdum with the hypothetical example of Category:Jewish diabetics, especially when there is -- of course -- no such parent category as Category:Diabetics. Tsk, tsk. I think we would all agree that occupations are fundamentally different from medical conditions. That being the case, I believe it's entirely legitimate for readers to look for info about the various occupations that people in a certain nationality or a certain ethnic group are involved in -- and the category system is an important way of assisting them.

This brings me to the CFD on Category:Jewish mathematicians. That entire humungously long discussion was, of course, focused on the issue of having a Jewish sub-category of Category:Mathematicians, and whether it made sense to separate out those mathematicians who happened to be Jewish from the larger category. But it never gave serious consideration to the question of separating out by occupation those individuals who happened to be mathematicians from the larger Category:Jews. However, that issue was touched on by one editor, Salix alba, whose views on this are worth quoting in full:

"There are really two question this category addresses, 1) finding mathematicians who are jewish, 2) finding jewish people who [are] mathematicians. For the most part the religion or ethnicity of a mathematician is not of great interest so 1) does not meet keep criteria. However I can see that people might be interested in the professions of jewish people. I can see legitimate reasons for why a person might want to study the range of professions of a race or sex or religion, especially those who are brought up under a particular faith. For example someone might be set the task of writing a essay on a famous jewish scientist. Deeper research might be looking to see if particular groupings favor particular ocupations. It is our job as an encyclopedia to provide information and make it easy for this information to be found. It is not ours to judge what are valid questions to ask."

Again, please bear in mind that I am not making an argument for ethnic sub-cats of occupations, but rather for occupational sub-cats of ethnicities, where warranted. I've just learned in another CFD that it is, apparently, acceptable to have a sub-cat of Category:Marine biologists for Category:Welsh marine biologists with only a single article in it. By my lights, that's taking things to an extreme -- but I suppose it can be said to be of assistance to those readers who happen to be very interested in learning about Welsh people who are marine biologists. Surely, that is not fundamentally different than wanting to learn about Jewish people who are players of American football. Especially considering the stereotype of Jews as all being either brainy professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc) or wealthy businessmen, it seems to me that it is all the more important for Wikipedia to have a full array of occupational sub-categories that shows some of the diversity that exists in reality. I, for one, never would have guessed that there are more than 30 articles about Jewish football players. Amazing. Cgingold 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid that Cgingold's arguments is a based on a false premise: that we can have "ethnic sub-cats of occupations", with out "occupational sub-cats of ethnicities". These are intersection categories, so we either have both or none - if we ignore one side of the intersection, we will seriously disrupting category navigation.

I agree that there probably will be readers interested in this intersection between sport and religion or ethnicity, but a similar argument can be made for all sorts of intersections, and if we start on this one we will end up many more. We don't need a category to satisfy that interest: a list will often suffice.

You're quite right to point to the excessive number of other Jewish-by-occupation categories: more of those should be deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what the "false premise" is, BHG. I'm not aware of any requirement to place sub-categories in both (or all) possible parent categories -- so we can set things up this way if we choose to. I don't see how it bothers navigation in the least to remove one of the parent cats, if that's deemed appropriate because it addresses an issue that many people perceive as a problem. And surely it would be far more disruptive to navigation to remove this sub-category entirely. I also don't understand why an ethnic category like this should be presumed to be less important to our readers than nationality categories are presumed to be -- so why should this have to be relegated to a list?

I realize that this is in a sense a new "paradigm" in terms of how we deal with categories of this sort, and it takes a little getting used to, a slight mental adjustment from the "all-or-nothing" approach which leaves one side very happy and the losing side very unhappy. This compromise proposal is an approach that both sides should be able to live with -- and it also will eliminate most of these time-consuming debates, which are, as you know, an ongoing (but needless) source of angst in our community. Cgingold 22:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, this isn't really a new paradigm. It's an old issue wrt to categories, and it's already covered by the guidelines: see WP:CAT#How_to_create_subcategories. The problem with not placing a category in the appropriate parent categories is that it impedes readers who want to navigate the category tree: with your proposal, someone looking at Category:Jewish footballers would not have a link to Category:Footballers, and someone browsing Category:Footballers would miss the articles categorised under Category:Jewish footballers.

I do understand that there are many intersection categories which some people would like to have available, and which have either not been created or have been deleted. Theoretically, there is a technical solution to this called category intersection, which would allow readers to dynamically browse the intersection of two or more categories: for example, the intersection of "Jewish people", "footballers", "people from Wyoming". No need to create Category:Jewish footballers from Wyoming, because the readers could create it if they wanted it. If this happens, it'll do what you want here and I'll be delighted too, but although the code has been written, it seems unlikely to be implemented any time soon, because of the load it would impose on the servers.

Without dynamic category intersection, we have to compromise by limiting category intersects and handling them carefully to avoid creating breaks in the category trees. I'm sure your proposal was well-intended, but I urge you think carefully about the unintended consequences of breaking up the flow of the category tree in this way. If your idea took off, it could lead to the proliferation of half-parented intersections, with a lot of disruption to the utility of categories to the reader (e.g. if editor places an article in a half-parented Category:Lutheran engineers, they can expect it to accessible through both category trees, but that won't be the case). This wou have knock-on consequences for the ongoing work to remove overcategorisation: currently, an article in Category:Irish writers should not be in Category:Irish people or in Category:Writers, and can safely have its category list trimmed if is in both. Your proposal would break the assumption necessary for that important work.

So I'm afraid that the choice is between keeping the category or deleting it. Your proposal is based on the premise that there is a viable half-way house between the two, and as above, that still seems to me to be a false premise. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for persevering with this discussion, BHG. I see your concerns now, but I don't believe they're necessarily lethal, as there are simple solutions available. Links to the missing parent cats can easily be posted on the top portion of these category pages, as is often done for any number of reasons. So, in this case, a browsing reader would find the following at the top of the page: "For articles about other football players, see Category:Footballers." As to the related issue, it's simple enough to instruct editors to be sure to put all Jewish football players in Category:Footballers as well. (We already use this kind of double-listing in any number of categories, precisely to ensure that people who are listed in a sub-cat are also listed in the main category.)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're getting at with the last issue you raised. Would you have another go at explaining that one? Cgingold 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

On the issue of server strain, I'm puzzled as to why that is considered a major argument against perceived "over-categorization". It seems to me that if server strain is a serious concern, we might even want to encourage the creation of (smaller) sub-cats, because it obviously puts more of a burden on the servers to display 200 articles than 15 or 25. (I've been meaning to ask about this over at Wikipedia talk:Categorization.) Cgingold 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Jewish American sportspeople. Of the several articles that I checked, about half were also in this category and the other half did not have any other "Jewish category". This upmerge ensures that these persons are still categorized in the "Jewish category tree". -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I presume you mean Category:Jewish sportspeople? Cgingold 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

No doubt most of them are American, but I spotted at least one (Noah Cantor) who's Canadian. Cgingold 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, I did mean Category:Jewish American sportspeople. If any are Canadians just move then as a one-off manually. Most importantly, however, is that I don't want to see a delete happen if an upmerge is more appropriate. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support rename as per nom Nominator makes a good point about American football and the name of this cat, which has unfortunately been hijacked here. This CFD was not about whether the category should exist -I think that we should have handled the two as separate entities or had an amended nom. I support the renaming and I agree with CGingold that the parent category might more appropriately be Category:Jewish sportspeople, and further support his proposal as follows. Tvoz | talk 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support for CGingold's proposal I think that CGingold is making a very rational and useful proposal here which may help to get us out of the wrangling about ethnicity and occupation and actually move us ahead. Although I don't personally have a problem with identifying ethnicities within occupations, many people apparently do, and there is certainly a difference between that and dividing ethnic categories into occupations, which CGingold proposes. Categories should help people navigate the system to aid them in their research, and we can't and shouldn't pre-determine which criteria a reader or researcher may be interested in examining - our job is to make the information available and accessible. This proposal would retain the ability to easily look at at the array of occupations that a given ethnic group has notable practitioners of, and should satisfy the "non-notable intersection" concerns. Tvoz | talk 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I'm disappointed and puzzled that my proposal hasn't received any further discussion. In any event, seeing as this may be my final chance to comment, I would like to point out that the parent cat, Category:Jewish sportspeople, survived an attempted deletion last year. It makes no sense to dismantle that category's sub-categories on a piecemeal basis. Since the parent cat is legitimate, then it's sub-cats should be presumed legitimate as well, as long as they are of sufficient size, as this one certainly is. Again, if the only real concern is in regard to dividing occupations by ethnicity, the answer is simple: take those parent categories out of the picture as I've proposed. Cgingold 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • See my replies above. I have also posted a (neutrally worded) notice at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Proposal_parenting_on_intersection_categories, because I think that this suggestion has wider implications and deserves wider consideration. I would be grateful if closing admins could let this discssion run a bit longer to see if others have anything to add. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support for CGingold's proposal This seems like a reasonable compromise and should be written into WP rules for categories. Hmains 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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: closed for administrative errors. I've reopened with the proper links above, without comment on the merits. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:1 births
• Category:2 births
• Category:3 births
• Category:4 births
• Category:5 births
• Category:6 births
• Category:7 births
• Category:8 births and
• Category:9 births.

I've moved all the articles in these categories to the category Category:0s births. These categories were extremely small (with some only containing one article) and are very much likely to remain so if kept. The deaths categories like Category:1 deaths etc. similarly should be merged into Category:0s deaths and deleted. Voortle 01:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Question How can we call this "0s births" when there was no "year 0" in the calendar? Snocrates 07:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Tricky. It seems like there was a zeroth decade, but it only had nine years? :) Xtifr _tälk 07:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, and also you should not have pre-emptively merged the contents. The only reason I can see that someone should be is 0s birth is if their exact date of birth is unknown. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth for discussion of small categories: this is part of a larger scheme, so even if they have a single member they should be kept. Tim! 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, because the categories were not labelled with {{ subst:cfm}} of {{ subst:cfd}}. Thus no warning was provided and no notice given. I don't rate this cfm based on its merit, just on it's incorrect process.— Markles 12:00, 30 September 2007 (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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Male figure skating champions navigational boxes to Category:Men's singles figure skating champions navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:Female figure skating champions navigational boxes to Category:Ladies singles figure skating champions navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: Rename, ladies and men's singles are the official names of the disciplines. Furthermore, pairs and ice dancers (who have their own cats) consist of one male and one female skater, so they are both included in the singles nav box cats as they stand now. Kolindigo 01:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• comment surely Ladies' to indicate the possessive? Tim! 10:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support reasoning per nom, but Tim!'s point is valid and the possessive apostrophe should be included. Snocrates 10:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.