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

The result of the discussion was: rename as a more suitable option. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Low-emissions vehicles to Category:Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article. I'm not going to voice an opinion on the caps, but what I'm proposing matches the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the "main article" and the category should not be related, since it is not the main article, if the name of the category is accurate, rather, it is a subcategory of the category's contents. Just delete the "main article" from the category description. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since you did not offer an option, lets see what we have. Low emission vehicle which is an unreferenced stub that does state this is used in the general sense making the category contents subjective and hence changing my position to delete. Or for countries where the is codified, we could set this up by country making that a parent category. But that would leave us with the thorny issue of how to deal with Foo Motors Foorunner which has different variations to meet the law of each country. Not a prospect to jump at. I'll also note that the only example provided in the article just happens to be for a Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle as defined by the US. So which option do we take? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I go for the latter option set out by Vegaswikian. Calling something "low-emissions" is subjective, unless we have a measurable standard, and since we do, the category should be named after the standard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Silicon Valley green technology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not convinced that we help navigation by classifying green involvement by regions within a state. Maybe in a few decades this could be useful but I don't see it today. With one exception all of the articles have other better parents and the only exception is for one article that would fall out of the Silicon Valley tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another pointless intersection category by banned user Mac. We have a category for companies in the valley; the "green technology" does not exist within that area only. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorization to promote creator's POV. Beagel (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete both. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alternative propulsion to Category:Alternative fuel vehicles

Category:Alternative propulsion engines to Category:Alternative fuel engines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the actual main article for this collective. I suspect that more cleaning in this area is needed, but this rename should help clarify what belongs in this category. Cleanup will be required if this rename happens including the introduction to the category. Added the engines category since that would be an obvious rename if this goes through. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Category:Alternative propulsion engines - these are not alternative fuel engines, they use alternate methods of power creation, which some of them, use the same fuels. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where is the definition of what those are? The current parent categories support the proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not 2-stroke or 4-stroke internal combustion engines. The rename is bad because stirling engines can run on the exact same fuel as what is purported to be a regular engine. So the name selected by you would not be right. I an trending towards wanting to delete this category, since it is an indiscriminate grab bag of non-ICE engines. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not object to deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted to 12 August log. Courcelles 04:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Drag queens to Category:Drag performers

Propose merging or renaming Category:American female impersonators

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "drag queen" carries with it a connotation, which I of course view in no way negative, that the person so described is gay. There are performers in this category (e.g. T. C. Jones, Julian Eltinge, Charles Pierce) who during their lives would have (and in some cases did) object to being labeled a "drag queen". Some performers (e.g. Milton Berle, Barry Humphries) who are very well-known for performing in drag are not included, probably because of the homosexual connotation. Renaming to "performers" neutralizes the POV, is a better descriptor and allows for the appropriate inclusion of some currently absent articles. As for the American subcategory, I'm not persuaded that with a parent category of under 200 that splitting out by nationality is necessary at this time so my first preference is to merge back to the parent. If sub-division is desired then rename to Category:American drag performers per my proposed rename of the parent. Otto4711 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate proposal - I wonder if Category:Drag artists would be better than performers. The two terms are used interchangeably in the Drag queen article with artist being a redirect. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both categories per nom. The US subcat should be kept, not merely in order to group those articles together but, as always, to make it possible for readers to see which articles are NOT about Americans. Cgingold (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 12 of the 22 articles in the subcat are also in the main cat so the subcat is not being used for this purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not surprised to hear that, given the radically different category names. And I'm sure there are quite a few in the main cat that should be moved into the subcat. Cgingold (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. 'Drag queen' gets 20 times the hits of 'Drag performer'. Drag queen is in common use and well known. The issue with connotation is addressed in the first paragraph of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:41, July 18, 2010

• So rather than having a name that doesn't carry a connotation we should keep the current name and expect everyone who sees the category at the bottom of an article to navigate to the main article to find the (uncited) sentence that supposedly clears it all up. Otto4711 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes for all of those who do not jump to incorrect conclusions about what a drag queen is. Do we actually know how many readers don't know the correct usage here? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be helpful to frame this discussion a little differently: It's not a question of which term has more ghits, but rather which term yields a more useful category. The real point, I think, is that "drag performers" is a slightly broader and more inclusive term than "drag queens", and is therefore preferable. Cgingold (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Would a rename have any effect on Category:Drag kings? Gobonobo ^{T C} 00:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename of category unless consensus determines that Drag queen should also be renamed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no absolute requirement that the names of the category and its main article be identical. Cgingold (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as is. Connotation is what differentiates the subjects of this category from mere performers. East of Borschov 20:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're suggesting what, that only gay men who wear dresses should be included? I don't understand your comment at all. Otto4711 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename this and Category:Drag kings to Category:Drag performers. "Drag queen" does sound like an antiquated and unlikable term to me, anyway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Straight-chain alcohols ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unless someone has a reason to keep this, delete as OC small and adding an extra level of navigation. I'll note that both the article (which does not belong here directly since it is included in the categroy) and the subcategory are already listed in the parent. So this category is effectively not being used to aid navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. We have got to exercise some common sense in how much we subdivide the Ethanol and Alcohol categories, and that was not banned user Mac/Nopetro's strong suit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't seem so unreasonable a category, but is not being used beyond ethanol? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being used in over 30 month says something about support for this category from Mac. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. We could populate the category, but it would be trivial (all the hydroxyl straight alkanes; who cares). Categories should have some usefulness. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shawn in Montreal and SmokeyJoe. Beagel (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Extraterrestrial photovoltaics to Category:Solar power

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I was hoping that ET was now going to start providing us with power. This oddly named category has two articles. One is for solar panels on space craft and then other is for collecting solar energy in space for use on earth. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I support this nomination per WP:SMALLCAT and MISCAT:NOPETRO. As we have so often said before, if enough articles appear to merit a category it could be recreated, perhaps a different name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Electric sports car manufacturers to Category:Electric vehicle manufacturers and Category:Sports car manufacturers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Not convinced that we need this triple intersection. Upmerge to both parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. All the other subcats of Category:Electric vehicle manufacturers are categories of manufacturers by electric vehicle technology rather than car type. Most of the builders in the nominated category produce or are developing non-sports cars so there is no aid to navigation by maintaining this category. Keep in mind that this upmerge does not effect Category:Electric sports cars, which remains a useful way to find the models (and was not created by Mac/Nopetro). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Hanover (region). — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hanover Region ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Hanover region ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 07:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Merge where? After looking at this, the main article appears to be Hanover (region). Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting note. Neither categories were tagged, done now. — ξ^xplicit 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Hanover (region) to match main article as a default. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women's Basketball Hall of Fame to Category:Women's Basketball Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: aside from the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame article, linked are all inductees Mayumashu (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sydenham, London ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categories for London-related articles use the 32 London boroughs as they are the lowest level territorial division. Below that level, further categorisation is by feature. MRSC (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – all its articles and its subcat are already well-categorised. Occuli (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Former production electric vehicles to one parent category based on the type of vehicle

Nominator's rationale: Merge to multiple electric vehicles based on what each one is. Even with Category:Automobiles we don't break these out by former. We do break them out there into Category:Automobiles by decade so that could be another option at the time of the merge in which case they would need to be added to two categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Another example of overcategorizing every facet of alternative energy vehicles by banned user Mac/Nopetro. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Rural society. Courcelles (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rural to Category:?

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is listed as rural area, but that does not seem to really deal with the contents. So maybe delete or repurpose to Category:rural agriculture? I offer that since it's first parent was Category:Agriculture. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I see no reason to change it. Perhaps the listed main article is not quite the right one, but never mind. I have not looked too hardbut some of the "see also" rural items in rural area do not seem to be in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And some of them shouldn't be. Nopetro did a lot of damage to articles overpopulating See also sections with irrelevant or non-existent links. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh that explains why I fell like deleting the See also sections completely in some articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I trimmed it slightly, but put many of the remaining entries into (IMHO) suitable sub-cats of "Rural". - Fayenatic (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a tough one. It seems to just be categorizing things that are prefaced by the adjective "rural". All of these do have to do with rural areas, but calling a category Category:Rural areas would seem inappropriate, since we don't want to categorize places as being rural. And I don't think all of them relate to Category:Rural agriculture, necessarily. I think the best solution may just be to delete the category and link all the rural categories using Template:CatRel instead. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Living in a rural area myself, I do think it is entirely valid to have such categories under one umbrella. So Rename, but not to Category:Rural areas. Perhaps Category:Rural issues, or something to that effect. Cgingold (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Rural society & add to category:Society -- that would be my preferred suggestion. An alternative is Category:Rural social issues within Category:Social issues, which is similar to Cgingold's suggestion. Category:Rural studies is another possibility. (I can't find an urban counterpart higher than Category:Urban geography.) - Fayenatic (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• These are very interesting suggestions, Fayenatic. I want to give this all some serious thought. Cgingold (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On further thought, it doesn't fit well within "Social issues". - Fayenatic (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I support Category:Rural society as an alternative to deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be fine with Category:Rural society if that's what other editors like best. Cgingold (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also go along with that, though I am not sure it is the perfect solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Disk images. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Optical disc image to Category:Optical disc images

Nominator's rationale: Rename, maybe. This is one of those that it is not clear what the name should be, or if it should be changed. So bringing it here for discussion. The main article is disk image. This category includes formats and software and methods. So it is a mix of what we might use to choose between the singular and plural names. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• weak oppose could be confused as a file category that categorizes files. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Disk images as optical disc image redirects to disk image. Tassedethe (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Tassedethe. Beagel (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Children educational video games to Category:Children's educational video games

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The creator of this category forgot to put an astrophe to recognize that the game is geared towards children. Therefore, I am requesting a rename of this category to better comply with standard English grammar. GVnayR (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Courcelles (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This renaming of the several UConn Huskies categories to Connecticut Huskies was originally proposed as a speedy rename by User:Jweiss11; this proposal was withdrawn over objections. Since then, consensus has formed via an RfC at Category talk:UConn Huskies that the categories should be renamed. I request that the closing administator make sure to move Category talk:UConn Huskies to Category talk:Connecticut Huskies, to preserve the record of the RfC. –Grondemar 16:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Preference for keep. I'm cool with following consensus if it's been established in the article space, but I think the teams are far more frequently referred to as the UConn Huskies in my watching of the national media.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for move. And yes, please preserve the RfC discussion! Jweiss11 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no real preference one way or the other. While Mike may be right about "UConn" being more widely used in the national media, I've noticed (especially in the context of the women's basketball program) that "Connecticut" is now generally used on first mention in the body of news articles, although "UConn" is often used on later mentions and in headlines. Right now, call me a neutral. — Dale Arnett (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to note that, while whether to use "Connecticut" or "UConn" in the titles of articles and categories is certainly debatable, it is definitely preferable to have the categories and articles using the same convention. The RfC extensively discussed the issue and reached the consensus that "Connecticut" was preferable; hence this CfD to rename the categories instead of a series of article moves. I would strongly encourage anyone !voting here to also read the discussion at the RfC (not that I'm saying that anyone who has already !voted hasn't read the RfC, just that it would be a really good idea to do so in order to understand the context of this request). –Grondemar 04:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge as nominated. Courcelles (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Christian pop compilation albums to Category:Pop compilation albums and Category:Christian music compilation albums

Propose merging Category:Live Christian pop albums to Category:Live pop albums and Category:Live Christian music albums

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Category:Christian pop albums was previously deleted here as Christian pop redirects to Contemporary Christian music. These subcategories should be upmerged as undefined, and also as they are a triple-intersection of characteristics which result in very small categories. Tassedethe (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "X Contemporary Christian music albums" as these categories are part of a larger categorization scheme, as allowed for by WP:SMALLCAT. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nominated. Pop rap redirects to hip hop music, which resulted in the merging of Category:Pop rap albums. I see no reason to treat these categories any differently. The main article appears to be Christian music. Perhaps the whole tree requires a rename using Contemporary Christian music, but I say save those for another nomination. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 25. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Life Fellows of the Institute of Physics UK ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can no mention of at the IoP pages of 'Life Fellow'. They do have honorary fellows and 2 of the people in the category are on that list. The third (Derek Abbott) is not mentioned on the IoP web pages. Even assuming that life fellow = honorary fellow this category should be deleted as a non-defining award, per WP:OC#Award recipients. Tassedethe (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of Software Companies in Mumbai to Category:Software companies based in Mumbai

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is not a list, or a category containing lists. Rename and recategorise under Category:Software companies of India. Could upmerge to that category but there seem to be enough articles to justify a separate category. Tassedethe (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. This list contains company name who has development centers in Mumbai, technically they are not based(means all) few of them based in Bangalore, Delhi ncr etc. but has development center in Mumbai, so what I suggest rename it to Software companies in Mumbai, so it will not misguide to readers. KuwarOnline ^Talk 15:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its standard to only categorise companies by where they are based; if they were also categorised by where they operate then that would lead to very large numbers of categories for large companies. As most(?) of these companies are not based in Mumbai then I suggest that they are all upmerged to Category:Software companies of India. Creation and population of Category:Software companies based in Mumbai, Category:Software companies based in Bangalore etc. can be done later. Tassedethe (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • hmmm you can only find not more than 5-10 companies in that list which are not based in Mumbai.... rest all based in Mumbai. So say around 40-45 article linked to it, I would say it certainly deserve to have this category, Off course we can rename to Category:Software companies based in Mumbai. Just rename it and leave rest part to tag all related article to me :) KuwarOnline ^Talk 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Software companies based in Mumbai per standard of companies' categories. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 25#Category:List of characters in films directed by Quentin Tarantino. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:List of characters in films directed by Quentin Tarantino to Category:Lists of film characters

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Overcategorization and unlikely to grow. Tassedethe (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vehicle batteries ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After 18 months has all of 1 article. No reason for this splinter category by our favorite category creator. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too specific. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not going anywhere fast. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-printed electronics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a common name for articles more accurately included in Category:Thin film deposition. These are steps in the semiconductor manufacturing process. Both articles already have proper categories. Since these materials are etched by masking which could be considered as being printed, this category is totally confusing. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I expected the category to contain the venerable Point-to-point construction, but it's not there, so let it burn. East of Borschov 17:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Energy from oceans and water to Category:Water power. Its subcategory—Category:Hydropower should probably include everything derived from the kinetic energy of moving water, while a second subcategory of it should group everything derived from the non-kinetic energy of water. Category:Ocean energy needs a further discussion. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ocean energy to Category:Marine power

Category:Energy from oceans and water to Category:Marine power

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This would be a closer match with the name of the main article, marine energy, albeit the article uses ocean energy in the introduction. The problem is that the power is really water generated including from rivers (tides) and lakes in addition to the ocean. So using the less specific names should be preferred. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nomination seems sensible. Ocean energy is confusing (made me think of the heat content). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about this: Marine power makes me think of the power of the US Marine Corps... Cgingold (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yea, I did consider that. The other option I considered was to merge into Category:Hydropower but I think that has a more specific meaning. If there is a better name, I'm open. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also note that Category:Marine propulsion has been around for a while without any apparent issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer Category:Water power, after reading discussion below. Important point about rivers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• upmerge to Category:Hydropower. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I just added Category:Energy from oceans and water since any difference between it and the first category nominated is likely to be so small that it would confuse most readers and unnecessarily splinter the category tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To be absolutely clear about what you're proposing VW, this would in fact be a merge of the two categories, along with a change of name. Also, since you've brought Category:Energy from oceans and water into the discussion, I want to point folks to the previous CFD for that category, which is essential reading. Cgingold (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, merging two into one with the additional category and using a brand new name for the target. This new name could actually address some of the concerns with the previous nomination. Thanks for bring that up since I had forgotten about it. I do believe that the comments there make it quite clear that there is a need for reorganization/renaming in this area. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry. As Marine (ocean) makes clear, the term is too closely linked to oceans rather than inland rivers, which provide virtually all the power in question. I see you briefly raised Category:Water power as a top-level category in the previous CfD but it was quickly set aside in favour of a debate on Water energy, which I agree is no good. So what about Category:Water power? It's a commonly used term and clearly the common denominator between hydro and the nascent ocean power technology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice. This is the second nomination of this category. I think that arguments said during the first discussion are still relevant. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_26#Category:Energy_from_Ocean_and_Water. Beagel (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on that previous discussion I would upmerge this all into Category:Hydropower since that seems to be the parent article for the whole thing. Mangoe (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And I agree with that. Despite all the back and forth at the last CfD, the main article Hydropower unambiguously states that it does include such things as tidal power, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Hydropower per the comments and the growing consensus for this as the fix. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please Note: I just want to remind everybody that Hydropower, by definition, includes only those forms of power derived from the kinetic energy of moving water. As I pointed out in the previous CfD, this does not include such things as temperature and salinity gradients, so they could not be included in this merge proposal. I just want to be sure that everybody is clear about that, because it seems to me that those forms of ocean power will be set adrift (so to speak). Cgingold (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it may be a case of keeping of establishing Category:Hydropower as the top-level for all kinetic water power articles. Category:Ocean energy could be retained as a way to group articles for ocean power, either kinetic or otherwise. Problem is, Deep water source cooling makes it clear that the source can be salt or fresh water, and the current categorization under Ocean energy would seem to be wrong. Are there enough articles to create separate cats for temperature or salinity power, and if not, can we justify them anyway as being a necessary part of a larger category tree? It seems to me that power systems that work on circulating colder water from deep below have as much to do with land-based geothermal as they do with true hydropower. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom -- Hydropower tends to be about extracting power from water descending rivers. Marine refers to all kinds of sea; and not all seas are part of an ocean (e.g. Mediterranean). However, I have no objection to Hydropower as a parent to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one: I don't think we'll get consensus... we shall see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If not, do we have an emerging consensus for how to deal with this? I suspect that there is a consensus for doing something, the issue is what. Maybe one of the newer closing admins can see a direction for a new nomination if closing this as no consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Energy from oceans and water to category:Water power. In this case category:Water power will have two subcategory which covers all possible types of water-related energy. If there will be any better idea in the future, we always have a opportunity to reconsider the naming. No objection if Category:Ocean energy will be renamed to Category:Marine power per nom. Beagel (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Hybrid electric SUVs to Category:Hybrid SUVs

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Up merge the single entry to one of the parents. With only one entry after two years, I think it shows a lack of support for these overly detailed categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Too specific. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. Overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Toddlers to Category:Childhood

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Up merge to Category:Childhood for a category that meets OC small. If nothing else, the category name is misleading since one would assume that it contained articles on toddlers. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just removed one article and added another to this category. At this point I am undecided as to keeping or merging -- I intend to take a thorough look through the considerable contents of Category:Childhood to ascertain whether there are other articles that should be in this category. If kept, we might want to consider renaming, but I'm not sure that's necessary. Btw, how very strange that this category was created by our old friend Mac/Nopetro... What, no Category:Toddler energy?? Cgingold (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. A level of distinction that's best left to article space, not categories. Really this deals with Category:Toddlerhood, not toddlers, but I don't think such a name would be a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Deletion is proposed, but if someone wants to sort through this, it may be possible to split into categories for the various uses of production which is a dab page. This covers devices for mixing cement to organizations and movie sets. The parents also need to be considered for some action, probably renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A category whose main article is a long disambiguation page is obviously problematic. Mangoe (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proprietary formats ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Better maintained as a list within the main article. The list does a better job if explaining when something is proprietary. For many of these, they become open over time. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all as nominated except the first, that will be renamed as suggested by Mayumashu. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Redone to match all other categories of Category:College sportspeople in the United States. There's various other bits of cleanup and renaming in here too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all as nominated, except for the first one listed. I don t think the naming needs to be any more explicit than what is proposed here even if 'college' may be ambiguous or unclear for those not familiar with American sports - ideally a hatnote should to be put on each page clarifying what is meant by 'college', as well as 'football'. Agree too that we don t need a separate NCAA subcategory set as, for one, NCAA Div. 3 is no more prestiguous than NAIA. Category:Intercollegiate athletes in the United States by team, should alternatively be named Category:College athletes in the United States by team because listed are not colleges but their teams - for instance, the 'St. John's Red Storm' is not a college but a (college) team. I understand that going with 'team' and not 'college' will mean having to rename a few supracategories (Category:College sports teams in the United States by college etc. Mayumashu (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with Category:College athletes in the United States by team for the first one. I added that to the options.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Good work with these—this is a change that has been needed for a long time for consistency. I'm fine with either option for the first one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 18 July 2010 (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.