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.
Neutral; it doesn't seem to make much difference either way, and the nominator offers no evidence as to which is the common usage. However, if the category retains the uncapitalised version of the name, then there should be a {{Category redirect}} from the capitalised version ... and if the category title is capitalised, then there should be a {{Category redirect}} from the capitalised version. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current C++ standard is itself inconsistent in this regard. Section 17 reads: "This clause describes the contents of the C++ Standard Library (...) The C++ Standard Library provides an extensible framework (...)". However: The latest draft for the upcoming standard (N3035), known informally as C++0x, consistently uses "standard library", except for a single instance. decltype (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great—let′s move the article instead. I′d do so myself except someone felt the need to “sort” that redirect, thereby obstructing reasonable page-moves. ―AoV²12:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. There are good arguments both for and against renaming, and there should be consistency between the cat and the article, so I'll switch to supporting the rename. decltype (talk) 23:10, 3 April 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 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:Non-fiction. The subcategories mentioned by Occuli will, as a result of this discussion, become eligible for renaming/merging to the hyphenated form under criterion C2.C, and I will list them at the speedy renaming page once the merging is carried out. -- Black Falcon(talk)02:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per the article being at Nonfiction. Either way, through, they're clearly redundant, so I support keeping just one, whatever one consensus supports. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Merge as nominated. The article has been moved back to its hyphenated form. That page is playing a year-long game of table tennis, it appears. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Non-fiction per nominator, but re-create Category:Nonfiction as a {{Category redirect}}. The head article was moved to Nonfiction after only a cursory discussion at Talk:Nonfiction, which was not properly flagged as a WP:RM discussion. American usage tends to prefer omitting hyphens, but per WP:RETAIN we should keep the first version rather than encouraging editors to move articles and categories around based on their preference for one spelling version over another. It's also regrettable that once again this prolific category creator has created a new category without first conducting the fairly easy checks for an existing category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 4 April 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 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.
Keep as "The Essential" - Unnecessary change, unless there's another reason to do this. It's actually unintelligible to move something to a more onerous and more difficult to allocate category. While it does seem a very basic name, unless there's ambiguity in its title, there's no real reason for this move. If there's something else that ought to occupy, or co-occupy this title, then it would make sense, but no such proposition was made in the proposal to rename. --rm 'w avu07:45, 10 April 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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Angola is IN AFRICA. Nearly everyone will be of "Black African descent". I understand the idea and Angola is a multiracial society, but this is a useless category.TM19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that by ethnicity is more meaningful, where sources can be found that give this info.
Delete – might as well have English people of Caucasian descent - absurd. (There are a lot more than 50 articles under 'Angolan people'. There are 66 footballers to start with, + another 53 international footballers, and nearly as many politicians in various subcats.) Occuli (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, there s more than a hundred bios (the footballers and international footballers largely overlap), and probably that s too many, certainly according to the majority viewpoint. I would favour an English people of Anglo-Saxon descent except for the numbers involved there too. What I don t like personally, however, is catting by ethnicity or ethnic descent only where individuals happen to be of a minority group locally. I d like to see each bio have its one or more ethnicity/ethnic descent links, or scrap the whole cat tree all together. Mayumashu (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would that work? My mother is English, my father Scottish. I have 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents etc who will go back to Angles/Norse/French/Picts/Romans/Celts and eventually to Kenya or Adam/Eve depending on imponderables. Recall that categorisation is for 'defining characteristics' - being English in England (or in Scotland for that matter) or black in Africa is not defining. Occuli (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only after checking that every one is already in a sub-cat: I hope that TM has done that. A few weeks ago I came across some one adding a Gaelic cat for for all early Medieval Irish and Highland Scots (when they ought to have been in a range of subcategories. I fear that my nom was not successful, but am not sure. Putting articles into parent categories when they are already in child categories is an abuse of the category system. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so twice but it is hard because Mayumashu keeps populating this category despite overwhelming support for deletion.--TM11:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to "Angolan People" - subcategories should/could be created for erratics ie non-black-african-angolans - if necessary. Subcategorisation by local ethicity (eg 'tribes') is a good idea.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:58, 7 April 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.
Delete & Upmerge - a trend is typified by a grouping, and this is just two, and I'm 99% sure there won't be a third. Having said that, it's not unencyclopedic, but definitely unnecessary. --rm 'w avu07:47, 10 April 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:Washington, D.C., journalists by newspaper
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 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.
Merge – I'm not sure what a 'Texas person' is anyway. It appears to be a person who works for a newspaper based in Texas. Occuli (talk) 17:09, 3 April 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.
Oppose. The current name may offend hardened unionists, but the proposed new name doesn't work for dead people or for living English people who have now left Scotland. "expatriates" fits the current convention, and I can't see any better alternative. (I doubt editors would want to use the term "white settlers", which gets rather a lot of Google hits). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – being born in Foo does not make a person Fooian. John McEnroe is not generally considered German for instance. No-one calls Gordon Brown an 'expatriate'. There are far too many people in Scotland who are arguably English for this to work. (I'm sure we have deleted plenty of 'born in' categories on the grounds that place of birth is immaterial.) Occuli (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think we should have expatriate categories between different parts of UK, where precise nationality is legally defined. Football (and other sports) are an exception, sicne the 4 home countries often compete separately and the governing bodies have rules for determining nationlity. "Footballers born in England and currently playing for Dundee F.C" seems a gross case of overcat, and should also be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 4 April 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.
Rename A political party with a 130+ year old history should expand to beyond 2 articles pretty easily. I will work to expand it but the renaming is a good idea.--TM19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom and other reasons stated above. I added a few more articles that seem to have connections to the party, however unsuccessful it was. Hmains (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename - Just because something was unpopular and unsuccessful, doesn't mean it's not worthy of being here, but it should be given the accurate naming convention. --rm 'w avu07:52, 10 April 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.
Keep the same. B.R. Ambedkar is a proper name of a person with initials. I have requested a move to rename this article as Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, which is the complete name. Furthermore, I have added only a few articles to the category to start, but there are many more that can be added later. I will do that as time allows. Thanks. Shivashree (talk) 04:17, 5 April 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.
Nominator's rationale: Vague criteria, none of the people in this category are really known as "investigative bloggers" more than any other blogger is. Prezbo (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems to me a legitimate subcategory - many/most bloggers are not particularily investigative. I imagine this category would cover those bloggers following conspiracy theories or perhaps having something to do with 'wikileaks' etc. I'm not familiar enough to comment whether or not this category is correctly populated.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:03, 7 April 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.
Nominator's rationale: Small eponymous category serving only to link a musician's primary biographical article and his songs and albums subcategories, with no indication that growth beyond this is possible or likely. Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 3 April 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.
Nominator's rationale: "Dominionist" is generally more of a pejorative term applied by critics than one that people claim for themselves. Right now there are two articles in this, and Chalcedon Foundation is the only one I'm really convinced about. I removed this category from a few articles along the lines of Christian Coalition of America, where the article provided no indication that the organization was "dominionist." Basically the problems with this are similar to those with Category:Neoconservatives. Prezbo (talk) 04:12, 3 April 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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Single entry category that adds an unneeded level of navigation on the first. Extra level of categorization on the others. If kept, the U.S needs to be expanded and the capitalization addressed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 3 April 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 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 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 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.
I can live with either listifying or renaming per nom here. Since the category contains the list, a few of which are redlinks, I'm slightly more in favour of making an article out of it (or appending to the ASC's article, it's short enough), but failing that getting rid of the acronym is a good plan. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:57, 3 April 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 12#Category:Band-centric video games. By the way, I noticed that this category is both a subcategory of and a parent to Category:Musician video games. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Administrator note On hold pending outcome of Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#Requested move. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)