Nominator's rationale:Rename. Contrary to the claim of the category description page, there appears to be no official IUCN definition of "recent extinctions"; [1] uses the term for extinctions in the last 20 or 100 years and "Recent" may also refer to the entire Holocene. The category should be renamed to an unambiguous name. 1500 is a good cut-off year because the IUCN Red List does not list species that went extinct before 1500, and it coincides approximately with the beginning of the European exploration of the world, which caused many extinctions. Ucucha19:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Another small category with a single entry. While this category does have the potential to be populated, the article provides ample navigation showing how the various pieces fit together. If kept, rename to Category:Great Appalachian Valley. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per nom The nominated category, which is also a sub-cat of Hike's soon-to-be deleted Category:Divided regions between Canada and the United States is, as stated in Great Appalachian Valley, a "gigantic trough [that] stretches about 700 miles." Judging by the category's sole entry, it would seem that Hike intends it to contain every body of water or landform within that vast area. I'm not crazy about the idea but we do have Category:Categories named after valleys for these very things and I don't see anyway to delete this based on precedent. I'd be happy to be dissuaded on this point because I fear it's going to lead to a myriad of Foo of the Great Appalachian Valley subcats, and plus I think it's more of Hike's screw you I'm getting my way approach to things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Usually I think a one-article cat should be populated or deleted. In this case, I'm more concerned it will be populated. I would not find land forms, towns, counties etc. to be better linked or aided by being added in this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament
Rename or Purge: This looks like a long-standing cat that is grouping both individuals and a number of sub-groups logically. As the nominator points out, North African Christians are incorrectly included as "Arabs" though. I would suggest either moving out the inappropriate articles and sub-cats or renaming the cat Category:Middle Eastern Christians. (But, if the cat is deleted, the items should be upmerged to Category:Asian Christians or Category:African Christians if they're not already there.)
Keep but if necessary purge -- The groups named are denominations, though these are quasi-ethnic due to the long-standing practice of endogamy within them. Arabic is the language of a large region, which we also call the Middle East. Whatever their denomination, these people are ethnically Arab, so that I see no reason why this should not exist. There are Christian converts in both Morocco and Algeria (though perhaps not in large numbers) and substantial Christian minorities in most countries of the Middle East; Saudi Arabia being the most notable exception. This nom looks to me like an attempt to deny non-Muslim Arabs their nationality, so that being Arab is equated with being Muslim: that is a gross distortion of the truth. Yes, Christians in Saudi Arabia are all (or mostly) expatriate, but that is not the case in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt or Jordan. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you here. Most Arab countries with substantial ethno-religious minorities (Iraq, Syria, Egypt) tried vigorously to assimilate others by promoting the Arab Pan-ethnicity and many Christians accepted this. However since the rise of political Islam being Arab is becoming synonymous of being Muslim. Most Christians in Iraq (some 90%) belong to eastern Syriac Churches and many Syriac Orthodoxes in Syria were never assimilated, they still retain Syriac as their main language. On the other hand even though Maronites and Copts use only Arabic, many of them identify themselves as Lebanese (Phoenician or Syriac) and Egyptian respectively, (see Christian Arabs). I suggest either making (Category:Arab Christians) a sub category within (Category:Iraqi Christians), (Category:Syrian Christians) etc... or removing it since it's too vague. Rafytalk20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hike continues with Preserved automobiles. Sole content to date is a single concept car article, which is better characterized under Category:Concept automobiles. What is the criterion for being included in this category? It must be that a car is being "preserved," i.e. in a museum, or a collection, and someone is dutifully polishing it. I'd say that's non-defining. Plus, vintage vehicles are already well-categorized in Category:Vintage vehicles. To "preserve" a ship, a plane, a locomotive seemed to me to be such a curatorial undertaking that I was willing to try to keep it. But it seems to me that cars are so routinely preserved in public and private collections, and that this not going to be a defining characteristic of a particular model. It would be best if Hike desisted from further category creation of preserved vehicles until the CfD of Category:Preserved machines has wrapped, but seems like that's not how he rolls. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Populate or Delete: I'm conceptually OK with the category. Sure, the car in my driveway would fit the category but it's not notable enough for an article. And therein lies the problem. There are number of preserved automobiles referenced in Category:Automobile museums but specific cars rarely justify an article. Unless this can be populated, it should go. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take: the hypothetical car in question is notable for some reason other than it's in storage, right? If a car is part of some defining collection, perhaps we could have a category, as we do with Category:Paintings by collection. But -- to stay with paintings for a moment as an example of well-crafted and valuable objects -- we don't have Category:Restored paintings for the many works of art that have had restoration or "preservation" work. We do have Category:Lost paintings for those works which have been lost to the sands of time, so maybe we could have a "former" for notable individual cars which no longer exist -- though I can't think of one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. Maybe if I saw this cat populated, I would hate what was in it as not being notable by this grouping. That happened to me once with the railroad cats where I thought it was logical but unpopulated, someone populated it, and I realized I was very wrong. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of ice hockey players by national team in a specific year. Players should be categorized by national team but are not categorized by specific years or specific tournaments. Compare with the deleted 1972 Team Canada players. Good Ol’factory(talk)10:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename? I understand your rationale here, but my feeling was that the general tag of Team Canada - typically tagged in the hockey player's infobox - was too general. Some years, the team is composed of only amateurs, more recently it is all professionals. In the Canada Cup days, the Olympic squads were all amateurs, and the Cup squads were the ones made up of pros. (Also not to be confused with the Junior squads.) I wasn't trying to put undue weight on the 1981 squad; I just happened to be editing a player from 1981 at the time. My feeling was that each squad should have a category - the makeup and purpose of each squad being unique, so is the social impact and therefore the relevance. (By that standard, the 1972 squad would have the greatest impact...) Echoedmyron (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- Is this not a performance by performer category? If retained, it (and any cognate categories) should be renamed to something like "Canadian national ice hockey team members 1981", but better delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reverse merge "Computer file systems" has been around since 2004. "File systems" is much newer and should be removed as the newer almost unpopulated version. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose definitely not. Backup is not a computer storage term. It could be police backup (assistance), military backup, even records backup of the dead tree variety, like microfiche backup records. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I was in an air-traffic control tower were they all had a 2nd monitor above their heads with identical information in case their main monitor went out. So computer backup systems that are not related to storage do exist but none are in the current cat. Are there non-storage articles out there that you want to move into this cat? If not, I would favor keeping the name. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I'm looking for something that sounds natural. (The current title is very precise, but doesn't sound natural at all.) So here are some other possibilities:
Category:Computer backup — I mentioned it above. Less natural in a computing context, but fairly clear in an ambiguous context.
Backup and recovery wouldn't be computer specific, to 184.144.163.241's earlier point. I'm not opposed to the other two suggestions, although I don't see an advantage over the current cat name. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Data" is not a computer term either, data backup could mean a backup data feed if the primary feed goes down, such as spaceprobes have with two transmitters. And "computer backup" can mean extra processing capacity, a reserve computing center for instance. "computer data backup" would more or less mean what the current category name means, and be almost as long... 184.144.163.241 (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Copying this over from a Cfd-speedy nomination. It didn't meet the speedy criteria, but it does seem like a good idea. Mike Selinker (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and refine Before the growth in numbers of these types of articles it was not easy to define very accurate/concise category names because there were not enough articles to identify a unique group of articles. I would strongly propose a single category of Category:Sailing rigs and rigging which is totally unambiguous and makes it easy for the non-expert to find ALL the articles on this subject matter. Boatman (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
