Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 11

< November 10	November 12 >

November 11

Category:Great Basin fauna and flora

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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Basically includes a few fauna and flora categories. No need to lump them into one category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ---Look2See1 t a l k → 18:22, 12 November 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.

Category:US Volcanic fields West of 109°W

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: Relist, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 29. Dana boomer (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:US Volcanic fields West of 109°W to by state categories

Nominator's rationale: Merge to the by state category. By state is the established breakout in the US. There is nothing in the category introduction that would indicate why 109 West is notable for this activity. If kept, rename to Category:Volcanic fields of the United States west of 109°W. Note that in effect this covers all of the US since if you continue west from 109W, you reach it from the east. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 11 November 201--Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)0 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. West of 109°W is all volcanic activity of the last 100 Ma, and Western United States lies West of 109°W too. It is mainly the Basin and Range Province and its Mid-Tertiary ignimbrite flare-up. Between Category:Volcanism of the United States and the by state categories, it'd be wiser to have a Category:Volcanic fields of the Western United States. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Support renaming Category:US Volcanic fields West of 109°W to Category:Volcanic fields of the Western United States, to expedite readers' access to articles at regional scale, via parent Category:Western United States.---Look2See1 t a l k → 17:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the 109 line runs through extreme western Colorado and New Mexico as I understand it. Both of these are in the Western United States so renaming would include more area. Don't know if this is an issue or not. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is 109°W significant as an existing geologic region boundary? User talk:Chris.urs-o chose it when creating the cat. If not based scientifically I support rename to Category:Volcanic fields of the Western United States.---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Western United States is ok, the volcanism on eastern USA is from the Pangaea break up and older. The Davis Mountains are in Texas, the Basin and Range Province includes Texas and Mexico, and I thought that I got whole Colorado with 109°W (my mistake). Normaly State lines and rivers flow through geologic faults and boundaries. So I think the compromise is ok. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:17, 22 November 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.

Category:City Creek Center

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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only logos related to the City Creek Center shopping mall development in Salt Lake City. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the category now only contains the eponymous article. I will take exception though if the category has been emptied out of order. __meco (talk) 08:41, 19 November 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.

Government-owned companies

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: Relist, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 29. Dana boomer (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. i propose renaming these categories for consistency with the other entries of Category:Government-owned companies by country. meco (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At least for New Zealand, "state-owned enterprise" seems to be the official term. Jafeluv (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a common, generic, descriptive term should be applied to all categories even though some countries may have English names that differ from this. In the case which you bring up, the use of the term state will become confusing if applied as you suggest if other countries, such as Brazil and the US which which have "states" as subordinate entities below the federal government, are classified also per that subordinate level. __meco (talk) 08:38, 19 November 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.

Category:Quasi-public entities in the United States

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: Relist, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 29. Dana boomer (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Quasi-public entities in the United States to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I understand the need for a category which covers companies that are partly controlled by the government, however, this name doesn't sit well with me. And as this is a type of category that would be relevant for many countries I think a name that could travel around such a structure needs a little thinking about. meco (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps something to do with Category:Public–private partnership would be appropriate. __meco (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that in the U.S. this is the most commonly used term for these; it's certainly not a WP-created neologism. "Quasi-public entity" and "quasi-public entities" both get thousands of hits on google. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --If Quasi-public is the US term we should Keep it for US entities, even if it is not the term used elsewhere. This should not mean that that we must rename similar categories for other countries that use other terminology. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 14 November 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.

Category:Battery electric vehicle components

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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Some of the contents of this category do not match the title and those that do are best served by an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep and cleanup. A category is a perfectly fine way of organizing this material for navigation, the purpose of categories, regardless of any article that anyone may choose to write. Hmains (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Some months ago, we had an editor who created vast number of categories for "green" energy, transport, etc. Is this another of his SPAM categories? I observe that some one has removed wire from this category (and rightly). Many of the items listed here can be components of a wide range of electrical equipemnt, so why delect out those needed for battery operated vehicles? If kept, irrlevant and mundane items should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. At least half of the articles are for components used in a wide range of applications, and the few survivors could be moved into the parent category. Mangoe (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ This is a tough one for me. Yes, I think it has all the hallmarks of a nonsensical Mac/Nopetro green energy OC violation. Yes, much of the category contents do not belong here, as they are not battery electric vehicle components. And when you take those away, there's not a whole lot left. However, the nominated category seems to be a reasonable sub-cat of Category:Vehicle parts and Category:Battery electric vehicles, and as such, permitted under WP:OC. But as Peter says, needs clean up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed my weak keep -- the deletion supporters make compelling cases. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of Category:Vehicle parts shows that it is highly problematic, with many of the articles tagged for notability issues and others not specifically relevant to vehicles. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not defining and if we add this category for battery pack, we also need to add that to Category:Flashlights. These components are for the most part used in other places and it is not generally defining there either. For the really unique components, they are already spelled out in the various articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 19 November 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.

2010 by US state

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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete both. Possible categories, but the only member in either category (2010 World Series) doesn't belong in either, meaning the categories should be empty. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just depopulate and tag as {{db-c1}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be accused of depopulating a category before requesting deletion; I've removed one or two articles from a category before, but this time there was only one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but ensure first that 2010 World Series is in Category:2010 in American sports (or a subcat). Category:2009 in the United States has no 'by state' scheme; 2009 World Series is in Category:2009 Major League Baseball season but not in any '2009 in the US' category (should be fixed IMO). Occuli (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Category:2010 Major League Baseball season count? I guess not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would count if it were given a parent within Category:2010 in American sports (which doesn't seem to include any baseball). Occuli (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sure this is a viable hierarchy, however, when it is to be created, this should be done in a more emphatic manner which shows some dedication to the task, possibly involving the concerned WikiProjects. I think the input of the creator of these categories could be useful as well. __meco (talk) 18:13, 11 November 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.

Category:R&B and soul musicians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:R&B and soul musicians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Category:Musicians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Category:American rhythm and blues musicians and Category:American soul musicians

Nominator's rationale: 1) R&B (genre), 2) soul (genre), 3) musicians (occupation), 4) Pennsylvania (state), 5) Philadelphia (city). Overcategorization, or, more accurately, complete overkill. There's need to narrow down categories this much. — ξ ^xplicit 05:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as overcategorization. This would have to be done manually to separate the R&B and soul people, no? Hekerui (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I'll take care of that should the nomination succeed. — ξ ^xplicit 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Definite overkill. That said, there might be some utility to a category specifically for Philadelphia soul musicians, but that's a genre which includes some musicians who aren't from Philadelphia and excludes some who are, so it's not identical to this set as defined here. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 14 November 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.

Category:Derivatives

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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Derivatives to Category:Derivatives (finance)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Derivatives is ambiguous. The suggested name is based on the main article in the category, Derivative (finance). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. __meco (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very ambiguous. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:01, 12 November 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.

Nuclear power stations in the United States

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. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 1 to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States

Propose merging Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 2 to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States

Propose merging Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 3 to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States

Propose merging Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 4 to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Parent category is not overly populated. While there are 4 NRC regions, are they of navigational importance for the average reader? Navigation would be better served by keeping all of these in one category. Note that one region covers about 70% of the area of the US. If we need to split the parent later, we can do so by state. Also note that the other subcategories are not split out by region. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. A good idea to remove clasification by NRC region. But generally all US Power Stations should be classified by state which would be a subcategory of “Energy facilities in State X”. At the moment Hydro plants are; plus Coal stations and Wind farms for some states only. For the other states they are also directly listed under "Energy facilities etc. Hugo999 (talk) 10:34, 20 November 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.

Category:Bolling family

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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bolling family to Category:Bolling family of Virginia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistent with categories covering other First Families of Virginia (e.g. Category:Custis family of Virginia, Category:Fitzhugh family of Virginia, and Category:Randolph family of Virginia). Location (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. As the creator of this category, I feel that the proposed renaming does not change the category's scope and is consistent with similar categories for First Families of Virginia, as the nominator states above. Location, thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! --Caponer (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the principle. This will avoid mis-population by others with the surname, but no close relationship. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 14 November 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.

Category:Germany international rugby union players from Zimbabwe

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 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We definitely don't want to be sort international players by country of origin. TM 03:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorization, but there are in all 9 subcategories of that type, they could have been nominated alongside this one. Hekerui (talk) 21:57, 15 November 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.

Category:Motorways and highways of Pakistan

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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Motorways and highways of Pakistan to Category:Motorways in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform to motorway categories in other countries. "Highways" in Pakistan are not limited access-roads and are best categorised at Category:Roads in Pakistan. Mhockey (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support since there are no objections. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 23 November 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.

Category:Electors

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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Electors to Category:Prince-electors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Electors is ambiguous. I think this should be renamed to match Prince-elector. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ambiguousity is bad. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that All of these are Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, & the little tree should be rearranged to put that as the head cat. It is far clearer. The main article should be renamed too imo, but anyway extra clarity is needed in a category name. Although all were "princes" in the international law sense, some were kings, others archbishops and so on, so "prince" is best avoided. Johnbod (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way is fine with me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, that's Rearrange and delete this one - or Merge to Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire. Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge it LPC (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with merge to Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 21 November 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.

Category:George Washington slept here

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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We definitely do not want to start categorizing places by notable people who slept there, or ate there, or peed there, or whatever. It's typically an interesting factoid about a place, but is not generally defining for the places. And you know, many notable people have slept in an awful lot of different places. Can you imagine the category clutter on certain ritzy hotels! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. George Washington is a unique character in American history and where he slept is also a unique cultural reference. Having a list of places where he slept would be valuable. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be true that having a list of places he slept would be valuable, but if so shouldn't this be accomplished via a list article? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such lists exist for very many people throughout the world and throughout history. Most places were a monarch has spent the night will have this prominently chronicled and presented to later guests and their written histories. __meco (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even think a list would have any value. Wikipedia is not a directory for trivia like that. Hekerui (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- but no objection to listifying. The equivalent in England, would be "Queen Elizabeth slept here" which is supposed to apply to many manions of the period. Interesting but NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- listify by all means Johnbod (talk) 10:14, 18 November 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.

Gender-specific basketball teams

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. — ξ ^xplicit 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Central Missouri basketball to Category:Central Missouri Mules and Jennies basketball

Propose renaming Category:University of Georgia basketball to Category:Georgia Bulldogs and Lady Bulldogs basketball

Propose renaming Category:University of Hawaii basketball to Category:Hawaii Rainbow Warriors and Rainbow Wahine basketball

Propose renaming Category:Liberty University basketball to Category:Liberty Flames and Lady Flames basketball

Propose renaming Category:Louisiana Tech basketball to Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs and Lady Techsters basketball

Propose renaming Category:LSU basketball to Category:LSU Tigers and Lady Tigers basketball

Propose renaming Category:UMass Minutemen basketball to Category:UMass Minutemen and Minutewomen basketball

Propose renaming Category:Mississippi State University basketball to Category:Mississippi State Bulldogs and Lady Bulldogs basketball

Propose renaming Category:Oklahoma State University basketball to Category:Oklahoma State Cowboys and Cowgirls basketball

Propose renaming Category:Old Dominion University basketball to Category:Old Dominion Monarchs and Lady Monarchs basketball

Propose renaming Category:Penn State basketball to Category:Penn State Nittany Lions and Lady Lions basketball

Propose renaming Category:University of Tennessee basketball to Category:Tennessee Volunteers and Lady Vols basketball

Propose renaming Category:UNLV basketball to Category:UNLV Runnin' Rebels and Lady Rebels basketball (or Category:UNLV Rebels basketball)

Propose renaming Category:University of Wyoming basketball to Category:Wyoming Cowboys and Cowgirls basketball

Propose renaming Category:University of Wyoming basketball venues to Category:Wyoming Cowboys and Cowgirls basketball venues

Propose renaming Category:Baylor University basketball to Category:Baylor Bears and Lady Bears basketball

Propose renaming Category:Baylor University basketball venues to Category:Baylor Bears and Lady Bears basketball venues

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Matching parent categories like Category:Central Missouri Mules and Jennies and Category:Tennessee Volunteers and Lady Vols. UNLV is an odd case, in that the overall sports program is called the UNLV Rebels (see Category:UNLV Rebels), but only in the two basketball programs is an adjective applied to each team name. So maybe the second choice is appropriate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Added Baylor.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. With no objections by now probably an OK change. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 19 November 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.

Savannah State

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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Savannah State Tigers to Category:Savannah State Tigers and Lady Tigers

Propose renaming Category:Savannah State University basketball to Category:Savannah State Tigers and Lady Tigers basketball

Propose renaming Category:Savannah State Tigers women's basketball to Category:Savannah State Lady Tigers basketball

Propose renaming Category:Savannah State Tigers women's basketball seasons to Category:Savannah State Lady Tigers basketball seasons

Propose renaming Category:Savannah State Tigers men's basketball to Category:Savannah State Tigers basketball

Propose renaming Category:Savannah State Tigers men's basketball seasons to Category:Savannah State Tigers basketball seasons

Propose renaming Category:Savannah State Tigers men's basketball coaches to Category:Savannah State Tigers basketball coaches

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This school does call its female athletes Lady Tigers. Examples here and here.Mike Selinker (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. With no objections by now probably an OK change. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 19 November 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.

Category:Signers of Historical Documents

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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Signers of Historical Documents to Category:Signatories by document

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. Suggest merging to older and correctly capitalized one. I also believe "signatories" is a little more formal and proper than "signers". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. __meco (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom as redundant category. Hekerui (talk) 09:24, 13 November 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.

Category:Student ghettos

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:Student quarters. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is arbitrary and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm a long term resident of one of the areas placed in the category (which is how I came across it at the foot of the page I was reading). I don't consider the area a "student ghetto" and find the association pretty obnoxious. Having categories allowing people to haphazardly claim an area is a "ghetto" just isn't clever. Sharkeven (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous "no consensus" discussion, where there were several proposals for alternate names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Student quarters to match main article; it is neutral name Hmains (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Student quarters. This shouldn't close as no consensus again, regardless of the comments. We can't let an awful name like that stand.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Student quarters. Neither name is quite right for the UK but 'quarters' is a great improvement over 'ghettos'. Occuli (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Student quarters per main article. Cjc13 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Student quarters per the main article. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:12, 16 November 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.

Arkansas Razorbacks

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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arkansas Razorbacks basketball to Category:Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball

Propose renaming Category:Arkansas Razorbacks basketball players to Category:Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball players

Propose renaming Category:Arkansas Razorbacks basketball coaches to Category:Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball coaches

Propose renaming Category:Arkansas Razorbacks basketball seasons to Category:Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball seasons

Propose renaming Category:Arkansas Ladybacks basketball to Category:Arkansas Razorbacks women's basketball

Propose renaming Category:Arkansas Lady Razorbacks basketball players to Category:Arkansas Razorbacks women's basketball players

Propose renaming Category:Arkansas Ladybacks basketball coaches to Category:Arkansas Razorbacks women's basketball coaches

Propose renaming Category:University of Arkansas basketball venues to Category:Arkansas Razorbacks basketball venues

Propose renaming Category:University of Arkansas basketball to Category:Arkansas Razorbacks basketball

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the Furman and Ole Miss nominations from yesterday, Arkansas no longer seems to use the name "Ladybacks" for the women's teams. Examples are here and here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. With no objections by now probably an OK change. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 19 November 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.