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: We have Category:Telugu actors which is apparently intended for actors of the Telugu ethno-linguistic group and we have Category:Telugu film actors for people acting in Telugu cinema. It is possible to be in the latter without being in the former but the cat names seem to be causing confusion, with numerous articles mixing up one with the other (and often also showing overcats). Renaming this should make the differentiation more apparent. The same probably applies to Tamil and the other ethno-linguistic groups of India that have a cinema industry. Bit of a nightmare, really. Sitush (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, all of the above categories have equivalent "actress" counterparts. They, too, would require renaming - unless, of course, we are now treating actor as a gender-neutral word, in which case they'll need merging. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom (and the actress categories - speedy on close?). I could support ethno-linguistic categories, but purely regional ones cannot be approipriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2013 (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:No consensus! I don't know what everyone wants. By rights I should have renamed this to match every other category in this area. But clearly there was no consensus to do that. So what does everyone want? Renaming every other category to this name? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. First, this was proposed as a speedy, to match the other categories in 1950s, 60s and 70s. That was opposed so that we could discuss moving all those to Upper Volta, but the resulting CFD June 4 was closed as "no consensus". So let's make this match its successors after all. – FayenaticLondon17:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- We use "United Kingdom" and "France" not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "Republic of France". "Upper Volta" is a convenient short name for the country, even if it was not the offficial one. No need to disambiguate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2013 (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: As mentioned in this CfD, the current "Y X" format is easily misinterpreted as being "parasites that are X", not the intended "parasites of Y". Therefore, I'm proposing moving the rest of the tree to the "parasites of X" format that was decided there. Category:Rat parasites is nominated for merging instead per WP:SMALLCAT and the fact that rat/rodent will have a significant overlap. - The BushrangerOne ping only09:51, 5 August 2013 (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: No source. As other users have commented on the talk page, students are divided into allocation bands in the placement system, not schools. [1]tOMG03:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: University of Michigan is still hosting a page Tracking in a student project "A Comparison of Hong Kong and United States Schools" apparently from 2006, which states that there were 3 bands, but the HK background page refers to reforms which were expected to eliminate the banding of schools. There is another website with reviews & feedback scores on the schools that were formerly Band 1, but this seems now to be unofficial. – FayenaticLondon22:46, 11 August 2013 (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:Delete appears to be a "draft category" since it's used to group together a bunch of userspace drafts. However, we do not keep draft categories and it's not even clear that these drafts are about an event (the 2013 Wabba Games) that exists beyond the imagination of Wabba The I (talk·contribs). Pichpich (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2013 (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:Delete absurdly non-scientific classification. It should also be quite clear that every active volcano is somewhere down the list of most active volcanoes so there can never be a distinction between this and Category:Active volcanoes. Pichpich (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I created it; and, while there's no requirement for categories to be "scientific", agree that it's a suboptimal organizing scheme rather than embellishing Volcano#Active (which I've been participating in). So, I'll unspool it myself shortly.--Froglich (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2013 (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:Intel International Science and Engineering Fair
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 Other than the article for the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair itself, the other four articles are for asteroids named in honor of top honorees at one year's fair, a characteristic that is not defining. All that's left that might belong here is the eponymous article, and that's not enough to merit a category. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2013 (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.
