Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22

Dutch Calvinist and Reformed Christians

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 Category:Christian Reformed Churches members from the Netherlands, Category:Old Reformed Churches Christians from the Netherlands‎, Category:Reformed Congregations Christians from the Netherlands, Category:Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands Christians from the Netherlands‎ and Category:Restored Reformed Church Christians from the Netherlands to Category:Dutch Calvinist and Reformed Christians; and keep the others. For the record, the 5 categories being merged are the smallest, with 8 or fewer current members, 20 in total. It is evident that user:StAnselm identified the first category (to be kept) in error for the sixth, Category:Reformed Churches Christians from the Netherlands, although he has not confirmed this at Category talk:Dutch Calvinist and Reformed Christians. [Redacted after initial close to delete the first.] – Fayenatic L ondon 06:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:NARROWCAT (not SMALLCAT), in order to make use of these categories you really have to be an expert in history of Dutch Calvinism (and if you are, better consult Dutch Wikipedia). The Reformed Churches was the oldest and biggest secession from the the Dutch Reformed Church, but in 2004 the two of them reunited (and united with the Lutheran Church in the Netherlands) to the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. That makes three categories, with a substantial overlap of people who are in two of the three denominations, before and after reuniting. The remaining smaller categories contain members of a secession from the Reformed Churches, or a secession from a secession, and these denominations are still independent, WP:SMALLCAT may apply to these categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This denomination counts only 120,000 members. The category is somewhat bigger than one would expect from such a small denomination because of the mere fact that it contains an extraordinary number of politicians. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ StAnselm: I'd be OK with keeping this one as well. Are we in agreement with deleting the rest besides those two? (I don't want the closing editor to misinterpret your vote.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
No, I'd probably be more in agreement with Peterkingiron (below) and go for keeping four (1, 2, 4, and 5). St Anselm ( talk) 18:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No strong view on that. It may depend on how organisationally independent the churches are in respectively Netherlands, USA, and South Africa. I think it would not be appropriate to combine members of the Dutch Reformed church in the Netherlands (worshipping in Dutch churches) with members worshipping in churches of the American denomination. As a matter of what is available, if a Dutch member moves to UK, he will have to choose a church of a different denomination, because there are few (if any) Dutch churches in England. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Marcocapelle: I pity the closing admin that has to dig through this auction-like discussion. Are you discerning any specific consensus here? If so, I'm wondering if an updated nomination with a ping to the participants above might be the path forward. (Or we can take a wait and see approach.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • As far as I can see, there is a rough consensus about merging all but nr 1, 2, 4 and 5. In addition I would argue that for the latter the same action (rename or keep current name) should follow as in yesterday's (June 21st) rename nomination by User:StAnselm. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- (voted above) -- I have no problem with merging modern categories where the churches have merged. However, at earlier periods, there will be people who are defined by membership of denomination A, and others (in strong opposition to them) who belonged to denomination B. It is not appropriate to put those who were hostile to each other into a single category, as if they were all the best of buddies. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:30, 17 July 2016 (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.

Category:Greek mythology understanding and criticism

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: Renamed to Category:Greek mythology studies. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 08:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't think I've ever seen an "...understanding and criticism" category. There's at least two options, off the bat: rename to Category:Greek mythology studies or simply merge to Category:Classical studies? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2016 (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.

Category:People who died on their birthday

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: speedily deleted by another user. If there are objections, I suggest users refer to deletion review. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT and non-defining. And also previously deleted at least twice that I could find. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as this category has been twice deleted at CFD already. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: The category was speedy deleted. As for a list, such a page has already been deleted at AFD. [1] ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural note/objection WP:G4 clearly shouldn't allow immediate deletion, thereby disenfranchising other editors from expressing their objection, and/or disrupting an already started WP:CfD, without the possibility of restoring the original content. I wouldn't object to if it was worded and administered like WP:C1. Though personally I really don't care whether we have such a list or not, I'm asking some admin to restore the category, as long as it has not been purged, as an obviously not uncontroversial deletion. This discussion here may come to a consensus that listification is not wanted, but people should have the possibility to bring up their arguments. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment I speedy nominated this category. It has been at CFD not once [2] but twice [3]. Under WP:G4 it is eligible for speedy deletion. That is what took place and it is proper. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Indeed it qualified for WP:G4 as currently worded. But the fact that the discussants of this WP:CFD now are presented with a fait accompli, and the closing administrator can't even conclude the discussion with Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, but may only acknowledge that it has already become obsoleted, IMO is disrespectful and only contributes to the unfortunate notion of Wikipedia processes being obscure. -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:08, 23 June 2016 (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.

Category:Ambush (band)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category was created at this name for band whose article Ambush (swedish band) was deleted, which thus mixed content for a band with the same name at Ambush (band). This band doesn't need an eponymous category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 16:57, 22 June 2016 (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.

Category:United States deinstitutionalization case law

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only two entries. Another problem. A quick google search comes up with nothing for the law term deinstitutionalization law or deinstitutionalization case law. In fact the article points to an article deinstitutionalization. Is this a true term for case law.

Note- If the result of this CFD is to keep, the article should be renamed to Deinstitutionalization case law in the United States. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ WilliamJE: Category creator's rationale: So let me explain the project I am working on that caused me to create this category.

The disability rights movement broadly and the deinstitutionalization movement more specifically adopted a strategy now standard in civil rights litigation, but originally pioneered by the NAACP in its drive to overturn segregation: establish a series of small precedents that then become the basies for more significant precedents; repeat this process as you work your way up to the controlling precedent. In this way legal cases form a dense network of precedents. Deinstitutionalization is a huge story in the postwar era, and one that to my surprise is not really told in its entirety in a single source. I am trying to build out a good series of references on the legal struggle over deinstitutionalization in the 1970s and 80s. As you can see from my skeleton for the Pennhurst case, I am trying to create a standardized article structure that includes "Precedents", "Subsequent case law" and "Other related cases" so that people can browse the network of cases, clicking from one precedent to the next. But I also want people to be able to step back and see a complete list of all the deinstitutionalization cases, hence the category.

I think this category should not be merged for three reasons:

  1. Deinstitutionalization and mental health are related, but distinct. Just today I interviewed a nationally renowned expert on deinstitutionalization who explained to me that part of the reason that people don't understand deinstitutionalization is because they don't distinguish between mental health (mental illness) and disability (primarily intellectual, but physical as well). As the Wikipedia article on deinstitutionalization notes, the history of deinstitutionalization in the United States proceeded in two waves: people with mental health issues in the 1950s and 1960s, followed by people with disabilities in the 1970s and 1980s. Deinstitutionalization is a superset of, or at least separate from mental health law. The topics intersect quite a bit, but are distinct to the lawyers, civil rights activists and social scientists who work in these areas.
  2. Case law is separate from statutory law. There is a well-established Wikipedia convention of creating separate categories for each. E.g. Disability law in the United States and United States disability case law; or Obscenity law and United States obscenity case law; or Environmental law in the United States and United States environmental case law.
  3. The category is small now, but it's going to grow. You will see that the categories United States banking case law‎ and United States communications regulation case law‎ both have only a few articles each. The number of legal precedents in these areas are some of the largest in the field of law, establishing the categories beyond reproach, but the articles haven't been written yet owing to the highly technical nature of the topics. These categories should remain though as part of the infrastructure for future contributions. Deinstitutionalization case law is a similarly large topic. I created the deinstitutionalization case law category to collect what I intend to be a growing set of Wikipedia articles. Mary Hayden's article, "Civil Rights Litigation for Institutionalized Persons with Mental Retardation: A Summary" (Mental Retardation, vol. 36, no. 1, February 1998, pgs. 75–83) lists 71 cases. The University of Michigan Law School's Civil Rights Litigation Clearing House lists 136 cases in its "Olmstead Cases" special collection (calling them "Olmstead Cases" is maybe something of a misnomer as 16 of them precede Olmstead v. L.C. [1999]). I don't think every case on these lists deserves its own Wikipedia article, but I intend to make at least the following four additions:
  • Wyatt v. Stickney, 325 F.Supp. 781 (M.D. Ala., 1971) (closed Bryce Hospital in Alabama)
  • New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Rockefeller, 357 F. Supp. 752 (E.D.N.Y., 1973) (closed Willowbrook State School in New York)
  • Evans v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 483 (D.D.C., 1978) (closed Forest Haven in Washington, D.C.)
  • Homeward Bound Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, 963 F. 2d 1352 (10th Cir., 1992) (closed Hissom Memorial Center in Oklahoma)

Regarding renaming the category, I modeled the name on the established convention for United States case law categories.

I hope this adequately addresses your concerns regarding this category. ~ Taylordw ( talk) 00:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Merge for Now There has been a broad movement in the United States to move people with mental health issues from large institutions to group homes and community outpatient services. (There has also been an informal movement of these people into homelessness and the criminal justice system.) So I could see a theoretical case law category here. With the exception of Olmstead v. L.C., the actual contents of this category are about involuntary commitment not deinstitutionalization. Now there is some interplay between the two: involuntary commitment now tends to be for specified periods in emergency programs, not indefinite banishment to a large state hospital. But I'm grasping to find relevance for the current contents with the category purpose. An article on American deinstitutionalization law (both legislative and case) might be a better starting point for improving Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (now 4 member articles and room for expansion) or selectively merge to preexisting Category:Deinstitutionalisation in the United States, Category:Mental health law in the United States, Category:United States disability case law etc. Carving out an overview article on Deinstitutionalization in the United States from Deinstitutionalisation would be a great starting point for further expansion. -- PanchoS ( talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: Take a look at Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. Changed my !vote, thanks. The more important problem is that indeed "deinstutionalization case law" doesn't seem to be an established category. An intersection might still be acceptable, but many of the related laws and decisions (more in Category:Deinstitutionalisation in the United States) are not precisely about deinstitutionalization, so the articles would end up being categorized in too many, overly fine-grained categories. Again, carving out an overview article on Deinstitutionalization in the United States from Deinstitutionalisation would be the best starting point to expand our coverage of the topic. As a category, Category:Deinstitutionalisation in the United States seems to be sufficient for now. No problem with revisiting the situation in a few months or years, though. -- PanchoS ( talk) 01:36, 24 June 2016 (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.

Category:Mythography

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: withdrawn/keep, though some restructuring may be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for the simple reason that the presented main article Mythography is a merely redirect to an actual main article Mythology -- which then goes on to only use the word mythography, once, fleetingly, with no indication of how it might differ. We're not presenting readers with a comprehensible distinction here, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I do see that @ Phatius McBluff:, a member of WP:WikiProject Mythology, had redirected "Mythography" back in April 2013, unopposed. An even earlier 2006 merge proposal to Folkloristics had been rejected; Phatius McBluff's had no opposition. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The redirected Mythography had stated that it is "the rendering of myths in the arts," and a Gsearch indicates that that is accurate, as a dictionary definition. So another option might be simply to keep, add a proper description, in which case I'd be happy to withdraw this. But then there'd have to be some closer connection between the nominated category and Category:Mythology in popular culture, surely? Speaking mythologically/mythographically, I feel like I've opened a pandora's box, here. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I see that the redirecting editor and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology are inactive. What I'll do is wait a few days, see if there's any !votes, then offer to withdraw and add a category description to define what Mythography is, tweak the catmain to a catrel... Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but move some content up to Category:Mythology, for example Category:Epic poetry and Category:Legends don't belong here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The definition of merely depicting the myths in the arts might be a bit too simplistic. I did a search for sources and found the following article in Oxford Classics. " “Mythography” is a broad term used to cover what is, in fact, a disparate set of texts from the ancient world, all in prose, all dealing in one way or another with myth, but otherwise not necessarily closely related. Some of them attempt to collect and organize traditional stories (we refer to this as “systematic mythography”); some are more concerned with the interpretation and evaluation of them (“interpretive mythography”); and some show a mixture of these tendencies. Even within these general categories, there is wide variation among the surviving examples. Systematic mythography includes attempts at organizing the whole of Greek myth into a single narrative (Pseudo-Apollodorus, which covers everything from the reign of Ouranos and Gaia to the generation after the Trojan War), but also works in which the same material is organized as individual stories (Hyginus’s Fabulae), as well as more specialized treatments that focus on a particular subset of myths, such as transformations, love stories, and star myths (Antoninus Liberalis, Parthenius, and Pseudo-Eratosthenes, respectively). Interpretive mythography is likewise varied, but in general it has the aim of making sense of myth in light of other intellectual and philosophical developments, for instance, by attempting to reconcile myth and the observable facts of the real world (Palaephatus) or to explain it as philosophical or religious allegory (Cornutus and others). Many scholars use the term “mythography” solely in reference to the systematic sort. Mythography as a genre is normally seen as a Hellenistic and Imperial phenomenon, but antecedents appear alongside the earliest prose writers of history and philosophy in the 5th century BCE. One area of important investigation remains how to distinguish early mythography from these allied genres, a vexed question because later authorities may often call the same author a historian, genealogist, and mythographer without distinction, and the sources are not well preserved. Mythography remained a continuous activity from these origins until the end of Antiquity, and even beyond. The early Hellenistic examples of the genre, which seem to have been crucial in establishing the central forms and varieties of mythography, are themselves poorly preserved, but we have rather more texts surviving from the 1st century BCE onward, and these often give us our only glimpses of their predecessors. For purposes of convenience, mythographic works here are divided into chronological categories—(1) early (that is, Archaic and Classical), (2) Hellenistic, and (3) Imperial—but it should be remembered that precise chronology is difficult to establish."
    • The source above deals only with ancient works on mythography. But googlebooks provides text from the book Medieval Mythography: From Roman North Africa to the School of Chartres, A.D. 433-1177 which covers Medieval examples up to the 12th century. Some of the explanations given in the text about the mythography of the period: "Our modern idea of literary criticism has its roots in medieval mythography as a hermeneutic employed by the Church in an attempt to educate its priests and monks in the universal language [Latin] so that they might assimilate the knowledge of the greatest works of classical antiquity ... Written by grammarians, scholars, and philosophers, medieval mythography developed as a means of elucidation and translation, specifically the translation from the Greek and Roman to vernacular cultures." The scholarly author defines "mythology" as a unified system of myth and "mythography" as the interpretation of myth, the search for undermeanings and allegorical interpetations. "By rationalizing pagan gods through various historical, moral, physical, and allegorical means, medieval scholars also disseminated what came to be a theory of medieval fable and fabulizing." Dimadick ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • So that would be an argument also to keep, and create as an additional parent to the Greek mythology studies cat, above? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and heed Marcocapelle's sensible suggestions for migration of subcats. Mythography is different than mythology and creating the redirect seems a mistake. There are books on the subject, such as Mythography: The Study of Myths and Rituals and Victorian mythography was a significant endeavor at the time. [4]. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Yes it's become pretty clear to me that I should promptly withdraw this, I think. And do now see the 2013 redirect may well have been a mistake, esp. insofar as it was a redirect with no mention at the target of what mythography clearly is. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • REname to Category:Mythology studies to match the probable outcome of a similar Greek category. Some of the content may need moving into that or other categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is; these are not synonyms. It's like confusing zoology with animals. Do migrate/diffuse miscategorized material as needed, just like we always would. Do not introduced long-winded neologism "mythology studies"; use plain, long-established, English-language terms of art found in reliable sources and corresponding with our articles. We don't move linguistics to "language studies" or palinology to "pollen studies" or osteopathy to "bone disease studies". PS: The typical referent of mythography (and mythographical, mythographer) in any context we're likely to write about is the critical presentation and analysis of myth as an academic pursuit. The other meaning (and derived mythographic), referring to integration of mythic themes in the arts, is older but less prevalent. It applies to a lot of the work of the Symbolists for example. But if you meet someone who says they're a mythographer or that their work is mythography, they're almost certainly doing multidisciplinary research on myths, not singing about Odin in filk songs at neo-pagan festivals or adding nymphs and dragons to paintings they sell at crafts fairs. This slow usurpation of meaning has come about because the logical word for the study of myth, mythology, has been in turn applied to the myths themselves, when collected. The -graphy in mythography is being reinterpreted as "charting, mapping out, providing an overview of [myths]" instead of "depicting [myths]", just as the -logy in mythology shifted from "study of and writing about [myths]" to "writing down or orally bringing together the disparate [myths] into a cohesive system [of belief]". Even the use of mythographic in reference to art of the modern eras implies some mythographical (in the academic sense) understanding on the part of the artist, not religious fervour; there's a difference between mythographic and devotional works (as a class; they can of course blend, as in DaVinci's Sistine Chapel ceiling, and the work of a lot of the Northern New Mexico santeros.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:03, 30 June 2016 (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.

Category:Years in the Durrani Empire

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 Category:1747 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:History of the Durrani Empire‎
merge Category:1748 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1740s in the Durrani Empire‎
merge Category:1752 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1750s in the Durrani Empire‎
merge Category:1757 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1750s in the Durrani Empire‎
merge Category:1758 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1750s in the Durrani Empire‎
merge Category:1762 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1760s in the Durrani Empire‎
rename Category:1834 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1834 in Afghanistan
and consequently merge Category:1830s in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1830s in Afghanistan
merge Category:Years of the 19th century in the Durrani Empire to Category:Years of the 19th century in Afghanistan
and consequently delete Category:19th century in the Durrani Empire as empty
and consequently merge Category:Centuries in the Durrani Empire to Category:18th century in Afghanistan
delete Category:Years of the 18th century in the Durrani Empire
delete Category:Years in the Durrani Empire.
Explanation: There was a consensus to merge the year categories somewhere, although there is not a clear consensus beyond that point; so here is what I will do, and anyone is free to improve upon it afterwards. (i) There is no consensus on whether to merge to the decade categories or to bypass and therefore empty them, so I will merge 1748 to 1762 to the decade categories. (ii) There is no clear consensus to create a "Years in South Asia" hierarchy, so I suggest that that should not be created without holding an RfC first. (iii) On inspection, there is no need for a dual merge target for the years, for the following reasons. The 1747 category only contains 1747 establishments which were upmerged per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_11#Durrani_Empire and are already in Category:1747 establishments in Asia, and contains no events that belong in a year/decade category, so the contents only need merging to History of the Durrani Empire. The battles of 1748 to 1862 are already in "17xx in Asia" or "17xx in India". (iv) As for Category:1834 in the Durrani Empire, that is simply incorrect as the Durrani Empire ended in 1826, so I will rename that one to Category:1834 in Afghanistan. (v) I will then delete the empty Category:Years of the 18th century in the Durrani Empire, Category:Years of the 19th century in the Durrani Empire and Category:Years in the Durrani Empire. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming/expanding and upmerging:
  • Propose renaming/expanding:
  • Propose renaming and upmerging:
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Partially this is a followup to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 11#Durrani Empire. The Durrani Empire is a predecessor of modern-day Afghanistan, but in its early decades also encompassed large territories in today's north-western India. Though there remains quite some room for expansion, we're far away from getting enough content to populate per-year subcategories of a Category:Years in the Durrani Empire scheme. While Asia is too unspecific in scope, a Category:Years in South Asia scheme might be an acceptable solution to accommodate the per-year WP:SMALLCATs of this and many other empires in southern central Asia and the Indian subcontinent – probably a better one than merging these and all other nominated categories up to Category:Years in Asia. This nomination should probably be followed by Category:Years in Afghanistan, at least up to and including the 19th century. -- PanchoS ( talk) 15:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I say delete the Years of categories and keep the individual pages upmerged directly into the Years category. It's true that there's not a lot here but I think we should keep all the various empires of kingdoms in prior history together. We have the same structure for many old European kingdoms, some of which lasted for a few years, and it seems counter to that to instead amass of all these into a homogenous "South Asia" category structure. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 17:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I forgot about the decades cats. Ok, support Marcocapelle's suggestion moving all to the history of the Durrani empire cat, but oppose a further upmerge to the general empire cat. I'd rather have a separate history category that can go under the history categories for the current nations than just have the empire itself go there. I wasn't clear that I'd still like the one-article categories by year but that seems a minority here. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support generally since the proposal aims at a reduction of 1-article categories. More suggestions, on the one hand I wouldn't mind upmerging everything further up to Category:History of the Durrani Empire or Category:Durrani Empire, on the other hand I wouldn't upmerge directly to the Years category as Ricky81682 suggests, because we can still upmerge to continent level, this level already exists, e.g. Category:1747 in Asia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support in principle (getting rid of one-article categories) but oppose the creation of "by region" categories. If we do this, then suddenly we'll have Category:623 in Southwestern Europe and some other such nonsense. I really don't think we want (or need) to set the precedent of "by year and region" categories between the existing "by year and continent" and "by year and country" ones. Upmerge to the existing "year in Asia" categories instead. They're not going to become too large from this. ~ Rob Talk 22:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The Central America structure is very awkward. I don't think we need a similar one for South Asia and Asia overall may be too broad. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No, I'm fine keeping the actual categories. I support upmerging to cull out the decades and years in subcategories. Category:Years in Central America exists as a subgroup of the North American category but I don't see that need. I'd prefer continents then each empire/country with even minor ones there rather than ignoring the actual structures in place of a generalized "South Asia" or "Asia". There is value in being able to browse the history of this empire horizontally even if it's a limited category. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Durrani Empire was a prolonged large political structure in Central-Southern Asia, thus not applying to WP:SMALLCAT, since it could be expanded. GreyShark ( dibra) 18:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • While it can obviously be expanded, it's virtually impossible that there will ever be year categories that each have a substantial number of articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge etc per nom. Durrani Empire lasted 1747-1826, about 75 years. We do not need centuries; I am not convinced that we need any splits of Category:Durrani Empire, even its history category. I would however support the parallel merger to years (or perhaps decades) in South Asia, but several of these are redlinks; we will need a further nom to merge in Indian year categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Are we ready to delete all by year articles for all countries that have been formed since 1941? 75 years, especially when we consider how much territory the Durrani Empire covered is enough. What we need is better editing of articles on south Asia, and more articles on important politicians and military leaders in the 1790s and fewer promotional articles on insignificant 19-year-old business owners and investors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support. By year is usually too specific when we get this far back. By decade should suffice. Saying "we need more articles" is a good aspiration, but it doesn't really address the current category situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2016 (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.

Template:Salem-geo-stub

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. In closing, I have renamed the template only. I have not changed the template on the article pages. Once those changes have been made, it may be appropriate to delete the redirect from {{ Salem-geo-stub}}. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming {{ Salem-geo-stub}} to {{ SalemIN-geo-stub}}
Rationale': To me, "Salem" without disambiguation refers to Salem, Massachusetts, the location of the Salem witch trials; I'd imagine that to many others, Salem, Oregon may also be likely as the capital of that state. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Support, for the reasons given. Grutness... wha? 00:36, 27 June 2016 (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.

Category:Sports festivals

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. I hate to do this after a previous no consensus, but this is really the only way this discussion can be closed. There's significant disagreement what the categories should be called and a vocal group that wants these categories deleted or merged (with disagreement where to merge these). Add all that up, and it's impossible to do anything to these categories at this time. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
Variant A
Variant B
Nominator's rationale: This is a renomination of the previous CfD which failed with no consensus. We all agreed that most of these sports festivals, games, and rallies are of a dual nature, being leisure festivals and competitions at the same time, in varying degrees. In the meantime, I figured, what they all have in common, no matter how they are named, is that they are "sport meetings", a not at all unusual term that precisely reflects this double nature. In fact, quite some sports events are actually named or referred to as "meetings", probably because of their double nature. Finally, sporting has always played a significant role in culture, at least since the Ancient Olympic Games, but probably for longer.
We won't ever be able to cleanly split these events into those which predominantly are festivals vs. those which predominantly are competitions, and actually we shouldn't. Rather we would keep everything, from Category:Kite festivals to Category:Motorcycle rallies in the same, renamed parent category, add the whole Category:Multi-sport events, and pick up a few more from Category:Sports events. Not all Category:Sports competitions are meetings though – Category:Sports leagues aren't, nor are Category:Sports club competitions, Category:National sports competitions or the by city/country/continent/sport categories (at least not generally); so there shouldn't be a problem with WP:OVERLAPCAT.
Under the new name, Category:Sports meetings may remain under both Category:Festivals by type and Category:Sports events, as well as Category:Meetings. -- PanchoS ( talk) 13:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, as there are still no satisfactory criteria to get round WP:OCAT#ARBITRARY, nor to distinguish these from sports events or sports competitions. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I went a few miles to explain how Sport meetings are not an arbitrary collection of Sport events or Sport competitions, but probably still not enough. To be even more precise:
  • Category:Sports events (or possibly better: sporting events) include one-off sport matches that may be part of a competition, as well as challenges that don't necessarily involve other people than the individual attempting the challenge, and events that neither involve doing or celebrating sports, but are about sports.
  • Category:Sports competitions includes competitions that are spread over a season, and events that don't involve public participation in physical presence, and therefore may not have any cultural aspect of a festival.
-- PanchoS ( talk) 13:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per suggestion - I've been defending Category:Sports festivals like a maniac for a few months now, but I can't argue this doesn't seem more sensible. The proposed definition is not "arbitrary," either, any more than any other type of category based on type, so I'm still baffled by Fayenatic london's poorly clarified stance. I've read the OCAT guidelines dozens of times, and it obviously doesn't apply here. Earflaps ( talk) 15:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I really wonder whether this very subtle terminology is clear enough to create durable categories whose meaning is clear without paragraphs of explanation. Most categorisation is done through WP:HOTCAT, which provides no sight of any explanation on the category page ... so the label needs to be clear and unambiguous. To me, the primary meaning of "sports meetings" is a bunch of suits around a table with an agenda and a minute-taker. When you point it out, I can see how the meaning proposed here has some validity, but it's not the primary Plain English meaning.
    Using ambiguous terminology like this causes confusion, miscategorisation and instability. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I wonder if Category:Sports gatherings might work instead and be more intuitive? The title could signify either a formal or informal event, like motorcycle rallies or dragonboat racing, while excluding the competitions that don't have a group component. I guess you could argue that all competitions have some "gathering" element, though, even if just the judges get together, but I don't think tiny meetings is really the colloquial meaning of "gatherings," at least in my perception. Earflaps ( talk) 02:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Category:Sports gatherings indeed sounds like a great proposal, better than both "sports festivals" or "sports meetings." It perfectly conveys the social aspect of all of these events, while not precluding the competitive aspect either. We currently don't have an article on "Gathering" beyond the DAB page Gather, but it may be considered encyclopedic, and "Sports gathering" "Sports+gathering"&tbm=bks is not altogether uncommon. I added the proposal as Variant B, which I support.
Please, everybody note that this is already the second nomination, and failure of reaching a consensus will leave us locked-in. I have no objection against a renomination at a later point, say in a few months, if the result is still not convincing. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree gatherings does seem to work, though here's a question - would Category:Sports meetings/gatherings be a parent or child of Category:Sports events? It seems all "events" by their very definition are a gathering of people... though I suppose "competitions" are already included as children of events, even though they may not even have a "gathering" component in any way (i.e. be online for example) - so with teh current state of things, "sports events" encapsulates basically all "sports things that happen" that are aren't, say, publications, and so Gatherings would work only as a subcat, but not a parent. Sorry, thinking out loud I guess. Earflaps ( talk) 05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Earflaps: It's not just publications – clubs, teams, leagues, and other sports organizations aren't events, neither are sport discipline categories, in fact most subcategories of Category:Sports aren't events. More tricky is the difference between events and gatherings. IMO, sports seasons would be events, but not gatherings, same with sports competitions‎ as a whole. Category:Sports gatherings would hold the exact same place in the tree as Category:Sports festivals currently does, though it would gain some subcategories. I'm not saying this is a certain success, but currently it seems worth a try. More input would be nice though. -- PanchoS ( talk) 10:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support "gatherings". A sports "meeting" is what me and my teammates do before we play our match. Would also support merge to "competitions", if there's no consistent distinction. We need to avoid specialized-style fallacy traps of using nit-picky insider jargon that splits hairs that cannot be perceived by our typical readers.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
As a side note, I would agree that most sports "gatherings" seems to be competitions in some ways, but distinct exceptions may include kite festivals, hot air balloon festivals (I guess that's a sport, who am I to judge), various folk and dance festivals with sports elements, motorcycle rallies, or auto rallies as Peterkingiron points out. Earflaps ( talk) 03:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Those that have competition aspects can be categorized under competitions and dual-categorized under their main topic. Those that have no competitive aspect (there are few) can be categorized under their main topic. We don't need a category for an undefinable gaggle of non-competitive things that some people stick the word "festival" on. I was involved in something called a "festival" the other year that ended up with a grand total of 35 attendees, and which had lots of marketing. Even if had had 35,000 attendees it might well have defied categorization, having been a mixture of a benefit concert (3 musical acts toward the end of the affair), a mini-conference, a zoo tour, and a few other things. It would have been best categorized under the topic it was about, had it actually been notable, and not cross-categorized with anything, other than maybe benefit concerts.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer "Sports events" or possibly "meetings". Note that "Auto shows" is not about sport at all: they are sales exhibitions, not auto rallies (which might appear here). Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I could live with that, with "competitions" subcatted under "events". "Meetings" is too ambiguous. "Festivals" is, too, and is marketing language. "Meets" and "shows" are ambiguous – some of these are competitions, some are not.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose rename, festivals is the common name here, not meetings or gatherings, see the content of the category. We should be reluctant to define new concepts that hardly exist in the real world just for the sake of categorization. I'm neutral on a possible upmerge to Category:Sports events on the basis of WP:SHAREDNAME though. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Up till now I've been supporting this idea because it might wedge in nicely with the festival tree, which the "sports events" tree very much does not. That said, I now think having a "sports gatherings" tree might be too similar to the "sports events" tree, and that might severely confuse other editors - largely because I assume almost every sports event in the entire tree would need to be re-categorized into this new sports gathering tree. As much as I hate to say it, the current state of things where individual festival types categorized under "events" might be the way to go, without a second, basically identical "gatherings" tree. I still think "sports festivals" works as an accurate and easily understood parent category for the events that are explicitly understood to be festivals (a much tinier and manageable group of items than "gatherings"). Events like motorcycle rallies are more vague, and I know throw a wrench in an easy definition - they aren't called festivals in their cultural vernacular, but fit the commonly understood meaning of the word to a T. Earflaps ( talk) 10:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge all to sport events – No need to replace one vague set of categories by another vague set of categories. gidonb ( talk) 16:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The ESPYs and Goodwood Festival of Speed are sports events, but not competitions. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 20:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Gatherings per SMcCandlish's comments JarrahTree 01:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge all, manually to Category:Sports events. Per this discussion and a chat on the creator's talk page, I don't see any evidence that "sports festivals" amounts to a clearly defined type of event. The creator has been adding a std explanation to the categories (e.g. here), but where an explanation sets out to clarify a lack of precision in the title, then we have a problem. The explanation also acknowledges that there is significant overlap with other categories, which is rarely a good idea (see WP:OVERLAPCAT). Chnaging the title to "meetings" or "gatherings" doesn't really solve either problem.
    Note that I suggest a manual merge rather than bot-driven, because many of the pages in these categories are better categorised in other ways. For example Category:Dance festivals has been included under Sports festivals, but dancing is not a sport. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • While I disagree that the definition is vague enough to warrant deletion, if consensus veers this way, I would also request a joint upmerge of category contents to Category:Cultural festivals/ by country/ by continent. As a side note, I also know quite a few professional dancers that would take your "dance isn't a sport" stance as fightin' words ;) Earflaps ( talk) 18:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Category:Sporting events by country. Tim! ( talk) 12:10, 13 August 2016 (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.

Category:Gender equality in Rwanda

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: convert. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category has no appropriate member pages, but at least some basic sourced content to start with. -- PanchoS ( talk) 11:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Articlise -- This is an article in category space. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Articalize although I think it needs more sources to survive. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Articalize -- It's a beginning of an article that should not be wasted. Fine proposal, PanchoS! gidonb ( talk) 16:21, 2 July 2016 (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.

Wikipedia indexes, glossaries, outlines, timelines, and bibliographies

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: split. There's consensus to enact the proposal, but there are some concerns that it should be done manually to make sure "Wikipedia foo" is distinct from "foo". If a category becomes empty from this process, just slap a G6 tag on it referencing this discussion. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: The current names of the first five categories, which are all for specialized types of stand-alone list article, are problematic for several reasons:
  1. All of Index, Glossary, Outline, Timeline, Bibliography, and Book are all legitimate encyclopedia topics, and average readers and editors will expect the corresponding category names to be for these topics, not for internal WP list-type classifications.
  2. Consequently, real-world things keep getting classified in them, e.g. the regular non-WP:TIMELINES articles Logarithmic timeline and Orders of magnitude (time) are to be found in Category:Timelines, and notable off-WP glossaries keep ending up in Category:Glossaries, just as articles on historical bibliographies are being mixed in with Wikipedia bibliographic lists.
  3. They're inconsistent with each other.
  4. The "of topics" verbiage is redundant; all of these things are "of topics", and all our categories are, unless otherwise noted (e.g. by a {{ template category}} header).
The sixth category, for glossaries in the off-WP sense, is misnamed, because it includes notable works that were not published but are manuscript materials.

Other possibilities exist for a naming pattern ("Foo articles", "Foo list articles", "Foo lists", etc.), but the "Wikipedia Foos" pattern is consistent with Wikipedia books, and is our most common approach to WP-specific categories ( Category:Wikipedia templates, Category:Wikipedia policies, etc., etc.)

PS: For subcategories, names like Category:Indexes of science articles and Category:Glossaries of science are formulaic and stilted enough to remain as-is. If we need a category for off-WP indices or glossaries in (e.g.) science, other names like "Category:Scientific indexes" or "Category:Science glossaries" would come more naturally to mind for such encyclopedic subjects in their own right. That has caused a very small amount of incorrect subcategorization, but it's manageable, and will improve with better diffusion and better tagging of categories with scope descriptions.
 —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Some of the current contents, appear to be for casual readers not Wikipedia editors. I'm looking at Category:Future timelines and Glossary of Japanese history. I'm conceptually in favor but I think there may be a manual split needed. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the contents? RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Right. THey're {{em|all|| for readers, though editors make use of them too. These are all mainspace pages. I thought I'd been clear that the central problem here is that we have five sets of "programmatic" types of list articles, each of which should be in a category for that type, with consistent names, but that because the current categories' names overlap with broader, off-WP concepts, various other things are being commingled with them confusingly at present. The point is to separate the WP list-type categories out, at consistent names, then leave the "bare" names like Category:Glossaries, Category:Timelines, etc., for things that are glossaries, timelines, etc. (Cormac's Glossary, The Timetables of History, and so on), but not WP list articles of these types.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support all but I agree that the Timelines split should be manually done. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Not for all There may be articles for bibliographies that are not created for wikipedia. The same may be true of timelines.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 00:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I "discovered" and added Category:Bibliographies to the nomination, as exactly the same kind of category with the same extant problems of confusing things in the real word called bibliographies, that are independent notable topics, with Wikipedia lists of a particular style that w're internally labeling bibliographies. It would be like if we can up with .  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the exact changes proposed here - e.g. Pinakes (a bibliographic work composed by Callimachus) is correctly categorized in Category:Bibliographies and does not belong in a "Wikipedia..." category, Logarithmic timeline is correctly categorized in Category:Timelines and does not belong (even temporarily) in a "Wikipedia..." category... Instead, I suggest that for bibliographies and timelines (and possibly the others) that the "Wikipedia..." categories be created and the appropriate recategorization be done manually. DexDor (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
DexDor, maybe there's a misunderstanding here, and SMcCandlish can clear it up. As I understand this proposal, and the changes to the nom as consensus is being reached, and I'm inclined to support it, a bit of work will be needed to separate the Wikipedia pages from the still existing categories but it would be easily achievable. The categories "Bibliographies", "Timelines", etc., at least those which would be logical categories for many non-Wikipedia items, will still exist, and will contain the pertinent links, but new "Wikipedia" named categories will be created (which will, of course, then become an item in the non-Wikipedia named categories). If this is the case, and if I'm reading it correctly on a quick read and no amount of intensive study, your concerns are not taking into account that the already existing categories aren't going anywhere. Randy Kryn 2:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
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.

Category:Politicians from Hamburg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Not renamed. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 06:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: According to other categories in Category:German politicians by state Wwikix ( talk) 08:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Oculi: Did you even read our discussion, or WP:TLDR? Both the concrete case and the general case are quite a bit tricky. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ PanchoS: I agree with Oculi that it's not at all complicated. The "foo Politicians" categories are ambiguously named, and should be renamed to "Political office-holders in Foo". The politicians who are from foo by notable association should be in a parent "Politicians from foo". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ BrownHairedGirl: If that doesn't amount to being "a bit tricky", then I don't know. While your proposal IMO does makes sense, this isn't the current nomination's proposal. Also, why would Category:Baden-Württemberg politicians stay, while Category:Berlin politicians are renamed. We'd clearly need a group nomination of at least all German state categories, IMO also the U.S. and Indian state categories. Also, there are relevant state politicians who aren't political office holders or aren't primarily notable in their function of being political office holders. With all its merits, I expect this to be a tedious discussion. -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ PanchoS: I know it's not this nom's proposal, which is why I oppose this one <smile>
    So I suggest closing this discussion (either let it run its course, or earlier if the nominator Wwikix chooses to withdraw it) ... and then start a fresh discussion. Better still, just create and populate the "Political office-holders in Foo" sub-categories, and see what's left over, before any further renamings are considered. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ BrownHairedGirl: Agree that creating the subcategories would be the best way to move this forward. Let's do it. -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- The target was presumably redirected to the subject with reason. One of the people whom I checked was a Federal minister, then a British academic and finally a member of the British House of Lords. That fits the present name well. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose at this level we almost always do people + from + place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose – People categories should should consistently follow the defining people category above, here Category:People from Hamburg. gidonb ( talk) 16:16, 2 July 2016 (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.

WikiProject banner templates

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: Merged. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 07:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Same thing. Both of the redundant categories are subcats of Category:WikiProject templates, and there is no apparent distinction between them (even if there were in intent, the names are too similar to maintain it). The longer name is more accurately descriptive.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:28, 22 June 2016 (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.

Category:Military units and formations by year of disestablishment

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Decade more accurately reflects the composition of this category than year. Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I am not saying that each year subcat be changed to decades, just this container cat, as it includes decades ergo Category:Military units and formations disestablished in the 1990s, rather than year, ergo Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1945, subcats.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 17:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Oops, I misunderstood! I Support the nomination as proposed now that Bellerophon5685 explained it in simpler terms for me! RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support, but be more radical but I would prefer to see all the 18th century categories merged into one for that century; likewise 19th century. Decades will do OK for 20th, due to the expansions and contractions of army at end of WWI and WWII and later mergers of regiments, as the army has shrunk further. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I think we can keep the decades for the earlier centuries, as they could be expanded in the future. If, in a few years, they are still now well populated, then we could change them. But keep for now.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 16:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the 1865 category has over 600 articles in it. Upmerging anywhere makes no sense at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:33, 29 June 2016 (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.

Category:Wikipedia bot owners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: While bots are probably the closest thing to ownership we ever get on the project, that's still a term we usually don't apply to them. "Bot operator" (or the shortened "botop") is the more common term. Ownership is not always accurate, as well. My bot runs on AWB, which is developed by other editors, so I certainly don't "own" it. ~ Rob Talk 02:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I imagine that it means that you own the bot account, that you are the one who has access to its password and controls whether it makes edits and what kind of edits it makes. I don't find anything objectionable with that as it is, but if the chips fall this way then I don't object to renaming it for consistency. → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 02:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I am ok with the move. Please plan to change the template, {{ User bot owner}}. That is how this category is being populated. — Ganeshk ( talk) 02:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Also, this one too, {{ User wikipedia/Botop}}. — Ganeshk ( talk) 02:18, 23 June 2016 (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.

Category:Military organizations by year of establishment

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 here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "Military units and formations already covers this. The cat as is only covers a handful of groups founded during World War II Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:27, 22 June 2016 (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.

Category:Chairmen of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority

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: Renamed. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 07:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Gender neutral. RioHondo ( talk) 01:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support Contains Imelda Marcos and we're translating the title anyway. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Question -- CAn anyone provide a translation of the local (Talagog?) title. The article says that Imelda was governor of an earlier authority. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per gender neutrality and the use-English principle (we need not split fine literal-translation hairs, if the Tagalog term is usually translated "chairman", "chairperson" or "chair" in English).  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:24, 30 June 2016 (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.

Category:1905 Russian Revolution

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Not renamed. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 07:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Revolution of 1905. Charles Essie ( talk) 00:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment That actually might confuse readers who may not be familiar with the Russian revolution of 1905. It may be best to keep the more descriptive title.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
There were "revolutions" in Persia and Argentina that same year. "Revolts" or "rebellions" in the Philippines, German East Africa, China.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • All right, maybe the best solution would to move the main page to something less ambiguous and move this category to whatever that is. Does anyone have any name suggestions? Charles Essie ( talk) 00:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'd suggest Russian revolution of 1905-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 17:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Charles Essie: article names get discussed at WP:RM, not here. This place is for category names. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:C2D. Category names should blindly follow article names and poorly worded main articles should be handled in an RM discussion not at CFD. (I would favor renaming the article.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment blind following is a horrible plan. The issues and needs of categories and articles are different. Plus the article Rename process has been hijacked by a cabal that is dedicated to short names at any cost. It took multiple nominations to get Big moved away from being just an article on a film. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. Despite what some other editors think, categories are not special. If a name is selected for an article, it makes sense to use it for the corresponding category. Having article and category names that are different causes more confusion than having a category name that is not 100% unambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Sometimes categories need a more specific name than articles; and this is a case in point. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The proposed title is too ambiguous for a category name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support to match article name, but "Russian Revolution of 1905" would be better for both category and article. The proposed category title isn't actually ambiguous under our category naming conventions; if there were multiple revolutions that year, the category for them would be Category:Revolutions in 1905 or Category:1905 revolutions (plural), assuming "revolution" wasn't considered PoV as an agglomerating title (cf. the very long dispute about what distinguishes a revolution, a rebellion, an uprising, a coup, a civil war, etc., which has long pre-dated WP's existence).  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
See Revolutionary_wave#20th_century, Revolutions of 1905–11. Lenin saw this as a wave starting with Russia going east and including Turkey, Persia and China. Don't know why he didn't include Mexico or Argentina.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
All compelling reasons to the think the article name is ambiguous and should have an Requested Move. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:14, 2 July 2016 (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.

Category:LDPR (political party) politicians

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: speedily rename to Category:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia politicians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted and it's contents relocated to Category:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia politicians. C2D per Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and Category:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Charles Essie ( talk) 00:06, 22 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_22&oldid=1143853009"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22

Dutch Calvinist and Reformed Christians

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 Category:Christian Reformed Churches members from the Netherlands, Category:Old Reformed Churches Christians from the Netherlands‎, Category:Reformed Congregations Christians from the Netherlands, Category:Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands Christians from the Netherlands‎ and Category:Restored Reformed Church Christians from the Netherlands to Category:Dutch Calvinist and Reformed Christians; and keep the others. For the record, the 5 categories being merged are the smallest, with 8 or fewer current members, 20 in total. It is evident that user:StAnselm identified the first category (to be kept) in error for the sixth, Category:Reformed Churches Christians from the Netherlands, although he has not confirmed this at Category talk:Dutch Calvinist and Reformed Christians. [Redacted after initial close to delete the first.] – Fayenatic L ondon 06:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:NARROWCAT (not SMALLCAT), in order to make use of these categories you really have to be an expert in history of Dutch Calvinism (and if you are, better consult Dutch Wikipedia). The Reformed Churches was the oldest and biggest secession from the the Dutch Reformed Church, but in 2004 the two of them reunited (and united with the Lutheran Church in the Netherlands) to the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. That makes three categories, with a substantial overlap of people who are in two of the three denominations, before and after reuniting. The remaining smaller categories contain members of a secession from the Reformed Churches, or a secession from a secession, and these denominations are still independent, WP:SMALLCAT may apply to these categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This denomination counts only 120,000 members. The category is somewhat bigger than one would expect from such a small denomination because of the mere fact that it contains an extraordinary number of politicians. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ StAnselm: I'd be OK with keeping this one as well. Are we in agreement with deleting the rest besides those two? (I don't want the closing editor to misinterpret your vote.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
No, I'd probably be more in agreement with Peterkingiron (below) and go for keeping four (1, 2, 4, and 5). St Anselm ( talk) 18:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No strong view on that. It may depend on how organisationally independent the churches are in respectively Netherlands, USA, and South Africa. I think it would not be appropriate to combine members of the Dutch Reformed church in the Netherlands (worshipping in Dutch churches) with members worshipping in churches of the American denomination. As a matter of what is available, if a Dutch member moves to UK, he will have to choose a church of a different denomination, because there are few (if any) Dutch churches in England. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Marcocapelle: I pity the closing admin that has to dig through this auction-like discussion. Are you discerning any specific consensus here? If so, I'm wondering if an updated nomination with a ping to the participants above might be the path forward. (Or we can take a wait and see approach.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • As far as I can see, there is a rough consensus about merging all but nr 1, 2, 4 and 5. In addition I would argue that for the latter the same action (rename or keep current name) should follow as in yesterday's (June 21st) rename nomination by User:StAnselm. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- (voted above) -- I have no problem with merging modern categories where the churches have merged. However, at earlier periods, there will be people who are defined by membership of denomination A, and others (in strong opposition to them) who belonged to denomination B. It is not appropriate to put those who were hostile to each other into a single category, as if they were all the best of buddies. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:30, 17 July 2016 (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.

Category:Greek mythology understanding and criticism

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: Renamed to Category:Greek mythology studies. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 08:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't think I've ever seen an "...understanding and criticism" category. There's at least two options, off the bat: rename to Category:Greek mythology studies or simply merge to Category:Classical studies? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2016 (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.

Category:People who died on their birthday

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: speedily deleted by another user. If there are objections, I suggest users refer to deletion review. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT and non-defining. And also previously deleted at least twice that I could find. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as this category has been twice deleted at CFD already. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: The category was speedy deleted. As for a list, such a page has already been deleted at AFD. [1] ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural note/objection WP:G4 clearly shouldn't allow immediate deletion, thereby disenfranchising other editors from expressing their objection, and/or disrupting an already started WP:CfD, without the possibility of restoring the original content. I wouldn't object to if it was worded and administered like WP:C1. Though personally I really don't care whether we have such a list or not, I'm asking some admin to restore the category, as long as it has not been purged, as an obviously not uncontroversial deletion. This discussion here may come to a consensus that listification is not wanted, but people should have the possibility to bring up their arguments. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment I speedy nominated this category. It has been at CFD not once [2] but twice [3]. Under WP:G4 it is eligible for speedy deletion. That is what took place and it is proper. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Indeed it qualified for WP:G4 as currently worded. But the fact that the discussants of this WP:CFD now are presented with a fait accompli, and the closing administrator can't even conclude the discussion with Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, but may only acknowledge that it has already become obsoleted, IMO is disrespectful and only contributes to the unfortunate notion of Wikipedia processes being obscure. -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:08, 23 June 2016 (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.

Category:Ambush (band)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category was created at this name for band whose article Ambush (swedish band) was deleted, which thus mixed content for a band with the same name at Ambush (band). This band doesn't need an eponymous category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 16:57, 22 June 2016 (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.

Category:United States deinstitutionalization case law

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only two entries. Another problem. A quick google search comes up with nothing for the law term deinstitutionalization law or deinstitutionalization case law. In fact the article points to an article deinstitutionalization. Is this a true term for case law.

Note- If the result of this CFD is to keep, the article should be renamed to Deinstitutionalization case law in the United States. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ WilliamJE: Category creator's rationale: So let me explain the project I am working on that caused me to create this category.

The disability rights movement broadly and the deinstitutionalization movement more specifically adopted a strategy now standard in civil rights litigation, but originally pioneered by the NAACP in its drive to overturn segregation: establish a series of small precedents that then become the basies for more significant precedents; repeat this process as you work your way up to the controlling precedent. In this way legal cases form a dense network of precedents. Deinstitutionalization is a huge story in the postwar era, and one that to my surprise is not really told in its entirety in a single source. I am trying to build out a good series of references on the legal struggle over deinstitutionalization in the 1970s and 80s. As you can see from my skeleton for the Pennhurst case, I am trying to create a standardized article structure that includes "Precedents", "Subsequent case law" and "Other related cases" so that people can browse the network of cases, clicking from one precedent to the next. But I also want people to be able to step back and see a complete list of all the deinstitutionalization cases, hence the category.

I think this category should not be merged for three reasons:

  1. Deinstitutionalization and mental health are related, but distinct. Just today I interviewed a nationally renowned expert on deinstitutionalization who explained to me that part of the reason that people don't understand deinstitutionalization is because they don't distinguish between mental health (mental illness) and disability (primarily intellectual, but physical as well). As the Wikipedia article on deinstitutionalization notes, the history of deinstitutionalization in the United States proceeded in two waves: people with mental health issues in the 1950s and 1960s, followed by people with disabilities in the 1970s and 1980s. Deinstitutionalization is a superset of, or at least separate from mental health law. The topics intersect quite a bit, but are distinct to the lawyers, civil rights activists and social scientists who work in these areas.
  2. Case law is separate from statutory law. There is a well-established Wikipedia convention of creating separate categories for each. E.g. Disability law in the United States and United States disability case law; or Obscenity law and United States obscenity case law; or Environmental law in the United States and United States environmental case law.
  3. The category is small now, but it's going to grow. You will see that the categories United States banking case law‎ and United States communications regulation case law‎ both have only a few articles each. The number of legal precedents in these areas are some of the largest in the field of law, establishing the categories beyond reproach, but the articles haven't been written yet owing to the highly technical nature of the topics. These categories should remain though as part of the infrastructure for future contributions. Deinstitutionalization case law is a similarly large topic. I created the deinstitutionalization case law category to collect what I intend to be a growing set of Wikipedia articles. Mary Hayden's article, "Civil Rights Litigation for Institutionalized Persons with Mental Retardation: A Summary" (Mental Retardation, vol. 36, no. 1, February 1998, pgs. 75–83) lists 71 cases. The University of Michigan Law School's Civil Rights Litigation Clearing House lists 136 cases in its "Olmstead Cases" special collection (calling them "Olmstead Cases" is maybe something of a misnomer as 16 of them precede Olmstead v. L.C. [1999]). I don't think every case on these lists deserves its own Wikipedia article, but I intend to make at least the following four additions:
  • Wyatt v. Stickney, 325 F.Supp. 781 (M.D. Ala., 1971) (closed Bryce Hospital in Alabama)
  • New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Rockefeller, 357 F. Supp. 752 (E.D.N.Y., 1973) (closed Willowbrook State School in New York)
  • Evans v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 483 (D.D.C., 1978) (closed Forest Haven in Washington, D.C.)
  • Homeward Bound Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, 963 F. 2d 1352 (10th Cir., 1992) (closed Hissom Memorial Center in Oklahoma)

Regarding renaming the category, I modeled the name on the established convention for United States case law categories.

I hope this adequately addresses your concerns regarding this category. ~ Taylordw ( talk) 00:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Merge for Now There has been a broad movement in the United States to move people with mental health issues from large institutions to group homes and community outpatient services. (There has also been an informal movement of these people into homelessness and the criminal justice system.) So I could see a theoretical case law category here. With the exception of Olmstead v. L.C., the actual contents of this category are about involuntary commitment not deinstitutionalization. Now there is some interplay between the two: involuntary commitment now tends to be for specified periods in emergency programs, not indefinite banishment to a large state hospital. But I'm grasping to find relevance for the current contents with the category purpose. An article on American deinstitutionalization law (both legislative and case) might be a better starting point for improving Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (now 4 member articles and room for expansion) or selectively merge to preexisting Category:Deinstitutionalisation in the United States, Category:Mental health law in the United States, Category:United States disability case law etc. Carving out an overview article on Deinstitutionalization in the United States from Deinstitutionalisation would be a great starting point for further expansion. -- PanchoS ( talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: Take a look at Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. Changed my !vote, thanks. The more important problem is that indeed "deinstutionalization case law" doesn't seem to be an established category. An intersection might still be acceptable, but many of the related laws and decisions (more in Category:Deinstitutionalisation in the United States) are not precisely about deinstitutionalization, so the articles would end up being categorized in too many, overly fine-grained categories. Again, carving out an overview article on Deinstitutionalization in the United States from Deinstitutionalisation would be the best starting point to expand our coverage of the topic. As a category, Category:Deinstitutionalisation in the United States seems to be sufficient for now. No problem with revisiting the situation in a few months or years, though. -- PanchoS ( talk) 01:36, 24 June 2016 (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.

Category:Mythography

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: withdrawn/keep, though some restructuring may be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for the simple reason that the presented main article Mythography is a merely redirect to an actual main article Mythology -- which then goes on to only use the word mythography, once, fleetingly, with no indication of how it might differ. We're not presenting readers with a comprehensible distinction here, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I do see that @ Phatius McBluff:, a member of WP:WikiProject Mythology, had redirected "Mythography" back in April 2013, unopposed. An even earlier 2006 merge proposal to Folkloristics had been rejected; Phatius McBluff's had no opposition. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The redirected Mythography had stated that it is "the rendering of myths in the arts," and a Gsearch indicates that that is accurate, as a dictionary definition. So another option might be simply to keep, add a proper description, in which case I'd be happy to withdraw this. But then there'd have to be some closer connection between the nominated category and Category:Mythology in popular culture, surely? Speaking mythologically/mythographically, I feel like I've opened a pandora's box, here. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I see that the redirecting editor and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology are inactive. What I'll do is wait a few days, see if there's any !votes, then offer to withdraw and add a category description to define what Mythography is, tweak the catmain to a catrel... Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but move some content up to Category:Mythology, for example Category:Epic poetry and Category:Legends don't belong here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The definition of merely depicting the myths in the arts might be a bit too simplistic. I did a search for sources and found the following article in Oxford Classics. " “Mythography” is a broad term used to cover what is, in fact, a disparate set of texts from the ancient world, all in prose, all dealing in one way or another with myth, but otherwise not necessarily closely related. Some of them attempt to collect and organize traditional stories (we refer to this as “systematic mythography”); some are more concerned with the interpretation and evaluation of them (“interpretive mythography”); and some show a mixture of these tendencies. Even within these general categories, there is wide variation among the surviving examples. Systematic mythography includes attempts at organizing the whole of Greek myth into a single narrative (Pseudo-Apollodorus, which covers everything from the reign of Ouranos and Gaia to the generation after the Trojan War), but also works in which the same material is organized as individual stories (Hyginus’s Fabulae), as well as more specialized treatments that focus on a particular subset of myths, such as transformations, love stories, and star myths (Antoninus Liberalis, Parthenius, and Pseudo-Eratosthenes, respectively). Interpretive mythography is likewise varied, but in general it has the aim of making sense of myth in light of other intellectual and philosophical developments, for instance, by attempting to reconcile myth and the observable facts of the real world (Palaephatus) or to explain it as philosophical or religious allegory (Cornutus and others). Many scholars use the term “mythography” solely in reference to the systematic sort. Mythography as a genre is normally seen as a Hellenistic and Imperial phenomenon, but antecedents appear alongside the earliest prose writers of history and philosophy in the 5th century BCE. One area of important investigation remains how to distinguish early mythography from these allied genres, a vexed question because later authorities may often call the same author a historian, genealogist, and mythographer without distinction, and the sources are not well preserved. Mythography remained a continuous activity from these origins until the end of Antiquity, and even beyond. The early Hellenistic examples of the genre, which seem to have been crucial in establishing the central forms and varieties of mythography, are themselves poorly preserved, but we have rather more texts surviving from the 1st century BCE onward, and these often give us our only glimpses of their predecessors. For purposes of convenience, mythographic works here are divided into chronological categories—(1) early (that is, Archaic and Classical), (2) Hellenistic, and (3) Imperial—but it should be remembered that precise chronology is difficult to establish."
    • The source above deals only with ancient works on mythography. But googlebooks provides text from the book Medieval Mythography: From Roman North Africa to the School of Chartres, A.D. 433-1177 which covers Medieval examples up to the 12th century. Some of the explanations given in the text about the mythography of the period: "Our modern idea of literary criticism has its roots in medieval mythography as a hermeneutic employed by the Church in an attempt to educate its priests and monks in the universal language [Latin] so that they might assimilate the knowledge of the greatest works of classical antiquity ... Written by grammarians, scholars, and philosophers, medieval mythography developed as a means of elucidation and translation, specifically the translation from the Greek and Roman to vernacular cultures." The scholarly author defines "mythology" as a unified system of myth and "mythography" as the interpretation of myth, the search for undermeanings and allegorical interpetations. "By rationalizing pagan gods through various historical, moral, physical, and allegorical means, medieval scholars also disseminated what came to be a theory of medieval fable and fabulizing." Dimadick ( talk) 18:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • So that would be an argument also to keep, and create as an additional parent to the Greek mythology studies cat, above? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and heed Marcocapelle's sensible suggestions for migration of subcats. Mythography is different than mythology and creating the redirect seems a mistake. There are books on the subject, such as Mythography: The Study of Myths and Rituals and Victorian mythography was a significant endeavor at the time. [4]. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Yes it's become pretty clear to me that I should promptly withdraw this, I think. And do now see the 2013 redirect may well have been a mistake, esp. insofar as it was a redirect with no mention at the target of what mythography clearly is. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • REname to Category:Mythology studies to match the probable outcome of a similar Greek category. Some of the content may need moving into that or other categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is; these are not synonyms. It's like confusing zoology with animals. Do migrate/diffuse miscategorized material as needed, just like we always would. Do not introduced long-winded neologism "mythology studies"; use plain, long-established, English-language terms of art found in reliable sources and corresponding with our articles. We don't move linguistics to "language studies" or palinology to "pollen studies" or osteopathy to "bone disease studies". PS: The typical referent of mythography (and mythographical, mythographer) in any context we're likely to write about is the critical presentation and analysis of myth as an academic pursuit. The other meaning (and derived mythographic), referring to integration of mythic themes in the arts, is older but less prevalent. It applies to a lot of the work of the Symbolists for example. But if you meet someone who says they're a mythographer or that their work is mythography, they're almost certainly doing multidisciplinary research on myths, not singing about Odin in filk songs at neo-pagan festivals or adding nymphs and dragons to paintings they sell at crafts fairs. This slow usurpation of meaning has come about because the logical word for the study of myth, mythology, has been in turn applied to the myths themselves, when collected. The -graphy in mythography is being reinterpreted as "charting, mapping out, providing an overview of [myths]" instead of "depicting [myths]", just as the -logy in mythology shifted from "study of and writing about [myths]" to "writing down or orally bringing together the disparate [myths] into a cohesive system [of belief]". Even the use of mythographic in reference to art of the modern eras implies some mythographical (in the academic sense) understanding on the part of the artist, not religious fervour; there's a difference between mythographic and devotional works (as a class; they can of course blend, as in DaVinci's Sistine Chapel ceiling, and the work of a lot of the Northern New Mexico santeros.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:03, 30 June 2016 (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.

Category:Years in the Durrani Empire

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 Category:1747 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:History of the Durrani Empire‎
merge Category:1748 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1740s in the Durrani Empire‎
merge Category:1752 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1750s in the Durrani Empire‎
merge Category:1757 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1750s in the Durrani Empire‎
merge Category:1758 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1750s in the Durrani Empire‎
merge Category:1762 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1760s in the Durrani Empire‎
rename Category:1834 in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1834 in Afghanistan
and consequently merge Category:1830s in the Durrani Empire‎ to Category:1830s in Afghanistan
merge Category:Years of the 19th century in the Durrani Empire to Category:Years of the 19th century in Afghanistan
and consequently delete Category:19th century in the Durrani Empire as empty
and consequently merge Category:Centuries in the Durrani Empire to Category:18th century in Afghanistan
delete Category:Years of the 18th century in the Durrani Empire
delete Category:Years in the Durrani Empire.
Explanation: There was a consensus to merge the year categories somewhere, although there is not a clear consensus beyond that point; so here is what I will do, and anyone is free to improve upon it afterwards. (i) There is no consensus on whether to merge to the decade categories or to bypass and therefore empty them, so I will merge 1748 to 1762 to the decade categories. (ii) There is no clear consensus to create a "Years in South Asia" hierarchy, so I suggest that that should not be created without holding an RfC first. (iii) On inspection, there is no need for a dual merge target for the years, for the following reasons. The 1747 category only contains 1747 establishments which were upmerged per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_11#Durrani_Empire and are already in Category:1747 establishments in Asia, and contains no events that belong in a year/decade category, so the contents only need merging to History of the Durrani Empire. The battles of 1748 to 1862 are already in "17xx in Asia" or "17xx in India". (iv) As for Category:1834 in the Durrani Empire, that is simply incorrect as the Durrani Empire ended in 1826, so I will rename that one to Category:1834 in Afghanistan. (v) I will then delete the empty Category:Years of the 18th century in the Durrani Empire, Category:Years of the 19th century in the Durrani Empire and Category:Years in the Durrani Empire. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming/expanding and upmerging:
  • Propose renaming/expanding:
  • Propose renaming and upmerging:
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Partially this is a followup to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 11#Durrani Empire. The Durrani Empire is a predecessor of modern-day Afghanistan, but in its early decades also encompassed large territories in today's north-western India. Though there remains quite some room for expansion, we're far away from getting enough content to populate per-year subcategories of a Category:Years in the Durrani Empire scheme. While Asia is too unspecific in scope, a Category:Years in South Asia scheme might be an acceptable solution to accommodate the per-year WP:SMALLCATs of this and many other empires in southern central Asia and the Indian subcontinent – probably a better one than merging these and all other nominated categories up to Category:Years in Asia. This nomination should probably be followed by Category:Years in Afghanistan, at least up to and including the 19th century. -- PanchoS ( talk) 15:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I say delete the Years of categories and keep the individual pages upmerged directly into the Years category. It's true that there's not a lot here but I think we should keep all the various empires of kingdoms in prior history together. We have the same structure for many old European kingdoms, some of which lasted for a few years, and it seems counter to that to instead amass of all these into a homogenous "South Asia" category structure. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 17:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I forgot about the decades cats. Ok, support Marcocapelle's suggestion moving all to the history of the Durrani empire cat, but oppose a further upmerge to the general empire cat. I'd rather have a separate history category that can go under the history categories for the current nations than just have the empire itself go there. I wasn't clear that I'd still like the one-article categories by year but that seems a minority here. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support generally since the proposal aims at a reduction of 1-article categories. More suggestions, on the one hand I wouldn't mind upmerging everything further up to Category:History of the Durrani Empire or Category:Durrani Empire, on the other hand I wouldn't upmerge directly to the Years category as Ricky81682 suggests, because we can still upmerge to continent level, this level already exists, e.g. Category:1747 in Asia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support in principle (getting rid of one-article categories) but oppose the creation of "by region" categories. If we do this, then suddenly we'll have Category:623 in Southwestern Europe and some other such nonsense. I really don't think we want (or need) to set the precedent of "by year and region" categories between the existing "by year and continent" and "by year and country" ones. Upmerge to the existing "year in Asia" categories instead. They're not going to become too large from this. ~ Rob Talk 22:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The Central America structure is very awkward. I don't think we need a similar one for South Asia and Asia overall may be too broad. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No, I'm fine keeping the actual categories. I support upmerging to cull out the decades and years in subcategories. Category:Years in Central America exists as a subgroup of the North American category but I don't see that need. I'd prefer continents then each empire/country with even minor ones there rather than ignoring the actual structures in place of a generalized "South Asia" or "Asia". There is value in being able to browse the history of this empire horizontally even if it's a limited category. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Durrani Empire was a prolonged large political structure in Central-Southern Asia, thus not applying to WP:SMALLCAT, since it could be expanded. GreyShark ( dibra) 18:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • While it can obviously be expanded, it's virtually impossible that there will ever be year categories that each have a substantial number of articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge etc per nom. Durrani Empire lasted 1747-1826, about 75 years. We do not need centuries; I am not convinced that we need any splits of Category:Durrani Empire, even its history category. I would however support the parallel merger to years (or perhaps decades) in South Asia, but several of these are redlinks; we will need a further nom to merge in Indian year categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Are we ready to delete all by year articles for all countries that have been formed since 1941? 75 years, especially when we consider how much territory the Durrani Empire covered is enough. What we need is better editing of articles on south Asia, and more articles on important politicians and military leaders in the 1790s and fewer promotional articles on insignificant 19-year-old business owners and investors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support. By year is usually too specific when we get this far back. By decade should suffice. Saying "we need more articles" is a good aspiration, but it doesn't really address the current category situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2016 (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.

Template:Salem-geo-stub

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. In closing, I have renamed the template only. I have not changed the template on the article pages. Once those changes have been made, it may be appropriate to delete the redirect from {{ Salem-geo-stub}}. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming {{ Salem-geo-stub}} to {{ SalemIN-geo-stub}}
Rationale': To me, "Salem" without disambiguation refers to Salem, Massachusetts, the location of the Salem witch trials; I'd imagine that to many others, Salem, Oregon may also be likely as the capital of that state. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Support, for the reasons given. Grutness... wha? 00:36, 27 June 2016 (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.

Category:Sports festivals

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. I hate to do this after a previous no consensus, but this is really the only way this discussion can be closed. There's significant disagreement what the categories should be called and a vocal group that wants these categories deleted or merged (with disagreement where to merge these). Add all that up, and it's impossible to do anything to these categories at this time. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
Variant A
Variant B
Nominator's rationale: This is a renomination of the previous CfD which failed with no consensus. We all agreed that most of these sports festivals, games, and rallies are of a dual nature, being leisure festivals and competitions at the same time, in varying degrees. In the meantime, I figured, what they all have in common, no matter how they are named, is that they are "sport meetings", a not at all unusual term that precisely reflects this double nature. In fact, quite some sports events are actually named or referred to as "meetings", probably because of their double nature. Finally, sporting has always played a significant role in culture, at least since the Ancient Olympic Games, but probably for longer.
We won't ever be able to cleanly split these events into those which predominantly are festivals vs. those which predominantly are competitions, and actually we shouldn't. Rather we would keep everything, from Category:Kite festivals to Category:Motorcycle rallies in the same, renamed parent category, add the whole Category:Multi-sport events, and pick up a few more from Category:Sports events. Not all Category:Sports competitions are meetings though – Category:Sports leagues aren't, nor are Category:Sports club competitions, Category:National sports competitions or the by city/country/continent/sport categories (at least not generally); so there shouldn't be a problem with WP:OVERLAPCAT.
Under the new name, Category:Sports meetings may remain under both Category:Festivals by type and Category:Sports events, as well as Category:Meetings. -- PanchoS ( talk) 13:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, as there are still no satisfactory criteria to get round WP:OCAT#ARBITRARY, nor to distinguish these from sports events or sports competitions. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I went a few miles to explain how Sport meetings are not an arbitrary collection of Sport events or Sport competitions, but probably still not enough. To be even more precise:
  • Category:Sports events (or possibly better: sporting events) include one-off sport matches that may be part of a competition, as well as challenges that don't necessarily involve other people than the individual attempting the challenge, and events that neither involve doing or celebrating sports, but are about sports.
  • Category:Sports competitions includes competitions that are spread over a season, and events that don't involve public participation in physical presence, and therefore may not have any cultural aspect of a festival.
-- PanchoS ( talk) 13:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per suggestion - I've been defending Category:Sports festivals like a maniac for a few months now, but I can't argue this doesn't seem more sensible. The proposed definition is not "arbitrary," either, any more than any other type of category based on type, so I'm still baffled by Fayenatic london's poorly clarified stance. I've read the OCAT guidelines dozens of times, and it obviously doesn't apply here. Earflaps ( talk) 15:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I really wonder whether this very subtle terminology is clear enough to create durable categories whose meaning is clear without paragraphs of explanation. Most categorisation is done through WP:HOTCAT, which provides no sight of any explanation on the category page ... so the label needs to be clear and unambiguous. To me, the primary meaning of "sports meetings" is a bunch of suits around a table with an agenda and a minute-taker. When you point it out, I can see how the meaning proposed here has some validity, but it's not the primary Plain English meaning.
    Using ambiguous terminology like this causes confusion, miscategorisation and instability. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I wonder if Category:Sports gatherings might work instead and be more intuitive? The title could signify either a formal or informal event, like motorcycle rallies or dragonboat racing, while excluding the competitions that don't have a group component. I guess you could argue that all competitions have some "gathering" element, though, even if just the judges get together, but I don't think tiny meetings is really the colloquial meaning of "gatherings," at least in my perception. Earflaps ( talk) 02:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Category:Sports gatherings indeed sounds like a great proposal, better than both "sports festivals" or "sports meetings." It perfectly conveys the social aspect of all of these events, while not precluding the competitive aspect either. We currently don't have an article on "Gathering" beyond the DAB page Gather, but it may be considered encyclopedic, and "Sports gathering" "Sports+gathering"&tbm=bks is not altogether uncommon. I added the proposal as Variant B, which I support.
Please, everybody note that this is already the second nomination, and failure of reaching a consensus will leave us locked-in. I have no objection against a renomination at a later point, say in a few months, if the result is still not convincing. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree gatherings does seem to work, though here's a question - would Category:Sports meetings/gatherings be a parent or child of Category:Sports events? It seems all "events" by their very definition are a gathering of people... though I suppose "competitions" are already included as children of events, even though they may not even have a "gathering" component in any way (i.e. be online for example) - so with teh current state of things, "sports events" encapsulates basically all "sports things that happen" that are aren't, say, publications, and so Gatherings would work only as a subcat, but not a parent. Sorry, thinking out loud I guess. Earflaps ( talk) 05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Earflaps: It's not just publications – clubs, teams, leagues, and other sports organizations aren't events, neither are sport discipline categories, in fact most subcategories of Category:Sports aren't events. More tricky is the difference between events and gatherings. IMO, sports seasons would be events, but not gatherings, same with sports competitions‎ as a whole. Category:Sports gatherings would hold the exact same place in the tree as Category:Sports festivals currently does, though it would gain some subcategories. I'm not saying this is a certain success, but currently it seems worth a try. More input would be nice though. -- PanchoS ( talk) 10:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support "gatherings". A sports "meeting" is what me and my teammates do before we play our match. Would also support merge to "competitions", if there's no consistent distinction. We need to avoid specialized-style fallacy traps of using nit-picky insider jargon that splits hairs that cannot be perceived by our typical readers.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
As a side note, I would agree that most sports "gatherings" seems to be competitions in some ways, but distinct exceptions may include kite festivals, hot air balloon festivals (I guess that's a sport, who am I to judge), various folk and dance festivals with sports elements, motorcycle rallies, or auto rallies as Peterkingiron points out. Earflaps ( talk) 03:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Those that have competition aspects can be categorized under competitions and dual-categorized under their main topic. Those that have no competitive aspect (there are few) can be categorized under their main topic. We don't need a category for an undefinable gaggle of non-competitive things that some people stick the word "festival" on. I was involved in something called a "festival" the other year that ended up with a grand total of 35 attendees, and which had lots of marketing. Even if had had 35,000 attendees it might well have defied categorization, having been a mixture of a benefit concert (3 musical acts toward the end of the affair), a mini-conference, a zoo tour, and a few other things. It would have been best categorized under the topic it was about, had it actually been notable, and not cross-categorized with anything, other than maybe benefit concerts.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer "Sports events" or possibly "meetings". Note that "Auto shows" is not about sport at all: they are sales exhibitions, not auto rallies (which might appear here). Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I could live with that, with "competitions" subcatted under "events". "Meetings" is too ambiguous. "Festivals" is, too, and is marketing language. "Meets" and "shows" are ambiguous – some of these are competitions, some are not.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose rename, festivals is the common name here, not meetings or gatherings, see the content of the category. We should be reluctant to define new concepts that hardly exist in the real world just for the sake of categorization. I'm neutral on a possible upmerge to Category:Sports events on the basis of WP:SHAREDNAME though. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Up till now I've been supporting this idea because it might wedge in nicely with the festival tree, which the "sports events" tree very much does not. That said, I now think having a "sports gatherings" tree might be too similar to the "sports events" tree, and that might severely confuse other editors - largely because I assume almost every sports event in the entire tree would need to be re-categorized into this new sports gathering tree. As much as I hate to say it, the current state of things where individual festival types categorized under "events" might be the way to go, without a second, basically identical "gatherings" tree. I still think "sports festivals" works as an accurate and easily understood parent category for the events that are explicitly understood to be festivals (a much tinier and manageable group of items than "gatherings"). Events like motorcycle rallies are more vague, and I know throw a wrench in an easy definition - they aren't called festivals in their cultural vernacular, but fit the commonly understood meaning of the word to a T. Earflaps ( talk) 10:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge all to sport events – No need to replace one vague set of categories by another vague set of categories. gidonb ( talk) 16:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The ESPYs and Goodwood Festival of Speed are sports events, but not competitions. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 20:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Gatherings per SMcCandlish's comments JarrahTree 01:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge all, manually to Category:Sports events. Per this discussion and a chat on the creator's talk page, I don't see any evidence that "sports festivals" amounts to a clearly defined type of event. The creator has been adding a std explanation to the categories (e.g. here), but where an explanation sets out to clarify a lack of precision in the title, then we have a problem. The explanation also acknowledges that there is significant overlap with other categories, which is rarely a good idea (see WP:OVERLAPCAT). Chnaging the title to "meetings" or "gatherings" doesn't really solve either problem.
    Note that I suggest a manual merge rather than bot-driven, because many of the pages in these categories are better categorised in other ways. For example Category:Dance festivals has been included under Sports festivals, but dancing is not a sport. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • While I disagree that the definition is vague enough to warrant deletion, if consensus veers this way, I would also request a joint upmerge of category contents to Category:Cultural festivals/ by country/ by continent. As a side note, I also know quite a few professional dancers that would take your "dance isn't a sport" stance as fightin' words ;) Earflaps ( talk) 18:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Category:Sporting events by country. Tim! ( talk) 12:10, 13 August 2016 (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.

Category:Gender equality in Rwanda

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: convert. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category has no appropriate member pages, but at least some basic sourced content to start with. -- PanchoS ( talk) 11:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Articlise -- This is an article in category space. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Articalize although I think it needs more sources to survive. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Articalize -- It's a beginning of an article that should not be wasted. Fine proposal, PanchoS! gidonb ( talk) 16:21, 2 July 2016 (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.

Wikipedia indexes, glossaries, outlines, timelines, and bibliographies

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: split. There's consensus to enact the proposal, but there are some concerns that it should be done manually to make sure "Wikipedia foo" is distinct from "foo". If a category becomes empty from this process, just slap a G6 tag on it referencing this discussion. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: The current names of the first five categories, which are all for specialized types of stand-alone list article, are problematic for several reasons:
  1. All of Index, Glossary, Outline, Timeline, Bibliography, and Book are all legitimate encyclopedia topics, and average readers and editors will expect the corresponding category names to be for these topics, not for internal WP list-type classifications.
  2. Consequently, real-world things keep getting classified in them, e.g. the regular non-WP:TIMELINES articles Logarithmic timeline and Orders of magnitude (time) are to be found in Category:Timelines, and notable off-WP glossaries keep ending up in Category:Glossaries, just as articles on historical bibliographies are being mixed in with Wikipedia bibliographic lists.
  3. They're inconsistent with each other.
  4. The "of topics" verbiage is redundant; all of these things are "of topics", and all our categories are, unless otherwise noted (e.g. by a {{ template category}} header).
The sixth category, for glossaries in the off-WP sense, is misnamed, because it includes notable works that were not published but are manuscript materials.

Other possibilities exist for a naming pattern ("Foo articles", "Foo list articles", "Foo lists", etc.), but the "Wikipedia Foos" pattern is consistent with Wikipedia books, and is our most common approach to WP-specific categories ( Category:Wikipedia templates, Category:Wikipedia policies, etc., etc.)

PS: For subcategories, names like Category:Indexes of science articles and Category:Glossaries of science are formulaic and stilted enough to remain as-is. If we need a category for off-WP indices or glossaries in (e.g.) science, other names like "Category:Scientific indexes" or "Category:Science glossaries" would come more naturally to mind for such encyclopedic subjects in their own right. That has caused a very small amount of incorrect subcategorization, but it's manageable, and will improve with better diffusion and better tagging of categories with scope descriptions.
 —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Some of the current contents, appear to be for casual readers not Wikipedia editors. I'm looking at Category:Future timelines and Glossary of Japanese history. I'm conceptually in favor but I think there may be a manual split needed. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the contents? RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Right. THey're {{em|all|| for readers, though editors make use of them too. These are all mainspace pages. I thought I'd been clear that the central problem here is that we have five sets of "programmatic" types of list articles, each of which should be in a category for that type, with consistent names, but that because the current categories' names overlap with broader, off-WP concepts, various other things are being commingled with them confusingly at present. The point is to separate the WP list-type categories out, at consistent names, then leave the "bare" names like Category:Glossaries, Category:Timelines, etc., for things that are glossaries, timelines, etc. (Cormac's Glossary, The Timetables of History, and so on), but not WP list articles of these types.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support all but I agree that the Timelines split should be manually done. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Not for all There may be articles for bibliographies that are not created for wikipedia. The same may be true of timelines.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 00:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I "discovered" and added Category:Bibliographies to the nomination, as exactly the same kind of category with the same extant problems of confusing things in the real word called bibliographies, that are independent notable topics, with Wikipedia lists of a particular style that w're internally labeling bibliographies. It would be like if we can up with .  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the exact changes proposed here - e.g. Pinakes (a bibliographic work composed by Callimachus) is correctly categorized in Category:Bibliographies and does not belong in a "Wikipedia..." category, Logarithmic timeline is correctly categorized in Category:Timelines and does not belong (even temporarily) in a "Wikipedia..." category... Instead, I suggest that for bibliographies and timelines (and possibly the others) that the "Wikipedia..." categories be created and the appropriate recategorization be done manually. DexDor (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
DexDor, maybe there's a misunderstanding here, and SMcCandlish can clear it up. As I understand this proposal, and the changes to the nom as consensus is being reached, and I'm inclined to support it, a bit of work will be needed to separate the Wikipedia pages from the still existing categories but it would be easily achievable. The categories "Bibliographies", "Timelines", etc., at least those which would be logical categories for many non-Wikipedia items, will still exist, and will contain the pertinent links, but new "Wikipedia" named categories will be created (which will, of course, then become an item in the non-Wikipedia named categories). If this is the case, and if I'm reading it correctly on a quick read and no amount of intensive study, your concerns are not taking into account that the already existing categories aren't going anywhere. Randy Kryn 2:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
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.

Category:Politicians from Hamburg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Not renamed. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 06:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: According to other categories in Category:German politicians by state Wwikix ( talk) 08:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Oculi: Did you even read our discussion, or WP:TLDR? Both the concrete case and the general case are quite a bit tricky. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ PanchoS: I agree with Oculi that it's not at all complicated. The "foo Politicians" categories are ambiguously named, and should be renamed to "Political office-holders in Foo". The politicians who are from foo by notable association should be in a parent "Politicians from foo". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ BrownHairedGirl: If that doesn't amount to being "a bit tricky", then I don't know. While your proposal IMO does makes sense, this isn't the current nomination's proposal. Also, why would Category:Baden-Württemberg politicians stay, while Category:Berlin politicians are renamed. We'd clearly need a group nomination of at least all German state categories, IMO also the U.S. and Indian state categories. Also, there are relevant state politicians who aren't political office holders or aren't primarily notable in their function of being political office holders. With all its merits, I expect this to be a tedious discussion. -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ PanchoS: I know it's not this nom's proposal, which is why I oppose this one <smile>
    So I suggest closing this discussion (either let it run its course, or earlier if the nominator Wwikix chooses to withdraw it) ... and then start a fresh discussion. Better still, just create and populate the "Political office-holders in Foo" sub-categories, and see what's left over, before any further renamings are considered. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ BrownHairedGirl: Agree that creating the subcategories would be the best way to move this forward. Let's do it. -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- The target was presumably redirected to the subject with reason. One of the people whom I checked was a Federal minister, then a British academic and finally a member of the British House of Lords. That fits the present name well. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose at this level we almost always do people + from + place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose – People categories should should consistently follow the defining people category above, here Category:People from Hamburg. gidonb ( talk) 16:16, 2 July 2016 (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.

WikiProject banner templates

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: Merged. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 07:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Same thing. Both of the redundant categories are subcats of Category:WikiProject templates, and there is no apparent distinction between them (even if there were in intent, the names are too similar to maintain it). The longer name is more accurately descriptive.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:28, 22 June 2016 (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.

Category:Military units and formations by year of disestablishment

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Decade more accurately reflects the composition of this category than year. Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I am not saying that each year subcat be changed to decades, just this container cat, as it includes decades ergo Category:Military units and formations disestablished in the 1990s, rather than year, ergo Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1945, subcats.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 17:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Oops, I misunderstood! I Support the nomination as proposed now that Bellerophon5685 explained it in simpler terms for me! RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support, but be more radical but I would prefer to see all the 18th century categories merged into one for that century; likewise 19th century. Decades will do OK for 20th, due to the expansions and contractions of army at end of WWI and WWII and later mergers of regiments, as the army has shrunk further. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I think we can keep the decades for the earlier centuries, as they could be expanded in the future. If, in a few years, they are still now well populated, then we could change them. But keep for now.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 16:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the 1865 category has over 600 articles in it. Upmerging anywhere makes no sense at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:33, 29 June 2016 (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.

Category:Wikipedia bot owners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: While bots are probably the closest thing to ownership we ever get on the project, that's still a term we usually don't apply to them. "Bot operator" (or the shortened "botop") is the more common term. Ownership is not always accurate, as well. My bot runs on AWB, which is developed by other editors, so I certainly don't "own" it. ~ Rob Talk 02:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I imagine that it means that you own the bot account, that you are the one who has access to its password and controls whether it makes edits and what kind of edits it makes. I don't find anything objectionable with that as it is, but if the chips fall this way then I don't object to renaming it for consistency. → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 02:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I am ok with the move. Please plan to change the template, {{ User bot owner}}. That is how this category is being populated. — Ganeshk ( talk) 02:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Also, this one too, {{ User wikipedia/Botop}}. — Ganeshk ( talk) 02:18, 23 June 2016 (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.

Category:Military organizations by year of establishment

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 here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "Military units and formations already covers this. The cat as is only covers a handful of groups founded during World War II Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:27, 22 June 2016 (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.

Category:Chairmen of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority

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: Renamed. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 07:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Gender neutral. RioHondo ( talk) 01:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support Contains Imelda Marcos and we're translating the title anyway. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Question -- CAn anyone provide a translation of the local (Talagog?) title. The article says that Imelda was governor of an earlier authority. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per gender neutrality and the use-English principle (we need not split fine literal-translation hairs, if the Tagalog term is usually translated "chairman", "chairperson" or "chair" in English).  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:24, 30 June 2016 (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.

Category:1905 Russian Revolution

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Not renamed. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 07:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Revolution of 1905. Charles Essie ( talk) 00:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment That actually might confuse readers who may not be familiar with the Russian revolution of 1905. It may be best to keep the more descriptive title.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
There were "revolutions" in Persia and Argentina that same year. "Revolts" or "rebellions" in the Philippines, German East Africa, China.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • All right, maybe the best solution would to move the main page to something less ambiguous and move this category to whatever that is. Does anyone have any name suggestions? Charles Essie ( talk) 00:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'd suggest Russian revolution of 1905-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 17:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Charles Essie: article names get discussed at WP:RM, not here. This place is for category names. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:C2D. Category names should blindly follow article names and poorly worded main articles should be handled in an RM discussion not at CFD. (I would favor renaming the article.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment blind following is a horrible plan. The issues and needs of categories and articles are different. Plus the article Rename process has been hijacked by a cabal that is dedicated to short names at any cost. It took multiple nominations to get Big moved away from being just an article on a film. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. Despite what some other editors think, categories are not special. If a name is selected for an article, it makes sense to use it for the corresponding category. Having article and category names that are different causes more confusion than having a category name that is not 100% unambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Sometimes categories need a more specific name than articles; and this is a case in point. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The proposed title is too ambiguous for a category name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support to match article name, but "Russian Revolution of 1905" would be better for both category and article. The proposed category title isn't actually ambiguous under our category naming conventions; if there were multiple revolutions that year, the category for them would be Category:Revolutions in 1905 or Category:1905 revolutions (plural), assuming "revolution" wasn't considered PoV as an agglomerating title (cf. the very long dispute about what distinguishes a revolution, a rebellion, an uprising, a coup, a civil war, etc., which has long pre-dated WP's existence).  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
See Revolutionary_wave#20th_century, Revolutions of 1905–11. Lenin saw this as a wave starting with Russia going east and including Turkey, Persia and China. Don't know why he didn't include Mexico or Argentina.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
All compelling reasons to the think the article name is ambiguous and should have an Requested Move. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:14, 2 July 2016 (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.

Category:LDPR (political party) politicians

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: speedily rename to Category:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia politicians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted and it's contents relocated to Category:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia politicians. C2D per Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and Category:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Charles Essie ( talk) 00:06, 22 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_22&oldid=1143853009"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE