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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 21#Category:Latin alphabets. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 06:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Latin alphabets to Category:Latin-script alphabets

Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1) The article Latin alphabet is about the alphabet or alphabets used to write the Latin language. 2) The article Latin script is about the Latin script as defined by Unicode and includes letters from the Latin alphabet(s) and other characters. The Latin alphabet belong is one alphabet that uses the Latin script. 3) The category that is named "Latin alphabets" does contain alphabets using the Latin script as defined in (2) and is not restricted to the alphabet or alphabets as defined by (1) "Latin alphabet". If the category is renamed as proposed the name would be consistent with the definitions (1) and (2).

Some categories and articles that use "Latin-script":

• List of Latin-script digraphs (idea of User:Kwamikagami)
• Category:Latin-script digraphs (idea of User:Indiana State)
• Category:Latin-script trigraphs (idea of User:Indiana State)
• Category:Latin-script tetragraphs (idea of User:Indiana State)
• List of Latin-script letters (idea of User:Indiana State)
• Latin-script alphabet (idea of User:Indiana State)
• Latin-script non-QWERTY keyboards (idea of User:Indiana State)

For the hyphen see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems#Inconsistency - Latin script vs Latin-script Indiana State ( talk) 00:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment This makes very little difference, but "Latin alphabet(s)" is the normal phrasing. (In text, "a Latin alphabet" or "Latin alphabets" is sufficient to indicate that we are not speaking of the Latin alphabet itself.) The proposer just moved some of these articles, so it's maybe a bit early to see if anyone will object. (Probably not.) If we move this, the hyphen is required, or it would read as calligraphic hands used for Latin. — kwami ( talk) 00:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  Comment Maybe there is not even THE Latin alphabet. The article Latin alphabet itself lists "Archaic Latin alphabet" and "Classical Latin alphabet", which could be regarded as two alphabets to write the Latin language, or short two "Latin alphabets". And here the name is inconsistent with the 2011 created Category:Latin alphabets. The alphabets in the category are not alphabets that would be listed in the article Latin alphabet like "Archaic Latin alphabet" and "Classical Latin alphabet". Indiana State ( talk) 00:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict - I wrote the following before the above response by Kwamikagami) It follows an additional note. I found several red links to Category:Latin-derived alphabets, a page User:Kwamikagami deleted: 16:35, 16 August 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Latin-derived alphabets (C1: Empty category). Checking the first alphabet in the list I found that at 10:55 of that day Kwamikagami switched the category from "Latin-derived alphabets" to "Latin alphabets", that means Kwamikagami worked on emptying the established category, which has been used already in 2004 [1]. I don't see any discussion for this emptying nor deletion. This might also constitute a violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported License, since in the creation of the new category Kwamikagami didn't provide a reference to creators of the category. Indiana State ( talk) 00:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Restore Category:Latin-derived alphabets -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 02:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  Comment Note that this would not cover the Classical Latin alphabet, or the "Archaic Latin alphabet" as it is called on the page Latin alphabet. These are Greek-script derived alphabets. But the category system is mostly along the lines of scripts, thus it is more accurate to call the category "Latin-script alphabets", along the line with the article Latin-script alphabet. Indiana State ( talk) 17:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  Comment If there is no support for "Latin-script alphabets" then I would support a restore. Indiana State ( talk) 04:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Noncontroversial disambiguation per speedy C2B and WP:BURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Hamilton Red Wings players to Category:Hamilton Red Wings (baseball) players
• Propose renaming Category:Peterborough Petes players to Category:Peterborough Petes (baseball) players

Nominator's rationale: There are teams with both of these names in baseball and hockey. For the baseball teams, see New York–Penn League and Canadian League. This change would distinguish these teams from the similar hockey players categories that will be created because of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_18#Hockey_alumni.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename As creator of the former category, I have no objection. In both cases the hockey team is (at least at present) the primary topic, so renaming the baseball categories with disambiguators is appropriate. - Dewelar ( talk) 00:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Noncontroversial disambiguation per speedy C2B and WP:BURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Moncton Alpines players to Category:Moncton Alpines (AHL) players

Nominator's rationale: There are two hockey teams called the Moncton Alpines, one in the American Hockey League and one in the Quebec Minor Junior Hockey League. Due to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_18#Hockey_alumni, the QMJHL one will soon have a category called Category:Moncton Alpines (QMJHL) players, so this should be renamed to disambiguate it from the other. (Also, apparently I created this category in 2006.)-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:The Flaming Lips 2011 Releases ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An unnecessary diffusion of an artist's releases by year. All are already in Category:The Flaming Lips EPs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 17:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete Even the most prolific of artists don't need albums/EPs by year. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Not Delete Both your points are quite valid, naturally; however, 2011 was an especial year for collaborations and miscellaneous works for the Lips. Moreover, 2011 Releases section of The Flaming Lips page is very disorganized and, subsequently, not likely to be taken credibly. And the Category:The Flaming Lips EPs page, although concise, is rather inconvenient for fans who would have to sift through the master list of EPs looking for individual works by year. Granted, I haven't finished the individuals pages that make up this subcategory yet, but I don't see the harm or confusion in leaving it up, so long as the information is complete and accurate (which, of course, is my intention). TheMikeBlackSpecial ( talk) 23:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

That's not really the point of categorization. If I were a fan (or just a general reader, even), I would expect and be able to find such info at The Flaming Lips discography. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 00:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. I see no reason to start a released by year, by artist series of categories. As pointed out this would be clear from the discography section of an artists article. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Football clubs in North Yorkshire. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:York Football League ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category effectively empty, only contains the parent article. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Football clubs in North Yorkshire-- On looking at the article, I wondered whether this ought to contain a list of clubs that are or have eben members, but they appear to be in the target category. The one article in the category would make a main article for the target, though I expect they do not precisely coincide. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 12:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Water resource management by country to Category:Water resources management by country
• Propose renaming Category:Water resource management in Australia to Category:Water resources management in Australia
• Propose renaming Category:Water resource management in China to Category:Water resources management in China
• Propose renaming Category:Water resource management in Honduras to Category:Water resources management in Honduras added The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Propose renaming Category:Water resource management in the Netherlands to Category:Water resources management in the Netherlands
• Propose renaming Category:Water resource management in South Africa to Category:Water resources management in South Africa
• Propose renaming Category:Water resource management in the United States to Category:Water resources management in the United States

Nominator's rationale: All this categories are about 'management of water resources' (plural form), and not 'resource management of water' (singular form). The top level of the tree is Category:Water resources management Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 10:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, for clarity and to match the top-level category, Category:Water resources management. I wonder, though, whether it would not be simpler simply to use ' Water management', which happens to be the title of the main article. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 05:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Note that Category:Water management also exists. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for the link; that clears up my original confusion. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 06:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I guess I'm still wondering why we don't rename all of these to Category:Water management by country and reparent to Category:Water management? Reading the two top categories I fail to see how having both Category:Water management and Category:Water resources management is needed and if gets away from the issue of using or not using the 's' on the latter. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
        • I think the difference is intended to be of management of water in general (e.g., flood control) versus the specific management of water as a resource that can be consumed (or produce something, such as electricity, that can be consumed). Even if that is the case, I'm not sure whether the distinction is worth maintaining. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 07:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
          • But where do you draw that line which is totally subjective. Something like the Hoover Dam was built to control a river. As a result you have impounded water which is used to generate electricity. The lake it creates is used for recreation. The lake is also used as a reservoir and it is also used to feed downstream users water for other uses, generally as a part of the releases for the generation of electricity. But I think this is the point you are making. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - These categories were recently renamed to the current names on account of WP:COMMONNAME, as I recall, and that stands. It is water resource management that these are about. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  Could you link to the discussion? I've not been able to find it so far. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 21:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  They were speedied unopposed following this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  Thank you for the link. To be honest, I don't think that discussion sets a relevant precedent. Not only was the discussion about another category but no evidence was offered in support of the claim that 'resource' is correct or, conversely, that 'resources' is incorrect. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 04:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - the activity under discussion is water resource management in general, not a list of resources that are managed. Ephebi ( talk) 07:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  The plural form of 'resources' does not imply a "list of resources"; instead, it implies that the category concerns the management of water resources and not the management of a water resource. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 21:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Also rename Category:Water resources management to Category:Water resource management for consistency. It appears to have been missed in the earlier CfD Ephebi ( talk) 07:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  What other CfD? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 11:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment - "Water resources management" is by no means wrong or uncommon, as has been suggested above. See, for example: Water Resources Management by David Stephenson (Taylor & Francis, 2003); Water Resources Management II by C. A. Brebbia, ed. (WIT Press, 2003); Water Resources Management: In Search of an Environmental Ethic by David Lewis Feldman (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); and the World Bank policy paper Water Resources Management (World Bank Publications, 1993). Although both "water resource management" and "water resources management" are used by reliable sources, I believe the latter is the more correct and more common form. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 21:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  See also: Water Resources Management information pages by the UNESCO, UN-Water and the World Bank. Further, the difference does not appear to be an AmEng–BrEng issue, since it's used by both American and British university sources. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 23:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep As has been said by others, what the people are doing is water resource management. It is resource management done in the context of water. You do not generally pluralize water in this context. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  ^{[citation needed]}, please. Your statement is not supported by the sources I've encountered and listed above. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 18:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I'm more familiar with "water resource management" (singular), but google hits shows both pretty commonly. Does the terminology difference reflect regional differences, any difference in meaning, or is it simply a case of synonymous terms? -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  I don't think that it is a regional issue, since I've encountered the plural form ('resources') in both American and British sources. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 18:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Olympic glider pilots, and likewise for all subcategories: Category:Olympic glider pilots by country, Category:Olympic glider pilots by year, Category:Olympic glider pilots of Romania and Category:Glider pilots at the 1936 Summer Olympics‎. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 02:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The 1936 Olympics included a gliding as a demonstration sport, though no actual contest took place. It is very unlikely that gliding will feature in a future Olympic Games. Gliders are aircraft, the participants are 'glider pilots'. There is already a category for Category:Glider pilots. I propose the removal of the cats listed below as they are wrongly named and are overcategorised.

• Propose deleting Category:Olympic gliders by country‎
  
• Propose deleting Category:Olympic gliders by year‎
  
• Propose deleting Category:Gliders at the 1936 Summer Olympics‎
  
• Propose deleting Category:Olympic gliders of Romania‎
  
• Propose deleting Category:Olympic gliders
  

JMcC ( talk) 09:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of established category trees, Rename to "Olympic glider pilots..."/"Glider pilots at..." format, and {{ trout}} whoever emptied these categories out of process. Also a {{ minnow}} for the non-neutral section heading here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  I should own up to removing the sole article, Alexandru Papană, from five categories that I have proposed deleting. JMcC ( talk) 20:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep all These form part of the bigger scheme of athlete/sports by country/by Olympiad, as per SMALLCAT noted above. Lugnuts ( talk) 06:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  OK Please just re-name:

  • Olympic glider pilots by country‎
  • Olympic glider pilots by year‎
  • Glider pilots at the 1936 Summer Olympics‎
  • Olympic glider pilots of Romania‎
  • Olympic glider pilots

  JMcC ( talk) 10:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  That works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Chiranjeevi films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Jagathi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Mammootty ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Mohanlal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. In each case these categories are largely categorizing films that the Indian actor has appeared in. This is overcategorization of performer by performance. Categories of this type for Hollywood actors have been deleted repeatedly. In the case of the eponymous categories, there is the odd article which is not a film the actor appeared in, but I don't think there's enough in these to justify a category purged of the films. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Listify (if necessary) then delete -- WP does not allow performance by performer categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename and merge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming/merging Category:Former members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam to Category:Members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam
• Propose renaming/merging Category:Current members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam to Category:Members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam

Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. I suggest merging both of these into a new general category for members since generally we don't categorize politicians by former or current status as members of a body. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge/rename both per nominator, to avoid deprecated current/former split. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge etc as nom. WE do not allow a current/former split. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• merge we do not do "former" categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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