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 13:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Family comedy series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Much too subjective, category is defined as "Television shows that the whole family can enjoy." Whose job shall it be to determine that? What if my whole family doesn't like the same shows that your whole family does? Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Inclusion criteria has now been slightly re-written to "Television shows that are suitable for families and all ages" but it still seems a subjective criteria. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - who decides whether a show is "suitable for families and all ages"? The Family Research Council is certainly going to have a different notion than, well, most other groups. Even if we went with the quasi-official television content rating systems, those vary by country and can change from one episode of a series to another. Otto4711 ( talk) 06:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Highly subjective. My friend lets her three girls watch Family Guy, in defiance of every televised warning, so in her house it's a "show the whole family can enjoy." Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - also ambiguously titled. It could easily refer to sitcoms centred on a family (e.g., The Simpsons, The Cosby Show, All in the Family), in which case we could/should also have "Workplace comedy shows" +c. Grutness... wha? 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete my family isn't yours and what we enjoy someone out there won't. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 04:38, 5 May 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 13:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Female characters in Shakespeare to Category:Female Shakespearean characters

Nominator's rationale: Grammar, and also harmony with Category:Shakespearean characters. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename. For consistency purposes. — Σ xplicit 22:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Robofish ( talk) 06:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete we needn't divide these by sex. Really... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 04:39, 5 May 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 13:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Cheers spin-offs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - another small category that cannot be expanded. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete given the small number of spinoffs and the rather dim possibility of any more being added, the category does not aid navigation, though we should ensure that all of these are in the parent Category:Television spin-offs. In that same parent, Category:The Andy Griffith Show spin-offs and Category:Family Ties spin-offs seem to suffer from the same problem and should probably be deleted as well. Alansohn ( talk) 01:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - small category with no likelihood of expansion. Robofish ( talk) 06:24, 4 May 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 13:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:M*A*S*H spin-offs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no chance of expansion. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete It's extremely unlikely there will ever be another spin off of M*A*S*H, and I'm sure these articles all are linked to the main article, so the category will not really help readers navigate the encyclopedia. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete given the small number of spinoffs and the rather dim possibility of any more being added, the category does not aid navigation, though we should ensure that all of these are in the parent Category:Television spin-offs. As noted above, in that same parent, Category:The Andy Griffith Show spin-offs and Category:Family Ties spin-offs seem to suffer from the same problem and should probably be deleted as well. Alansohn ( talk) 01:46, 3 May 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. Recommend interested parties from all three discussions get together to come up with a common consensus. Kbdank71 13:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Church building disambiguation pages to Category:Church disambiguation pages

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per discussion during a TfD (at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 2#template:church disambig), it seems helpful to broaden the category to cover other meanings of "church", such as denominations and congregations, as well as church buildings. doncram ( talk) 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I endorse this in concept, but since "church" is an inherently Christian term, why not expand the scope to become Category:Religion disambiguation? Either way, the new term would be similar in concept to Category:Educational institution disambiguation. -- Orlady ( talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I considered something like "Religion-related disambiguation". And there previously was a {{ powdis}} for "places of worship" disambiguation with some similarly broader-than-just-Christian category associated (I don't know what was its exact category name). However, I think it is better to go with just "church" because it works better than any other alternative, for the significant set of more than 300 church disambiguation articles which mainly cover church buildings but also cover church congregations and church denominations that use exactly the same term, such as "First Presbyterian Church" is the name of many individual buildings and many congregations/church organizations that have had more than one building. To say "religion disambiguation" would seem not to apply to church buildings. To say "religion-related" is vague and doesn't well serve the core content of church buildings. I don't think "religion disambiguation" is exactly analogous to "educational institution disambiguation", it is more akin to too-broad "education disambiguation". Perhaps "religious institution disambiguation"? But, that would seem to exclude buildings separate from the institutions. Many places named First Presbyterian Church are buildings that are no longer churches, and even current church buildings are buildings, not institutions.

Also, I tried to think of any term like "places of worship disambiguation" which would include synagogues, temples, mosques, and other non-Christian buildings. But, "places of worship" does not seem to allow for denominations or congregations, it seems to be just about the places. I don't want to set up a difficult to manage term, where editors would be deleting one article named "Bethel Baptist Church" because it is a denomination not a place, or deleting another article "Bethel Baptist Church" because it is a about a congregation that met for awhile in one building and then move to another building, while other articles named "Bethel Baptist Church" are buildings that might or might not be current churches. For disambiguation purposes, it is best to have every article about "Bethel Baptist Church" in the same disambiguation article. And, it seems confusing to instruct editors that it is okay to have "places of worship disambiguation" category apply to the disambiguation page, when it applies to some but not all of the entries in the disambiguation page. To wit, you, Orlady, yesterday deleted "church building disambiguation" from a disambiguation page that included some church buildings and some denominations. I re-added the category. I presume you did so because you thought the category/description did not correspond closely enough to the majority of items in the disambiguation page. If the category were "church disambiguation", I believe you would have already agreed that was fine, and would not require extensive discussion that it is okay to have a category/description which covers only some of the entries on the disambiguation page.

I am not aware of any phrase which clearly includes temples, mosques, and other places of worship but which does not seem to exclude denominations and congregations, which, for Christian churches, often have the same names as individual buildings.

For synagogues, temples, and mosques, I do also work on disambiguation pages and/or set index articles to disambiguate them (for example, see my recent work discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Temple Israel set index article and disambiguation ). But I think these are fewer articles on non-Christian places of worship. I believe it is very striking that there is only one mosque in the United States that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (this was studied out in discussion at wt:NRHP, now archived). There simply are few articles about mosques in the English language wikipedia, while there are many articles about historic Christian churches, and the frequency of disambiguation pages on Christian church buildings/congregations/denominations reflects that. When there are more articles about mosques, then eventually it will make sense to create a category of mosque disambiguatation pages. There are more articles about synagogues than about mosques now, and i don't know how many synagogue disambiguation pages there are, but I believe it probably is still not yet appropriate to create a "synagogue disambiguation pages" category (because i think there are too few). To me it is obviously time already to create the church disambiguation page category due to the number of them. I don't know whether or not it is acceptable or good to add any synagogue disambiguation pages into it, defining church very broadly, but that is a separate question on whether or not there should be a church disambiguation category.

So, I think "church disambiguation" hits it exactly the best, and especially for tagging the many disambiguation pages that have the word "Church" or "Cathedral" or "Chapel" or other usually-Christan names in their title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram ( talk • contribs) Revision as of 00:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Although I am one who first alerted Doncram to the fact that there are some "church" disambiguation pages that focus on denominations, not individual congregations and their buildings, I don't think that the forced marriage of the two types of disambiguation pages is a happy one. As Doncram notes, "yesterday" (give or take a day in Wikipedia time) I removed the "church building disambiguation" templates that he had recently placed on Church of Christ and Church of God and restored the generic "disambiguation" templates to both pages. Both of these articles are best understood as set index articles because they contain some discussion and explanation of the relationships between the listed denominations -- in fact, a few hours later I replaced {{disambig}} with {{SIA}} on both articles. I was very uncomfortable seeing that pages about several Christian denominations were now misleadingly labeled as being about "church buildings." While it is incorrect to label denominations as buildings, it is not incorrect to label a page that disambiguates local churches as a disambiguation page, so I concluded that the generic disambiguation statement should be fully acceptable for Church of Christ, a page disambiguating roughly 25 denominations plus five individual local churches. ( Church of God does not list any local churches, so the "church building disambiguation" template was totally inaccurate there.)

Seeing the incongruity of combining denominations with local churches on Church of Christ, I think it is best to keep the two types of disambiguation separate, for example as Church of Christ (for the set index article about denominations) and Church of Christ (place of worship) (for disambiguating individual local churches). -- Orlady ( talk) 04:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for ensuring my signing of my comment above. You did point out the mix of denom and buildings in those examples but i have encountered that before, too. I accept your edits to drop the church building category were reasonable, given its name then/still, and "disambig" is not wrong. To likewise explain my edits there, i was anticipating a renaming of this category, and I do want for the category to include those articles so I don't want them lost by having the category stripped out. I believe your reaction prompting category removal was to incongruity which would be gone if the name for the category was "church disambiguation pages", as proposed. Your initial and following statements seem in general supportive of the rename to church disambiguation pages. To clarify, is that correct?

I'm not sure this needs to be part of this CfD, but I don't necessarily agree that Church of Christ and Church of God should be SIA pages. Some extra stuff in them might best be stripped out, but i think they are basically disambiguation pages and are needed as such, i think. For transparency, let me say i've announced this CfD and the SIA vs. dab issue for those two, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#church disambiguation CfD, and church dabs vs. SIA pages, and I will ask the same TfD participants as i've asked before, to comment here, too. doncram ( talk) 05:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In my humble opinion, there are excellent reasons for these to be set index articles. Church of God, in particular, is not merely a case of multiple organizations with similar names, but rather is a situation in which a series of schisms within a group called "the church of god" (I use lower-case here to avoid implying that I am referring to any one group) have resulted in a large number of groups that consider themselves to be the true church of god (or "original church of god", "the church of god", etc.), have sued one another over naming rights, and have adopted names for purposes of disambiguation that are still rather ambiguous (for example, both Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) and Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee) have their world headquarters in Cleveland, Tennessee -- a small city that is home to six distinct "church of god" denominations, but a false geographic location is used to disambiguate them). To further complicate matters, variations of the "church of god" name have been adopted by multiple groups that have given rise to schismatic denominational families, so that not all "church of god" denominations are related. Inclusion in the Church of God article of information regarding the theological and historical relationships between the various "church of god" groups is an extremely useful encyclopedic element that would not be possible in a standard disambiguation page. If anything, the information content in that article should be expanded, not trimmed away. -- Orlady ( talk) 14:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Convince me that since church is ambiguous, we need to create an ambiguous category. Currently this category has over 300 entries and has a wonderful parent of Category:Church buildings. I fail to see how the proposed rename helps in any way for this as a building category. Expanding the scope and including other stuff would make the category confusing and likely useless. Why not simply create new categories for the other stuff? Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, the semi-ambiguous or simply broader term "church disambiguation" seems to closely fit the nature of the disambiguation pages themselves, which include buildings, congregations, and denominations all having the same name, like "Bethel Church". There are many articles which are clearly about the church as a group/congregation, and not about the building. I think it is more useful to use the term church. See also my response to Orlady above. I hear where you are coming from, trying to slot this nicely into a parent category, but that simply may not be possible. Certainly "church disambiguation" and "church buildings" categories can both fit nicely into some broader category, like "religion-related". However, the most important thing here is to make a category that is useful to readers and editors who are working with the 300 plus articles that it naturally covers, not to make the name fit into your somewhat faraway categorizing framework.

If one were to create "church denomination disambiguation", "church congregation disambiguation", and "church building disambiguation", it would be extremely difficult to attach the correct categories to disambiguation pages. Many pages would deserve 2 or more such categories, and there would be disagreements and category removals.

It is indeed hard to judge whether many articles about a given church are about the building or about the congregation. And whether the article is more about the building or more about the congregation can easily be changed by editing. For example, Trinity Church (Elmira, New York), is one article in some flux. The congregation has existed for 175 years and the church webpage is mostly about the congregation. The building has not existed that long, but is what is listed on the U.S. NRHP. And material from the church's webpage is getting swapped in and out of the article. I wouldn't know how to categorize it. It is obviously a church though, leaving the word church deliberately a bit ambiguous.

Also, this category rename is to support including church disambiguation as a type within {{ disambig}}, see Template talk:Dabcat#church disambig and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#template:church disambig. I don't know if it is even possible to use {{ disambig}} with more than one type indicated, which would be needed for many of these disambiguation pages if there are church building, church denomination, and church congregation types defined.

Finally, I apologize to you that this in-flux discussion is now at CfD, given unresolved, related TfD and open request for an edit-protected change to {{ Disambig}}'s side Dabcat template. I wanted to close the TfD first, and then do a comprehensive CfD, and only then open a request at Dabcat. But another editor and Orlady opposed closing the TfD and relisted it, and then the other editor also opened the edit-protected change request. I think the only way to settle all three of these open discussions cleanly is to go with "church disambiguation pages" as a category. doncram ( talk) 00:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Unless there is some sound logic for the proposed rename, I'm likely to strongly oppose the rename. Despite your extensive comments above, I'm not seeing a case that the current category is not correctly named. You may be making a case that some of the articles are not correctly classified, but that is a different issue. The logic that having 3 categories would make it more confusing to classify an article does not hold up. If you cram all of this into one unmanageable category, what purpose does the category serve? At that point you may as well simply delete the thing. Templates can be changed to support the discussion categories as needed. So the presence or absence of support in the current templates should not be an issue in the discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, more specifically then. I did not create the category, but my own narrow interest is to have a category that groups together all the church disambiguation pages having some NRHP-listed church building items listed on them. I want to be able to go to these disambiguation pages and maintain and build them and repair damage occasionally inflicted by disambiguation page editors who interpret wp:MOSDAB differently or who simply march to a different drummer. These disambiguation pages will naturally include items that are identically named denominations and congregations, which is fine by me. That's where i personally am coming from.

The current category "church building disambiguation pages" is not correctly named well enough because even experienced editors like Orlady will react (as she did) that it is not a close enough description of the content of a given disambiguation page having some items about denominations and churches, and so she strips it out. That loses the battle for me: the category no longer covers all dab pages having church buildings. Perhaps a longer name, like "disambiguation pages having one or more items that are church buildings" or "disambiguation pages including church buildings" would work for convincing her not to strip the category off, but I think she would have other objections to the longer title. That suffices to show that the current title does not work, I think. Do you see that, and/or could you suggest a different title that would work? "Church disambiguation pages" is simple and works, however, I think.

Further, a second way the title doesn't work well, is that for many of these church disambiguation pages it is not immediately obvious whether the listed items are church buildings or congregations or both equally or what. For many entries like "Bethel Church (Town, State)", you cannot tell from the title whether it is about the congregation or about a building. It can be difficult, even reading the article, to figure out which it is about. It is better for the relevance of the category to be clear from the names of the articles listed in the disambiguation page. It would probably violate wp:MOSDAB guidelines and it is impractical to require all church disambiguation page items to include enough text to define whether the item is about a building or a congregation or equally about both or what. I want a category whose applicability is practical to manage by, for the most part, just reviewing what appears in these 300 or so disambiguation pages.

By the way, a different option which was defeated before by deletion of the category and/or template was to have some kind of NRHP category and/or template for disambiguation pages. The NRHP-ness of a church place is secondary to it being a church, first, so I don't too much object. Anyhow, I have given two reasons why the current category name does not work. How do you respond to that, please? doncram ( talk) 02:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Places of worship disambiguation pages (or a variant thereof). First off, the category is not just disambiguating buildings; it's primarily distinguishing between congregations with a common name. The existence of non-Christian houses of worship such as Beth Israel and Emanu-El and the existence of Category:Places of worship by city and Category:Places of worship by country argue for the use of a broader term for this purpose. Alansohn ( talk) 01:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you please find the previous CfD deletion of the category named exactly or very much like that? It would seem relevant to consider if you are making that as a proposal. Also, what about my points explained above that there are Christian denominations and congregations also covered on the church disambiguation pages, which would seem to be disallowed by places of worship disambiguation? doncram ( talk) 02:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Are you referring to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November_3#Category:Place of worship disambiguation? That's the most recent relevant CfD that I can find, and it closed as "keep all." -- Orlady ( talk) 03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Added: More recently, there were several discussions on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 17; they led to renaming Category:Churches to Category:Church buildings. A couple of months thereafter (in January 2009), Category:Place of worship disambiguation was deleted because it was empty (I haven't found out what led to emptying the category). -- Orlady ( talk) 04:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for finding those previous discussions & decisions. About emptying the powdis category, checking history of a few of the same dab pages we are discussing now yields edits like this by Remember the dot and this labelled just "cleanup" by Remember the dot. We would not be here now if the category had not been systematically stripped and then deleted, I think mostly by Remember the dot. Does Remember the dot need to be invited to comment here. Note, it is also Remember the dot opened the TfD to delete church disambig which started all this up again, but has not commented since giving an opening stating "Having a separate disambiguation template for churches is pointless and confusing." I don't know how to deal with that. Is there some way to get Remember the dot, as a key person involved, to acknowledge some purpose of having church disambig or powdis or whatever. doncram ( talk) 05:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for filling in the additional details on the removal of {{powdis}}. I see that you've invited Remember the dot to this discussion -- good move! -- Orlady ( talk) 14:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Places of worship disambiguation (or a variant thereof). Congratulations to Alansohn for hitting the nail on the head with his suggestion. This rename would resolve my unease with the emphasis on "buildings" in the current name (I think that persons of faith would be insulted by the suggestion that their religious institutions are merely "buildings") and my vague perception that, to be most useful, the category ought not to be limited to Christian topics. -- Orlady ( talk) 03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

But, what about the fact that Alansohn's suggested "places of worship disambiguation" seems to limit to disambiguation of churches that are places, as opposed to Bethel Church and other dab pages that mix places (buildings), congregations, and whole denominations. I agree with your point about "buildings" as possibly being insulting in some contexts. For addressing non-christian topics, would creating "places of worship disambiguation" as a parent category (for church disambig, synagogue disambig, and other disambig types) suffice? Do you not agree that "church disambiguation" serves best for church disambiguation pages that included can include all three types? doncram ( talk) 09:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep Just create a new template for Category:Synagogue disambiguation pages. It will make both categories much more useful than a combined Category:Places of worship disambiguation pages that no one will be able to categorize or use very well. I doubt that there are any other place of worship disambiguation pages in the English Wikipedia.-- Carlaude ^{( talk)} 07:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep, or rename Category:Religious places disambiguation pages (opposing nomination) -- Category:Religious places has existing subcategories Category:Religious buildings, Category:Church buildings, Category:Places of worship by city, etc. Either have one each, or one unifying category.
  -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment/Question I see about 8-10 disambiguation pages which include synagogues, among items covered in Category:Synagogues in the United States or elsewhere. Beth Israel, Emanu-El, and others could well be put into a new Category:Synagogue disambiguation pages. Some of these, such as perhaps The Temple, may include things that are not synagogues, not sure what to do then. I would like to just set up that category, and to set up broader Category:places of worship disambiguation pages which would be parent to both the requested Category:Church disambiguation pages and Category:Synagogue disambiguation pages and would directly include, perhaps, a few Buddhist temple, mosque, or other religions' disambiguation pages. There seems to be support here for creating both synagogue and places of worship dabs. Would creating these both solve the current question? I am not sure on etiquette of going ahead and creating those two new categories given this related discussion is not closed. doncram ( talk) 21:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per Alansohn, do not rename to Category:Religious places disambiguation pages, which seems better suited to have Bible Belt and such articles tossed in than various congregations, diocese, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, ashrams, and whatever else there may be. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 04:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Places of worship disambiguation pages (or a variant thereof) per Alansohn. Not per nom, or "religious places". Johnbod ( talk) 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Warning three discussions going on on this subject: cfd here, tfd, dabcat-request-editprotect. Bad situation.
  To admin: suggest no action to be taken because of possible conflicting outcomes. Freeze or keep could. - DePiep ( talk) 08:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep based on my previous comments. There is no reason to change, however there may be a need to cleanup the contents or to create some new categories, but those actions don't need approval here. The current name is what appears to have support at the dabcat-request-editprotect discussion. I;m not sure where the consensus is for the tfd, but that may also wind up as a keep. As a suggestion. Close this as keep and have the parties that are involved try and develop a proposal that will address the objections in all three discussions. Then restart a discussion in one place with notices to all of the others so that interested editors can join in. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on Vegaswikian: Keep could be OK, but not with these reasons & consequences. Since there is confusion in discussions, there cannot be a 'conclusion' or consensus: we would have to look at three places simultanuously. So a Keep now would mean Freeze ('undecided'), not a decision. The confusion makes me uphold any argumentation now. Also: the Editprotected/doc no.2 says any edit-request for such a protected page should be based on a consensus reached at the appropriate place, which is not per se the to-be-edited page/talkpage itself. - DePiep ( talk) 08:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I see no problem with having this CfD discussion come to a conclusion, it does not need to be frozen or stopped. The category name chosen here would be implemented into the editprotected change (which is separate) or into the separate template covered at the tfd discussion. This discussion already referred to the tfd discussion, and the edit-protected request referred to here and to the tfd already. doncram ( talk) 08:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think it is possible to come to a choice here between "church buildings disambiguation" vs. "church disambiguation" vs. neither, with option to create "places of worship disambiguation" and "synagogues disambiguation" as well. doncram ( talk) 08:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keeping in mind that the current convention is "Foo disambiguation pages", I agree that we seem to be migrating toward 3 or 4 subcategories, rather than 1 more generic subcategory.
    -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • RE Doncram #1: Suppose this comes to a Keep or Rename, and the TfD concludes Delete?

RE Doncram #2: On rename: It is confused, so I do not argument. Let's clean up the discussions.

RE William Allen Simpson: I do not have experianced the Foo-convention (no convention I think). "3 or 4 subcats": No discussion from me. I oppose any change because of see above. - DePiep ( talk) 21:17, 7 May 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 13:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Family Ties spin-offs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no possibility of expansion. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete I missed this in my comments above on other spinoff categories. Given the small number of spinoffs and the rather dim possibility of any more being added, the category does not aid navigation, though we should ensure that all of these are in the parent Category:Television spin-offs.
• Delete - small category with virtually no possiblity of expansion. Robofish ( talk) 06:23, 4 May 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 Category:The Avengers (TV series), no consensus on Category:Batman: The Brave and the Bold and Category:The Biggest Loser, delete the rest. Kbdank71 13:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:All Saints (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:The Avengers (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Batman: The Brave and the Bold ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Beverly Hills, 90210 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:The Biggest Loser ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:The Bold Ones ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Bozo television series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - small eponymous categories for TV shows with little or no likelihood of expansion. In each case the lead article serves for navigation and many of the series have templates linking the material as well. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep for the Avenfgers one - I found one uncategorised article on an episode, and it's plausible that more episodes could have articles, either now or in the future. No opinion on the others. Grutness... wha? 21:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep since it is quite possible that there will eventually be more articles, including ones for each of the major characters--that is certainly the way the discussions at WP:FICT have been heading. DGG ( talk) 21:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Which would go into a category for the characters of the series, not a category for the series itself, which you already know. Otto4711 ( talk) 08:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist separately - some of these are acceptable (e.g. Category:The Avengers (TV series), Category:The Biggest Loser), some of them are not ( Category:All Saints (TV series)). Robofish ( talk) 06:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per precedent and per nom; templates take all the linking we need rather than bombard users with categories galore so it's hard to find categories that matter. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep the Avengers, holds sub-category together with articles; keep the Batman one as a useful sub-cat of Batman category structure; delete the others. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:54, 5 May 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: Do not rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:The Troubles (Northern Ireland) to Category:The Troubles

Nominator's rationale: We currently have no category called Category:The Troubles, and the relevant article is at The Troubles, not The Troubles (Northern Ireland). As such, in the spirit of WP:2DAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the category should match the article and be under the undisambiguated title. Skomorokh 18:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep per cfd of 13 Feb 2009. Occuli ( talk) 20:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Snappy ( talk) 02:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep As Is - Do Not Rename - Nothing has changed since the discussion in the previous CFD, which resulted in the current name. In addition, the nominator's rationale completely overlooks the fact that there is a DAB page for Troubles (disambiguation), which makes it possible to dispense with the "Northern Ireland" identifier in the article's name. Category names, by contrast, must have sufficient intrinsic clarity to stand by themselves without the benefit of a DAB page. Cgingold ( talk) 09:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep for now (i.e. oppose renaming) I can see some good arguments both for disambiguating and for using the undisambiguated title: disambiguation is nearly always a Good Thing^[TM], but the other topics listed at Troubles (disambiguation) seem to me to be very much less notable. So I'm basically neutral for now, but if this category is to be renamed, then its sub-categories should also be reamed for consistency, and I would oppose any solution which breaks the consistency between this category and its sub-cats. It's also a pity that the nominator did not find the previous CFD beforehand, but it would helpful for Skomorokh to explain why xe thinks that it needs to be overturned so quickly.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

There are many older "Troubles" in the British Isles that might be added to the disam page, & the there is nothing un-notable about the Irish Civil War. Johnbod ( talk) 14:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep per my comments in the last Cfd. Johnbod ( talk) 14:24, 5 May 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: upmerge to Category:Indigenous Australian players of Australian rules football. Kbdank71 13:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Current Indigenous Australian Players of Australian Rules Football ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Following on from this CfD, there also seems to be no need for this category to exist when he have Category:Indigenous Australian players of Australian rules football, which is not even close to being classed as overpopulated. Jevansen ( talk) 13:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Indigenous Australian players of Australian rules football per nom and per custom. Occuli ( talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge Orderinchaos 11:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per previous discussion, where I should have added it as a co-nominated category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete current cat, racial cat, and an intersection between currency, race, nationality, sport variation, OCAT. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 04:43, 5 May 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: speedy delete Empty cat created by nom who has now created Category:Newlyn School of Artists. Salix ( talk): 17:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Members of the Newlyn Society of Artists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Actually meant Newlyn School not Society Teahot ( talk) 12:40, 2 May 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. A guideline for something like this would probably go a long way to reducing the length of such CFD's, but this is not the proper place to put one into effect.. Kbdank71 13:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Turkish Americans and Category:Turkish-Americans to Category:American people of Turkish descent.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Recent (2 years) practice specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage — for example Category:American people of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines descent.

• This was previously considered at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 25#Category:Turkish-Americans and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 3#Category:Turkish-Americans. The decision was to use the hyphenated Category:Turkish-Americans.
• Subsequently, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 8#American people by ethnic or national origin, there was no consensus to reverse the decision.
• Mayumashu ( talk · contribs) participated in that discussion, and unilaterally reversed the category redirect, contrary to established consensus.
• Otherwise, I will restore the category redirect to Category:Turkish-Americans.

-- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 11:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - The concensus has been for the separate naming convention for US categories to be retained. Cgingold ( talk) 11:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Query -- I have been unable to find such a consensus -- please record the appropriate CfD links at this point in the discussion.
    -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 13:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I'm sorry, but I don't happen to have those links at hand. These renamings -- from which the US cats were exempted -- took place (mostly last year, as I recall) in an extended series of CFDs that was spread over a period of many months. Please see my remarks in the closely related May 3 CFD for Category:Americans of Polish descent. Cgingold ( talk) 09:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - per Cgingold and similar US discussions (eg cfd for Americans of German descent). I agree that the last cfd on this category favoured Category:Turkish-Americans (but have no personal preference). Occuli ( talk) 20:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• oppose to match sibling categories of its parent and to match American practice. Hmains ( talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete unnecessary racial/ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 04:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Proposed Compromise -- rather than debating these case by case, and Cydebot surreptitiously making changes without a CfD (as it did for Jewish-Americans→Jewish Americans), could we develop a comprehensive American guideline?
  1. All multiple word ethnicities in the now standard form: Category:American people of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines descent.
  2. All generic ethnicity parent categories without hyphen: Category:African American people, Category:Native American people.
  3. All single word national ethnicity nouns without hyphen: Category:Turkish Americans.
  4. Any single word national ethnicity adjectives must have hyphen, even though the parent category and main article have no hyphen: Category:Polish-American musicians.

  Will folks enforce these in the future without exception? Otherwise, the bickering will continue.
  -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 15:32, 7 May 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, noting that Indochine itself is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Indochine songs to Category:Indochine (band) songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are not Vietnamese songs, these are songs by the band named "Indochine". 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 04:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment: NB in English Indochina is the geographical term; "Indochine" is borrowed from French, so in fact there is no ambiguity HeartofaDog ( talk) 14:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment I have seen "Indochine" used in English. Aside from that there's also a film called Indochine, so it can also be confused with songs from the soundtrack of the film "Indochine" 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 05:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom and per the article Indochine (band). Indochine might not be an adjective but it sounds like one. Occuli ( talk) 20:04, 2 May 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: relisted on may 11. Kbdank71 13:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Intersex activists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Intersexuality activists to clarify the intent of the category. The current name is ambiguous and could be construed as referring to either activists around the issue of intersexuality or activists who happen to be intersexual people. I don't really think we need the latter. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 01:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Robofish ( talk) 06:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• I'm not entirely sure we even need the rename, considering that there are only two entries, one of which is doubled with the unnecessary single-item American subcategory anyway. There are several other people filed directly in Category:Intersexuality, but none of them appear to be activists in any notable way. I'd propose a rename to just Category:Intersex people instead, and then refile the people who are directly in the parent category too. Bearcat ( talk) 18:17, 5 May 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 (upmerge unnecessary as discussed). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:American intersex activists to Category:both parents

Nominator's rationale: Merge - the single item in this category can reside quite comfortably in the currently empty Category:Intersex activists. No need to subdivide one article on the basis of nationality. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - There's clearly no need for this category. The article is already in Category:Activists from the San Francisco Bay Area, so I'm not sure it needs to be upmerged to Category:American activists. The other parent cat is a bit ambiguous and should be renamed for clarity. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 01:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no need for this category at this time. Robofish ( talk) 06:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, but she doesn't need to be added to Category:American activists since she's already in a subcategory of that, and since she's already being double-filed in Category:Intersex activists anyway, the only categorization change that the article actually requires is the removal of the American-specific subcat. Bearcat ( talk) 18:22, 5 May 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: already deleted G7. Salix ( talk): 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Caves in Honduras ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Created category with incorrect wording -- should have been "Caves of" rather than "Caves in". Category:Caves of Honduras now created. Fattonyni ( talk) 00:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• You can get this Speedy Deleted by placing {{db-author}} on the category page. Cgingold ( talk) 01:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the tip Cgingold; I was using a Twinkle tab to mark for deletion, I thought it would choose the best tag for the situation -- I guess not though :-) Fattonyni ( talk) 16:40, 2 May 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.