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. Kbdank71 15:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:People's Republic/Republic of Haven ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a case of overcategorization: a planet in a fictional universe does not have to receive its own category. There exist already categories for planets, characters and organizations in this fictional universe and that is enough. Debresser ( talk) 19:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- This is a reasonably well populated category. I would suggest that it should be called Category:Republic of Haven, with a headnote saying that it includes the People's Republic. If you want to get rid of the category, you would need to get rid of some of the articles. Alternatively merge to Category:Honorverse. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I agree that the articles here have little notability, but until the category shrinks, there is no reason to upmerge. Admiral Norton ^{( talk)} 17:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• obviously the articles in this category are also member of either category:planets in the Honorverse, or category:characters in the Honorverse or category:organizations in the Honorverse. Just There is no reason to make up a category for just this one planet (or even two planets together with the underpopulated category:Grayson). Debresser ( talk) 18:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You didn't read the accompanying article or something... the in universe information says it's a whole bunch of planets, not two. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 06:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment That was precisely my point. There is no logic in making a category for two planets out of a whole universe. And that's apart from the point that the existing categories are (more than) enough. Somebody is just terribly overcategorizing here. Debresser ( talk) 11:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • No that's it. The Republic of Haven is a whole bunch of planets by itself. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 07:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Oh that's what you mean. I was talking about two planets receiving their own categories: categoryGrayson and categoryHaven. Anyway: overcategorization. Debresser ( talk) 15:32, 27 January 2009 (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 noted, the three articles in this category are already in other honorverse categories. Kbdank71 15:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete the category contains 3 articles of which 2 are stubs and is not likely to be significantly expanded. But the main thing is that this is a case of overcategorization: a planet in a fictional universe does not have to receive its own category. There exist already categories for planets, characters and organizations in this fictional universe and that is enough. Debresser ( talk) 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• merge to Category:Honorverse. This is a small category about one aspect of a novel or series of novels. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

obviously the articles in this category are also member of either category:planets in the Honorverse, or category:characters in the Honorverse or category:organizations in the Honorverse. Debresser ( talk) 18:57, 25 January 2009 (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 to Category:Science and technology in the Honorverse. Kbdank71 15:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Spacecraft in the Honorverse ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete this category is not likely to ever receive more than the 2 articles it contains presently and transfering these articles to their parent-directory 'Science and technology in the Honorverse' would put them in good company. Debresser ( talk) 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• merge to Category:Honorverse. This is apparently about a novel or series of novels. I doubt we need more than one category for the whole thing. Anything else for navigation can be better done with navbox templates. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• The obvious category to merge into would be their direct parent-directory: 'Science and technology in the Honorverse'. Debresser ( talk) 15:34, 27 January 2009 (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 all. Kbdank71 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Hybrid equids to Category:Equid hybrids

Propose renaming Category:Hybrid bovines to Category:Bovid hybrids

Propose renaming Category:Canis hybrids to Category:Canid hybrids

Propose renaming Category:Feline hybrids to Category:Felid hybrids

Nominator's rationale: All of the sub-categories of Category:Mammal hybrids are for different families of mammals. There has not been any consistency between these categories. I am proposing that all of the categories start with the word naming members of the family (ie equid for the equidae) and end in "hybrids." (I would have no objection to having them all start with "Hybrid" and end with the word naming members of the family. I figured this could be more appropriate, since the parent category ends in "hybrids" and the main articles for hybrid mammal categories are Bovid hybrid, Canid hybrid, Felid hybrid, and Ursid hybrid.) Additionally, Category:Canis hybrids, Category:Feline hybrids, and Category:Hybrid bovines are currently misnamed. Bovine, canis, and feline do not describe families, rather a subfamily, genus, and subfamily, respectively. Since the main articles for these categories are about the bovid, candid, and felid families, it is appropriate for these categories to be renamed, using the family descriptors. -- Scott Alter 17:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Admiral Norton ^{( talk)} 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• CommentSupport per nom. I support moving Category:Hybrid equids to a different target, Category:Equine hybrids. Equids are members of family Equidae, but the only source of hybrids is the one extant genus Equus, hence " equine hybrids". -- Una Smith ( talk) 23:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I see your point that equidae family only has extanct members in the equus genus, but I'd like for there to be consistency between mammal families as well. In non-equine categories, there are hybrids of different genra of the same family. My proposal is to name all of these categories by family (including changing feline to felid), rather than using a mixture of other taxa. (Regarding your comment at Template talk:Equine#Continuing,) I wonder why Category:Feline hybrids was even given that name, since its description is "Hybrids of species in the Felidae family." and its main article is Felid hybrid. -- Scott Alter 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Equine and equid were tangled; perhaps so were/are feline and felid, bovine and bovid, etc. My main concern with the target category names is the extra abstraction of the adjective formed from the name. Is it really necessary, and is it really helpful? Wouldn't "Hybrids in Equidae/Felidae/Bovidae" be clearer? -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I recognize that the target names reflect the names of existing articles: Bovid hybrid, Canid hybrid. I agree that this is the established pattern, but to me the -id -id is hideous. Could we...change the pattern? There are rather few pages and links involved. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that the -id -id does not sound pleasant, but I think "Hybrids in Equidae/Felidae/Bovidae" is less clear in meaning. I'm open to more suggestions and discussion (maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals to draw more opinions). However, for the sake of consistency, I would still like to see this Cfd pass in the meantime. -- Scott Alter 18:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I have now examined articles in the other categories, and I am persuaded that the categories should have consistent names, and that the names should reflect the families within which they occur. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:36, 26 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Croatia municipality templates to Category:Croatia county templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. When I came across this category today, I thought at first that it relates to templates about 2nd-level administrative divisions of Croatia: towns and municipalities, such as {{ Zaprešić}}. However, I found out that these are templates about 1-st level administrative divisions: counties. As the templates have a potential to become more than just simple listings of towns and municipalities in a given county, I have nominated this category for renaming. Admiral Norton ^{( talk)} 15:46, 24 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Moravians (ethnic group) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Suggest Deletion - if kept should be renamed. This caught my eye while perusing Category:Slavic people, since it seemed out of place there as an apparent non-people category. But then I discovered that it was intended to be a category for "people of Moravian ethnicity". However, it's not clear to me whether the lone bio-article ( John Henry Boner) really belongs in the category, since the only seeming allusion to Moravian ethnicity is the statement that "Boner was born in Salem's Moravian community." That's suggestive, but is it sufficient? Given the uncertainty on that point and the lack of other bio-articles, deletion of the category may be the best thing to do. If kept, I guess it should be renamed to Category:People of Moravian descent. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 12:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete (but subject to possible recreation). My guess is that John Henry Boner was a member of the Moravian Church (recently discussed), rather than an ethnic Moravian by descent. That leaves the category only with a main article, which would (at least for the moment be better in Category:Czech people. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• I suspect you're probably right about Boner's family & the Moravian Church. As for the main article, I just added it to Category:Slavic ethnic groups -- Category:Czech people, on the other hand, is for people articles. Cgingold ( talk) 22:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The alternative might be to keep it and make the one remaining article (assuming that Boner should be removed) the main article for the category. I do not know enough to say whether Moravian is distinct from Czech, but the artilce suggests not. I suspect that Bohemian and Moravian are quasi-nationalities, based largely on residence. An analogy might be made between English and Scots, both of whom are British, and (mostly speaking essentially the same language). Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete our article on this purported ethnic group is singularly devoid of references, but even taking it at its face value most "Moravians" became "Czechs" within a ten-year census period - this apparently mutable ethnicity stands in stark contrast with most of our ethnicity concepts and hence is probably invalid. Hence its category is unsupportable since we cannot tell what or who is or isn't Moravian (perhaps I'll be next week and change back the week following). Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete. Cat creator is a clone of sock-master User:Pastorwayne who was indef banned. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Where & when was this determined? It's not mentioned on his/her talk page. Cgingold ( talk) 20:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• See discussion of this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:EstherLois. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Films articles needing expert attention to Category:Film articles needing expert attention

Suggest merging Category:Filmmaking articles needing expert attention to Category:Film articles needing expert attention

Nominator's rationale: These categories are populated by the {{ expert-subject}} tag, but they all relate to the same WikiProject ( WP:FILM), hence it should be desirable to only have a single category for this purpose. Category:Articles needing expert attention suggests that deleting the two duplicates will divert their contents into Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention, but perhaps it would be prudent to retain them as redirects? I'll post a comment on the template's talk page linking to this discussion, in case anyone there can also be of assistance. PC78 ( talk) 12:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment is "expert attention" POV...? ;-) Lugnuts ( talk) 12:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • This is a common tag where the help of someone with a working knowledge of the area needs to cleanup the article. I'm almost tempted to beg off on this since the project should be the driver in this change. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • This is the venue to discuss categories, yes? What I want is to merge three synonymous categories into one. It's only complicated by how they are populated, i.e. via the template. PC78 ( talk) 18:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close and move to User categories for discussion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Oh for pete's sake. In what way is this a user category? PC78 ( talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support - this really doesn't have to be so complicated, guys... Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support merge as simple housekeeping. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:38, 25 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Films set in San Francisco to Category:Films set in the San Francisco Bay Area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is too limited, and description of the category in its page already says it's for films set in the SFBA. Geopgeop ( T) 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. And note that the category needs reparenting also. - Stepheng3 ( talk) 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose First off, I'm not sure we even need this category, but "San Francisco Bay Area" is too broad. I grew up near San Jose, which is a good 90 minute drive from San Francisco, but it was considered part of the "San Francisco Bay Area". If we expanded it to that, it would encompass all movies set in most of Northern California. Just my $.02... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Valid and obvious subcategory of Category:Films set in the United States by city. Instead we should correct the category description and weed out any films which are not primarily set in the city. PC78 ( talk) 00:56, 29 January 2009 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Stanley to Category:Stanley, Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per article name and commons cat. Just "Stanley" is hopelessly ambiguous. Grutness... wha? 06:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support. Even the main article, Stanley, Hong Kong is disambiguated. Admiral Norton ^{( talk)} 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support makes alot of sense. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 08:01, 25 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Descendants of John Tripp ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I admit that I'm not 100% sure who John Tripp is, though I'm sure he's somehow significant to some genealogists. The category defines him as "John Tripp (1610-1675), who lived in Portsmouth, Newport County, Rhode Island". There is no WP article about this particular John Tripp that I can find. I can find various information about him on the internet—looks like he was a prominent emigrant from England in Rhode Island and a community leader in Portsmouth. Whatever his status, it is nevertheless inappropriate to categorize people by ancestor, no matter how significant that ancestor is. See:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_13#Category:Descendants_of_Richard_Warren

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_4#Category:The_Beatles'_children

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_22#Category:Frank_Sinatra's_children

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_12#Category:Descendants_of_Lakandula

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_5#Category:Descendants_of_Queen_Victoria

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_15#Category:Grandchildren_of_Victoria_and_Albert

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_15#Category:Grandchildren_of_Paul_I_of_Russia

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_18#Category:Natural_Descendants_of_Louis_XIV Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 05:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete descent from John Tripp is NN. I note that we listified some of these categories. The people categorised (or many of them) were certainly notable in their own right, but having this descent is insignificant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator HeartofaDog ( talk) 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• See similar nomination here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (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:People from Northern Ireland by occupation. Kbdank71 14:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish people by occupation to Category:People by occupation in Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Should it not be Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation (as some eg George Best were not 'in' NI)? Occuli ( talk) 02:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, correct, it should be Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation, all the subcats should also be changed.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 04:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Northern Ireland people by occupation to match Category:French people by occupation, Category:Albanian people by occupation, etc. If "Northern Ireland" is being used as the adjectival phrase rather than "Northern Irish" then let's follow convention. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, Carlos, I wouldnt agree that that would follow or match the existing format - that would be like saying Category:France people by occupation, Category:Albania people by occupation, which we dont do. I would still go with Occuli's suggestion of Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation. -- Vintagekits ( talk) 11:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per Carlossuarez46's suggestion. As a matter of personal preference, I too would agree that Category:Northern Ireland people by occupation is a good compromise between not using "Northern Irish" and following the convention of using an adjectival for these categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, for the exact same reasons as outlined in this discussion the proposal of "Northern Ireland xxxx" does not work and is incorrect.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Actually, it wasn't seriously considered in that discussion. I disagree that that it would not work and that it is incorrect. It would "work" just nicely as a compromise between avoiding "Northern Irish" and keeping the formatting consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 29 January 2009 (UTCr

• Oppose. The adjectival form is Northern Irish, as in Welsh, English and Scottish. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, let deal in relatity and not POV (I know thats hard for you KB) but look how the BBC, the DSNI, the NIO, the Alliance Party, the Irish government, the British Government, the Northern Ireland executive, the Northern Ireland Policing board, the Northern Ireland Arts Council, the UUP and the Good Friday Argeement describes "People from Northern Ireland" - not "Northern Irish people", not "Northern Ireland people" - but "People from Northern Ireland" and "People of Northern Ireland" - thats the reality not the fantasy. -- Vintagekits ( talk) 23:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• You make my point. Irish government ... Irish people ... Northern Irish people. Adjectives are not POV. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Alas once again your grasp of this issue is as weak on this subject as it is on most others aswell. Give me a definition of "Northern Irish people" without using WP:OR. -- Vintagekits ( talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• It is not for me to teach you basic English. As well is two words. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• What a retort! Actually it is if you want to convince others of your arguement. As I thought you cant.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move? -- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested to "Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation" - this is unambiguous, accurate and can possibly offend no one. Kittybrewster please stop patronising Vintagekits with you comments, none of us wish to return to the situation we had here in August 2007. We have all moved on. We cannot all have the benefit of your education, but common sense fortunately is something that one acquires or does not acquire, as the case maybe - in this case it is common sense to chose the easy and accurate path. Please assume this to be a comment applicable to all similar renamings proposals below. Giano ( talk) 09:45, 30 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish emigrants to Category:Emigrants from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. As a matter of personal preference I would advocate for Category:Northern Ireland emigrants as a compromise way of avoiding "Northern Irish" but maintaining the adjectival per convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, for the exact same reasons as outlined in this discussion the proposal of "Northern Ireland xxxx" does not work and is incorrect.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Actually, it wasn't seriously considered in that discussion. I disagree that that it would not work and that it is incorrect. It would "work" just nicely as a compromise between avoiding "Northern Irish" and keeping the formatting consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move?-- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:31, 30 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:People of Northern Irish descent to Category:People descendant from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - this is beginning to make a good case for 'Fooian' as opposed to 'from Foo'. 'People with ancestors from Northern Ireland' perhaps? Occuli ( talk) 03:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I would welcome suggestions for alternate names for the category. 'Fooian' in this case simply doesnt work as outlined in the previous CfD.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 04:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Merge as appropriate and delete. If we accept that "Northern Irish" is not a nationality or ethnicity, how can anyone be of that national/ethnic descent? It seems to me that people in this category are either of British descent or of Irish descent and their ancestors happened to live in Northern Ireland. Where someone's ancestors lived is not defining, though their ancestors' nationality/ethnicity may be. I suggest manually merging the contents to Category:People of British descent and Category:People of Irish descent as appropriate and then deleting it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move?-- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:32, 30 January 2009 (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:People from Northern Ireland by ethnic or national origin. Kbdank71 14:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish people by ethnic or national origin to Category:People by ethnic or national origin in Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - the rename should be to Category:People from Northern Ireland by ethnic or national origin. Occuli ( talk) 20:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, yeah, I've no problem with that.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. As a matter of personal preference I would suggest Category:Northern Ireland people by ethnic or national origin as a way of avoiding "Northern Irish" but maintaining the adjectival form per convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, for the exact same reasons as outlined in this discussion the proposal of "Northern Ireland xxxx" does not work and is incorrect.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Actually, it wasn't seriously considered in that discussion. I disagree that that it would not work and that it is incorrect. It would "work" just nicely as a compromise between avoiding "Northern Irish" and keeping the formatting consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move?-- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:32, 30 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish expatriates to Category:Expatriates from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. As a matter of personal preference I would advocate for Category:Northern Ireland expatriates as a compromise way of avoiding "Northern Irish" but maintaining the adjectival per convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, for the exact same reasons as outlined in this discussion the proposal of "Northern Ireland xxxx" does not work and is incorrect.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The adjectival form is Northern Irish, as in Welsh, English and Scottish. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Actually, it wasn't seriously considered in that discussion. I disagree that that it would not work and that it is incorrect. It would "work" just nicely as a compromise between avoiding "Northern Irish" and keeping the formatting consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move?-- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:33, 30 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Lists of Northern Irish people to Category:Lists of people from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. As a matter of personal preference I would advocate for Category:Lists of Northern Ireland people as a compromise way of avoiding "Northern Irish" but maintaining the adjectival per convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, for the exact same reasons as outlined in this discussion the proposal of "Northern Ireland xxxx" does not work and is incorrect.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Actually, it wasn't seriously considered in that discussion. I disagree that that it would not work and that it is incorrect. It would "work" just nicely as a compromise between avoiding "Northern Irish" and keeping the formatting consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The adjectival form is Northern Irish, as in Welsh, English and Scottish. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move?-- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:33, 30 January 2009 (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 no comment about the usefulness of 1.5 articles per category. Kbdank71 14:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish murder victims to Category:Murder victims from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Merge, to Category:People murdered in Northern Ireland, which it seems all were. Johnbod ( talk) 05:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, what if they are from NI but murdered elsewhere?-- Vintagekits ( talk) 05:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

a) they weren't, & b) we don't do Germans murdered in the US etc. Johnbod ( talk)

Au contraire. There are two streams: Category:Murder victims by nationality and Category:Murder victims by country. The first is for nationality of the victim; the second is for place of murder. This is of the first type. So the question still stands—what if a person is from Northern Ireland and is murdered outside of Northern Ireland? You can't tell me it hasn't happened before. Indeed, there is an entire subclass, Category:People murdered abroad by nationality, with 79 subcategories. The fact that there is no N.I. example right now is not a reason to discount the very real possibility that it can apply and may well apply to a future article. Merging the place of origin category with the place of murder category just delays the discussion of what to call the one that is needed as a place of origin category. If anyone wants to put off that decision until we face it, that's fine, since right now the place of origin and place of murder categories overlap perfectly, but I think it would be better if the name for the place of origin one were chosen by consensus here rather than by the single user in the future who decides that it needs to be created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Humph! 79 sub-cats with an average of about 1 1/2 articles each! But while this structure exists, rename per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

With 140 articles in the category and its subcategory, Category:Saudi Arabian people imprisoned abroad alone probably bumps up that average well beyond 1½. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom per above comments. The use of "Northern Ireland foo" ( Category:Northern Ireland murder victims), which I would normally advocate for using, would be ambiguous in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, for the exact same reasons as outlined in this discussion the proposal of "Northern Ireland xxxx" does not work and is incorrect.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Actually, it wasn't seriously considered in that discussion. I disagree that that it would not work and that it is incorrect. In many cases (though not this one), it would "work" just nicely as a compromise between avoiding "Northern Irish" and keeping the formatting consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The adjectival form is Northern Irish, as in Welsh, English and Scottish. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move?-- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:34, 30 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish Nobel laureates to Category:Nobel laureates from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. As a matter of personal preference I would advocate for Category:Northern Ireland Nobel laureates as a compromise way of avoiding "Northern Irish" but maintaining the adjectival per convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, for the exact same reasons as outlined in this discussion the proposal of "Northern Ireland xxxx" does not work and is incorrect.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Actually, it wasn't seriously considered in that discussion. I disagree that that it would not work and that it is incorrect. It would "work" just nicely as a compromise between avoiding "Northern Irish" and keeping the formatting consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move?-- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:34, 30 January 2009 (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:People from Northern Ireland by religion. Kbdank71 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish people by religion to Category:People by religion in Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - the rename should be to Category:People from Northern Ireland by religion. Occuli ( talk) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. As a matter of personal preference I would suggest Category:Northern Ireland people by religion as a way of avoiding "Northern Irish" but maintaining the adjectival form per convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, for the exact same reasons as outlined in this discussion the proposal of "Northern Ireland xxxx" does not work and is incorrect.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Actually, it wasn't seriously considered in that discussion. I disagree that that it would not work and that it is incorrect. It would "work" just nicely as a compromise between avoiding "Northern Irish" and keeping the formatting consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The adjectival form is Northern Irish, as in Welsh, English and Scottish. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move?-- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:37, 30 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish prisoners and detainees to Category:Prisoners and detainees from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. The use of "Northern Ireland foo" ( Category:Northern Ireland prisoners and detainees), which I would normally advocate for, would be ambiguous in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, for the exact same reasons as outlined in this discussion the proposal of "Northern Ireland xxxx" does not work and is incorrect.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Actually, it wasn't seriously considered in that discussion. I disagree that that it would not work and that it is incorrect. In most cases (though not this one), it would "work" just nicely as a compromise between avoiding "Northern Irish" and keeping the formatting consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The adjectival form is Northern Irish, as in Welsh, English and Scottish. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move?-- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:37, 30 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish women to Category:Women from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. As a matter of personal preference I would advocate for Category:Northern Ireland women as a compromise way of avoiding "Northern Irish" but maintaining the adjectival per convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, for the exact same reasons as outlined in this discussion the proposal of "Northern Ireland xxxx" does not work and is incorrect.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Actually, it wasn't seriously considered in that discussion. I disagree that that it would not work and that it is incorrect. It would "work" just nicely as a compromise between avoiding "Northern Irish" and keeping the formatting consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The adjectival form is Northern Irish, as in Welsh, English and Scottish. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move?-- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:37, 30 January 2009 (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: Not the right place for this discussion. This category is controlled by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting and you can discuss this change over there. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Not strictly true - but changes to stub types are discussed at WP:SFD, not WP:CFD. Grutness... wha? 00:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish people stubs to Category:Stubs for people from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Vintagekits ( talk) 02:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename Per this this discussion. I though this would be a natural move?-- Domer48 _'fenian' 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Jewish terrorism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Jewish is not a nationality, but an ethnic group. Though it can also be referred to as a member of a faith, this categorization is racist and anti-Semitic. It is proposed that this category gets deleted, or the name changed where it does not categorize individuals by race/ethnicity. Wiki Raja ( talk) 02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Judging by Category:Islamic terrorism and Category:Christian terrorism, I'd say this category relates to terrorism supporting judaism or committed by Jews. You may have also been looking for Category:Terrorism in Israel. While no one likes his faith to be linked to terrorism, this category is not against the policies of Wikipedia. It was created as a subcategory to Category:Religious terrorism, and, judging by its content, this creation was not in vain. If you're a Jew, I hope I didn't offend you by this text, but in Wikipedia the Jewish faith is subject to the same categorization and principles as any other religion. Admiral Norton ^{( talk)} 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose., the category cleary helps to organize terrorism crimes executed by groups with judaism roots. As Admiral Norton points out, we can't erase this category for being anti-semitic without erasing islamic and christian terrorism categories as well.-- Seba5618 ( talk) 16:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• keep For the reasons stated above and because categories exist to aid in navigation to articles. The articles contain documented facts; categories allow reads to find those articles. It is not the job of CfD to second guess the contents of, and authors of, articles. Hmains ( talk) 17:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Category:Zionist terrorism, or is that confined to pre-1948 conflict? This category and the related main article have unsatisfactory titles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment: A better idea would be to merge both Category:Jewish terrorism and Category:Terrorism in Israel to either Category:Zionist terrorism or Category:Israeli terrorism. And, no I'm not Jewish, but tend to advocate on the anti-defamation of ethnic identities whether they be Jew, Mayan, Malay or any other group. Wiki Raja ( talk) 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment if you want positive categories, you get to eat the negative ones, too. Just like Category:Islamic terrorism. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Query? Do we have a consensus that the word 'Jewish' should be used in exactly the same context as the words 'Islamic' and 'Christian'? Phil_burnstein ( talk) 08:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose and keep. Per Seba5618. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:03, 29 January 2009 (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; merge contents as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:People of the Moravian Church miscellaneous ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - I've never come across another category like this -- use of the modifier "miscellaneous" is highly unorthodox, and the category itself serves no real purpose. As for the contents, Johann Steinhauer needs no further categorization; the other two articles should be moved into appropriate sub-cats of Category:People of the Moravian Church. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 00:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support nom. Occuli ( talk) 03:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. It is not a normal wiki procedure to create additional subcategories for articles that would fit in the main category. Admiral Norton ^{( talk)} 16:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge -- If the (four?) people listed cannot go into a existing subcategory, they should be in the parent. That is standard practice. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete ah, where we do put the leftovers? Has anyone considered that the entire tree is OCAT leaving us some leftovers that cannot be neatly fit into the little pigeonholes made? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:05, 29 January 2009 (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 "Latvian Moravians" DUN Dun dunnnunnunnunn! Lightning CRASH!! Muahahahaha... DELETE!!! IT'S ALIVE!!! and rename "People of..." to fix capitalization. Kbdank71 14:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

= Category:Latvian Moravians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Latvian People of the Moravian Church ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Proposal: Merge Category:Latvian Moravians into Category:Latvian People of the Moravian Church, which should itself be renamed to Category:Latvian people of the Moravian Church.

Rationale: These two categories are entirely redundant; both were created by the same (apparently inexperienced) editor within minutes of each other. The target category is consistent with the other sub-cats by nationality of Category:People of the Moravian Church. It should be noted that Category:Latvian Moravians is consistent with the more widely used formulation for other denominations. However, "Moravians" is an ambiguous term, since it can also refer to people of Moravian descent. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 00:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support nom (although no merging is needed as the 2 cats hold the same article); and per format within Category:People of the Moravian Church by nationality. Occuli ( talk) 02:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• True enough. I suppose I could have gone for the jugular and said, "Delete", but I handled this one more gently in case there was support for a reverse merge. Cgingold ( talk) 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Merge both to Category:Latvian members of the Moravian Church. I think this reads better than "people". Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• That's a reasonable suggestion -- but it conflicts with the names of the sibling categories, so I think it would be better to deal with them all together, in a separate CFD. Meanwhile, this name change could actually be Speedied, as long as we're agreed on which of the two should be kept. Cgingold ( talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete OCAT by nationality & religion. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. OCAT. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:07, 29 January 2009 (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.