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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Kitsuné Music covers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems like a strange and largely pointless subcat. We don't, to my knowledge, have subcats for the album covers of any other label. Bands, yes, and that makes sense, but this seems like excessive overcategorization. – Drilnoth ( T •  C •  L) 22:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep, there are many others in Category:Album covers by recording artist. I have now added the nominated category into this head category. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Kitsuné is a label, not an artist. – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 16:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Right you are, delete as WP:OCAT. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep, withdrawn. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Kitsuné Music compilations to Category:Kitsuné Music

Nominator's rationale: Only one member; seems pointless to have a separate category. If many more applicable articles are created, the category is easy to re-create anyway. – Drilnoth ( T •  C •  L) 22:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep As it's a part of the much larger scheme at Category:Compilation albums by record label. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • A ha! Silly me. I didn't do quite the research I should have. :/
    I question the usefulness of this set of categories in general, but I'll withdraw this due to my stupidity. – Drilnoth ( T •  C •  L) 21:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Basketball Hall of Fame inductees by role navbox templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unnecessary categorization. The only template that possibly qualified for this category is {{ Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame}}, and that more rightfully belongs in 'Category:Basketball Hall of Fame navigational boxes' anyway. Jrcla2 ( talk) 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. I'm just going to ignore some rules and process this right away. From observing what's been going on, it's clear that the category system for South Sudan is going to get really messy really fast if we don't convert the existing Southern Sudan categories sooner than later. And in any case, I don't think there's any prospect of the proposal not succeeding. Some of the subcategories that use "Southern Sudan" may be able to be speedied, but others should probably go through a full CFD to decide on the correct name, eg, Category:Southern Sudan people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Southern Sudan to Category:South Sudan

Nominator's rationale: Southern Sudan is a dab, South Sudan is the article. If this passes, subcats. are speedy-able. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment it would make more sense to tag the sub-cats and discuss them all at once. This would make it more likely that anyone with objections would have adequate notice and see what is going on. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I actually created a WikiProject today for South Sudan - if there was one previously for Southern Sudan (which would be surprising since it was still a single country back then - if yesterday can be referred to as "back then"), then perhaps this needs to be visited as well. However, I did create a large number of categories to go with a new template that I've placed at Talk:South Sudan. If I did anything wrong or if there are pages to move to those locations instead, then feel free to fiddle around with it. CycloneGU ( talk) 05:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. I really do not care one way or the other but the not tagging sub-cats with the plan to speedy them strikes me as a sneaky move designed to undermine notice and present those who might object with a precedent that will not really have any backing. Major changes should have adequate exposure so that anyone who has an interest in the matter will have a chance to express their views. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

That really strikes me as an assumption of bad faith. It's ok to say that you oppose any further speedy renaming and discuss this with Justin. But accusing him of sneakiness is unfair. And it would be nice to have your opinion on the real question at hand. Pichpich ( talk) 00:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not one to take sides lightly, but I have to agree with Pichpich on this one. John, I think you need to retract your statement. CycloneGU ( talk) 05:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support. I think that this is something that we should do as soon as feasible; Looking at he sub-cats, I don't see anything that jumps out as being negatively impacted by this change, and if there is, those sub-cats / articles can be weeded out as we proceed. KConWiki ( talk) 00:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Hurry up and move it the rest of the articles are creeping toward moving, and looks like it was agreed some time ago that the article would be named this and Southern Sudan would be a dab. Right now not sure what is supposed to be done with making stubs. — innotata 01:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support This one's a no-brainer and will eventually have to move, even if the current consensus does not allow it; Mar4d ( talk) 03:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Nominate the subcategories. Users are already attempting to rename these manually, which is creating a mess. They should go through CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Strong Support - Needs to be done with haste. Southern Sudan is now somewhere north of South Sudan. I think that confusing statement sums up the reason we need this change made. CycloneGU ( talk) 05:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

  Also, this needs to be done soon, or people will go about creating new categories and then we have the mess of having to delete them to make agreed moves, or pages just being moved to the new category and causing a mess. I recommend waiving the 7 day period under both WP:SNOW (despite the one objector, I don't think the comments hold merit against the necessity of this change) and to avoid a big huge pile of mess. For all I know, all the stuff I tried to do in the last hour or two might already contribute to this mess (if so, just delete them and do the moves, I don't mind). CycloneGU ( talk) 05:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong Support - This needs to be done, it will have to be done eventually regardless. Per above as well. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 05:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Strong Support Clearly a necessary & inevitable move in light of recent events.-- JayJasper ( talk) 05:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename for now, handle deletion separately in light of subsequet nominations. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Parents exonerated of killing their children to Category:People exonerated of filicide

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More concise. Shakesomeaction ( talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There is no reason to have categories for people aquitted of certain charges. Anyway, the claim that exoneration and aquttal is the same is false. If we tried putting O. J. Simpson in Category:People exonerated of killing their ex-wife people would rightly point out that since he lost the wrongful death trial he was not exonnerated. People are not exonerated in most causes, they are just found not guilty, which means the evidence is not conclusive that they did it, not that the evidence is conclusive that they did not do it. Lastly I have never seen the term filicide, so I would say use of it would violate wikipedia commonname rules. I am not even convinced it is really a word in English. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. With reduction of this category to only those who were truly exonnerated and not those who were merely aquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence for or against the charges this category has been reduced in size to three. It would seem this is really to small to be worthwhile as a specific category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I did not create this category, if you feel it would not be useful you can nominate it for deletion. In addition, filicide is an actual term, even if you've never heard or use the term. Not having been acquainted with a term is not an excuse to say a term doesn't exist. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 05:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep. I think this is acceptable as a category, as are the other subcategories of Category:Wrongly accused people (which I've just added it to). The best argument against it is that there are so few articles that it simply isn't needed. But I don't think it necessarily raises NPOV or BLP issues. No preference on the rename - if it's kept, follow whatever the consensus is on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 8#Category:Parents who killed their children. Robofish ( talk) 16:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• I think some people maybe should study Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Not having ever heard the term means it is not a common term. I was always of the view that if a category is under discussion and you feel it is not worth keeping you should reccomend deletion in the discussion of the category and not do that seperately. Am I wrong in this view? This would make sense since all discussion of the various merits of the article get focused in one place. If I am remembering what I have read in these CfDs right, it seems at times a CfD that starts as a rename ends as a decision to delete. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You related it to yourself, not to the culture. I responded as so. Commonality of terms depend on your age, vocabulary used around you, and culture you come from. A word that might be common to one person might not be common to another. If you had spoken generally, there would have been no reason for me to point out the difference to you. I'm sorry if you cannot find the rename directions, but they are quite easy to find, and it would do you well to search for them if this bothers you so much. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 05:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • John, you say that you "think some people maybe should study Wikipedia:COMMONNAME", but if you have studied it you will remember that it is a section within the page Wikipedia:Article names, which is about what to name articles. It doesn't apply in the same way to categories. True, categories usually follow the article name when they are referring to the same concept, so it applies in that way, but here the concept of the article is found at Filicide, so it's natural for the category to follow that name. When the article gets moved to Parents killing their children, well, then perhaps the current name could stick. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support rename per nom if kept. Yes "filicide" is a word. It may be somewhat "legalistic" and perhaps even "old fashioned", but I think it is more accurate, since the current name could imply that those included had to be exonerated of killing multiple children. I have no strong opinion on whether the category should be deleted, though I suppose you could put me in the weak keep camp, since it appears that there are a number of individuals whose primary claim to notablity is that they were exonerated from the accusation that they killed their child. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC) On deletion vs. keeping, we should defer to the later nomination, where I've been convinced these should be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment If Commonname does not apply to category names, then what policy do we have about category names. It would seem to me if anything common name would be more crucial in category names. The number of people in this category is 3. I guess I should have said Upmerge. I see no reason why this should be a differentiated category of Category:People exonnerated of murder. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • That has been a subject of much contention, so there are not really any settled guidelines. The best we can do is say that in general, a category name matches the same name as the main article about the topic. (That's why I said we should use "filicide", because the article about the topic is called filicide.) Beyond that general principle, things are generally decided on a case-by-case basis because users disagree so much about this stuff. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment No one has said whether my delete nomination here is the proper proceedure or whether I should make a seperate nomination to delete. It would be nice if people would answer questions about policy. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment If we look at Category:Wrongly accused people (which I think is a POV name anyway) we find that there is Category:Exonerated criminal suspects. Then there is also this super specialized category. This does not make sense. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Either delete or rename to "Parents found not guilty of filicide." An acquittal does not equal an exoneration; see John Pack Lambert's nomination of related categories for a more complete explanation. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Former world record holders to Category:Former sports world record holders

Nominator's rationale: Rename in line with actual usage. This category is clearly defined and used; most articles are in sub-categories by sport. I volunteer to check the members afterwards in case a few non-sports entries have slipped in there; I will move any like that up to Category:World record holders if it is kept. Fayenatic (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment – IMO all these 'Former world record' subcats should be upmerged. Who is undertaking the upkeep of these extremely fluid categories? We don't support 'former' categories in this sense. Occuli ( talk) 23:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't know, but they seem to be doing a fairly good job -- Category:Former world record holders in swimming has 638 articles while the parent Category:World record holders in swimming has 76. I would guess that WP:WikiProject Swimming and the equivalents for the other categories are sufficiently active and likely to continue that way. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Companies of China ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is an ambiguous category. "China" could refer to either the People's Republic of China or to the Republic of China (Taiwan). Categories for each of these already exist: Category:Companies of the People's Republic of China and Category:Companies of Taiwan; and for the most part, these two unambiguous categories are used. I'm mindful of some of the politics around what country can claim the name "China," but I don't think using the more specific and unambiguous categories will run afoul of that. This category is both redundant to the other two, ambiguous, and inviting of political issues. TJRC ( talk) 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete this category currently acts as a confused category. If there is a need to categorize companies of China before the creation of the People's Republic of China a name or names should be used that make it clear the category is only for companies that were "of" the historic entity and make it clear the category should not be used for present entites. This category should be deleted. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Makes sense. Student7 ( talk) 19:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep, part of an established structure (albeit one that I just tidied up a bit). China categories also cover Hong Kong and Macau. At any rate, consider re-listing along with at least 13 sub-categories that are also named "of China". (The Wikipedian arguments over China & Taiwan fall in the same category as those over Palestinian rabbis.) See previous nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 23#Companies of China, resulting in a strong decision to keep both China and PRC categories. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment China categories should not cover both Taiwan and the PRC. On the other hand Macau and Hong Kong are both under the control of the PRC and can be made sub-cats of it. I see no use to have a cat named China. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Category:1990s rappers
• Category:2000s rappers
• Category:2010s rappers

Nominator's rationale: Delete Similar set of categories were deleted recently. Since singers' categories were deleted for valid reasons, it would be consistent to delete these ones too. -- Karppinen ( talk) 16:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete I was ambivalent about the other CfD, but if that was one deleted, these should be as well. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete this just leads to overcat. I suspect some rappers could be in all three categories. The rules are that we categorize people by birth and death, occupation, and a few other categoris. We do not subdivide occupation by time, except in some cases by century. That way no one gets more than 2 occupation by time categories. The decade to decade changes in occupations are just not notable enough, and create to many duplications to be worthwhile. If Category:Rappers is too large of a category there are ways to divide it by the specific type of rap that the rapper did which are much better than dividing by decade. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete such overlaps cause massive overcategorisation. Tim! ( talk) 06:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:McCarthyism to Category:Investigation of Joseph McCarthy

Nominator's rationale: *The problem with the category is that it is WP:POV named. Therefore it is difficult, if not impossible, to tell who belongs in it. It should be renamed "The investigation of Joseph McCarthy." or somesuch to be totally npov. Otherwise it gets inserted on the article of anyone the editor doesn't like. It was placed on Ralph Flanders, who initiated proceedings against McCarthy. For a renamed category, this would make sense. But Flanders was not guilty of "McCarthyism" which someone reading the category might suspect. Student7 ( talk) 13:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose rename, as you note its usage will have to be carefully reviewed, however, McCarthyism is a discrete topic deserving a category. jorgenev 13:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment. Agree that it is a topic(article) This does not change the topic nor article, just the category. When an article is created for you (or me) can we just add "category:McCarthyism" to it? If not, why not? Do you see the problem? It is a pejorative label that usually cannot be assigned to any article outside of McCarthy himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 ( talk • contribs)

• Delete. The consensus among intellectual historians is that McCarthyism is an attack phrase used to marginalize anti-communists by falsely presenting as their leader a man who most of them did not respect or follow. This name is inherently POV. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep McCarthy was a demagogue, followers of his, policies of his wuld be acceptably categorized, since it does not comprise the whole of anticommunism in the United States, only a portion of it. 65.93.15.213 ( talk) 04:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment. But who are "followers?" People we don't like? Robert Kennedy and William Buckley were McCarthy supporters. Should we categorize them "McCarthyism?" (maybe they are! I haven't checked!) It's kind of like "turkey" or "knucklehead" or something. Great for demagogues. Not very useful in an encyclopedia. Student7 ( talk) 18:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Bobby Kennedy is not in the category. Pat McCarran was. As I explained in my edit summary when I removed him from the cat "The only clear connection McCarran had to McCarthy is that they once happened to both be guests at the same state dinner". If going to the same state dinner as someone makes you part of their movement, we need to not only increase the number of categories most politicians are in to 10 times their current number, but also significantly increase the number of state dinners mentioned in articles. McCarthyism is being used in this category as a smear phrase for people and things some other people dislike without any actually needed connection to McCarthy. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I don't think the title implies that members were followers of McCarthyism, as the word is also commonly used in reference to the period (ie. to the Second Red Scare) - it just means that members of the category have something to do with the period. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• keep name and contents cover a distinct era of American history and this is the name by which this period and its events are known. Category includes a main article McCarthyism of the same name. Hmains ( talk) 06:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename as nominated without prejudice to revisiting any individual categories. Regarding the two areas concerned, the Quaker categories haven't had much discussion here and I've gone with the nomination per the main article. The Roman Catholic category tree needs a general revisiting which would be the best place to thrash out several key issues there. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Modern Christian history to Category:Modern history of Christianity

Category:Early Modern Christian history to Category:Early Modern history of Christianity

Category:Christian history by geography or ethnicity to Category:History of Christianity by geography or ethnicity

Category:Christian Saudi Arabian history to Category:History of Christianity in Saudi Arabia

Category:Christian history by denomination to Category:History of Christianity by denomination

Category:Anabaptist history to Category:History of Anabaptists

Category:Baptist history to Category:History of Baptists

Category:Calvinist history to Category:History of Calvinism

Category:Roman Catholic Church history to Category:History of Roman Catholicism

Category:Roman Catholic Church history by region to Category:History of Roman Catholicism by region

Category:Eastern Orthodox history to Category:History of Eastern Orthodoxy

Category:Lutheran history to Category:History of Lutheranism

Category:Methodist history to Category:History of Methodism

Category:Oriental Orthodox history to Category:History of Oriental Orthodoxy

Category:Presbyterian history to Category:History of Presbyterianism

Category:Protestant history to Category:History of Protestantism

Category:Quaker history to Category:History of the Religious Society of Friends

Category:Seventh-day Adventist history to Category:History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

Category:Sources and Resources for British Quaker biography to Category:British Quaker texts

Nominator's rationale: Rename, consistently with head category being renamed to Category:History of Christianity - see CFD June 30. I have considered the name for each category separately according to its contents, including main articles, and head categories. Fayenatic (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename Thanks for this. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename per nominator's rationale.-- JayJasper ( talk) 20:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename for clarity but definantly not speedy rename. These are complexed issues and some of these proposals go far beyond just clarifying to changing the actual scope of the category or the POV it posits. My four objections are first that it should be made Category:History of Quakerism not the proposed new name. The proposed new name gives the false inpression that Quakerism is a united faith, when there are at least two very distinct movements within the faith and multiple bodies that do not in anyway recognize eachother. Secondly I see no reason to not rename the category to Category:History of the Roman Catholic Church by region. The attempted rename proposed here represents a change in focus and scope, and arguably a POV that the Roman Catholic Church is not a centrally directed Church but is a movement, that could be seen as an attempt to bolster the legitimacy of womanpriests. Such a change is not routine or in anyway in line with the rest of the changes. Thus we should leave it clearly indicating that it is about the Roman Catholic Church, and if people feel we should change to discussing Roman Catholicism that should be taken up seperately. The same applies that would should change the category name to Category:History of the Roman Catholic Church. I am not sure what to think of the proposed changes for Category:Sources and Resources for British Quaker biography, however it is clealry not a fully parallel case, and so should be nominated seperately. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply re Quakerism: I have no objection to "History of Quakerism" but was following the lead article History of the Religious Society of Friends. As for its subcat on "Sources", it is an oddly-named and small category which I thought could tidily be improved by renaming as suggested; as it did not appear contentious I tagged it onto the end of this nomination. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply re Roman Catholic Church: I have no agenda, I just picked what I considered the best pattern from the variety already used within its many sub-categories, including "xx-century Roman Catholicism", and many articles called "History of Roman Catholicism in yy country" within Category:Roman Catholic Church history by region. If this is generally regarded as contentious then by all means approve the others but leave these two to be re-nominated separately. The latter would permit a comprehensive nomination along with many of its sub-cats, e.g. those that say "History of Catholicism in continent/country" should say either "Roman Catholicism" or "the Roman Catholic Church". - Fayenatic (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Way more objective. Thanks for doing this! Student7 ( talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I think the "modern" bit should be handled differently, though. "History of Christianity, 20-21st century," for example. The "modern" needs to slide back in the name IMO. They would group together better and would provide a framework for "modern" which is not vague. Student7 ( talk) 19:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Reply re Period categories: You're welcome, of course! The "Modern" bit fits in with head categories Category:Early Modern period and Category:Modern history, so I'm strongly inclined to keep those words in the category names. The category pages explain the date ranges clearly, and within those there are sub-cats by century e.g. Category:20th-century Christianity. Alternatives would include following Category:Christianity of the Middle Ages with Category:Christianity of the Early Modern period and Category:Christianity of the Modern period, but I don't favour these, nor following the latter's lead article History of modern Christianity. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:At A Loss Recordings albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redlink record label — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. If the subject is not notable enough to have an article on it, there is no reason to make a category related to it. We do not have works by author X when the given author X does not even have his own article. The opposite is not true, just because author x has an article does not mean we have a category for his works. This also applies here to say that even if an article is created on At A Loss Recordings it does not force us to create a category for its albums. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Radio Hall of Fame inductees to Category:National Radio Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To sync with the recent page move renaming the main article for this category. National Radio Hall of Fame is official title of the organization.-- JayJasper ( talk) 04:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename This is straighforward. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Yes, I also agree with the category being renamed. I appreciate your adding the word "National" to the name of the main article, too; that was missing when I created the category. WFinch ( talk) 23:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename per nom and with creator's comment. GcSwRhIc ( talk) 11:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Filicides. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Parents who killed their children to Category:Filicide

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More concise and to the point. Shakesomeaction ( talk) 03:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• (Seconded! I was just looking for filicide earlier today and finally got here. Forgive me if this is the wrong place... it said to add my notes here, but not how.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.138.49 ( talk) 04:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• If done, shouldn't that be Category:Filicides, since categories of people are pluralized? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Whatever would be more appropriate according to Wikipedia standards.-- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 14:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. The article on filicide has serious issues and thus is not much to base realigning category names on. This is not a commonly used term like suicide, and even significantly rarer than patricide and regicide. I am going to go rename the article and if people have objections to that they can debate it there. I would nominate a rename, but I am not really sure how to do that. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • If people have trouble finding the article, keeping it in common name policy doesn't do much to help. The name change is not based on the article anyway, the name change was based on the actual term. Also, renaming an article without discussion is a problem. The way to nominate rename can be easily found. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 04:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment Is this about people or the crime? "Filicide" would indicate that only crime articles would be placed in it, and not biographies... 65.93.15.213 ( talk) 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • No, "a filicide" is a person who kills their own child. "Filicide" is also the name of the crime. That's why I suggested the category should be named Category:Filicides if it is renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • That's no clearer, since categories are pluralized. So "filicides" would be articles on crimes of a person killing their child. "filicide" would be a category on the concept of killing ones own child. 65.93.15.213 ( talk) 04:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
      • It's actually ideal, since it could include both articles about individuals who killed their child and articles about crimes of filicide. That's what we want, since the category contains articles about individuals and articles about crimes, as in Sharpe family murders. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• keep as is rather than use the very uncommon word. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support. The current category sounds very pov and judgmental. Not wild about filicide either, but at least it makes the attempt at npov/less-judgmental.

I suppose there's a separate category for children killed by one or more stepparent? And vice versa? Jeesh! Student7 ( talk) 14:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment. I think I would prefer, for simplicity, "Parent convicted of murder", "Child convicted of murder." This is easy to understand. The category page could explain that this means their parent/stepparent, their child/stepchild. It's cleaner. Student7 ( talk) 14:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I find crime "labeling" in categories very tabloid, pov, and very un-encyclopedic. It is one of the most blatant faults that Wikipedia has. The finger-pointing crazies are doing the labeling. Until people writing the articles get involved, this sort of thing will continue to drag down the level of what was written IMO. Student7 ( talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support rename to Category:Filicides. A filicide is an individual who kills their child and a word to describe the crime of a parent killing a child. This is therefore the name we want, since such a category could logically include both articles about individuals who killed their child and articles about crimes of filicide. The category currently contains articles about individuals and articles about crimes, as in Sharpe family murders, so it's a perfect fit. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Support That makes sense. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 23:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose filicide is not npov. It is just obscure. It has no difference in meaning, so changing the name does not change the meaning or the pov value. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You can't vote more than once. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support - An "uncommon word" for who, a grade school dropout? Filicide fits what we are trying to categorize here. Tarc ( talk) 15:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support rename to Category:Filicides per Good Ol’factory. The present name suggests one has to kill all one's children to qualify. Occuli ( talk) 23:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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