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.
Since rowing as a competitive sport appears to be segregated by gender, I have proposed that the female categories be upomerged rather than deleted. I have not proposed doing the same for the male rowers, per the principle of WP:CATGRS that a female category does not necessarily need to be balanced against a male one. Category:Male rowers is currently used only as a single-item container category for Category:Male rowers by century. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Categories are not all tagged yet, but I need to take a break now, so will do it later tonight. Categories now all tagged. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - great improvement. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination was to delete and merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed. The by-century subdivisions don't seem to have much significance and just make for less-populated categories. --RL0919 (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked all the articles in these categories, and every one of them is in at least one other subcat of Category:rowers, so I don't see any need for an upmerger. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rename all per nominator, see two nominations back. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Rename as nom, except "Male rowers": since men and women compete separately, I would have thoguht we ought to have this. The 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Male rowers, and merge 20th-century and 21st-century male rowers there. I don't think a rower being female is such an exceptional occurrance as to warrant making a female rowers category without a corresponding male category. (The guideline gives Category:Female heads of government as an example where such categorization should be used.) Otherwise merge/delete per nom. Jafeluv (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way, what do you people mean by "rename per nom"? Jafeluv (talk) 03:09, 5 March 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.
Support – Occuli (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BHG - great improvement. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rename all per nominator, see below. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support -- the 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" categories which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 25 February 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 per BHG. - great improvement. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete all per nominator per my previous support of deletion of all these century based categories. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support -- the 20th/21st century split is a covert means of having "current" and "former" categories which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 25 February 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, without prejudice to a deletion discussion if it is nominated for deletion due to small number of articles. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose rename of category because article has been moved. Georgia guy (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - great improvement. The atomic element has recently been renamed. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to reflect new title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is also Category:Isotopes of ununbium, but I believe that should be deleted as it mostly contains articles that are redirects. Quite a bit needs cleaning up, now the name change is official (I take it that it is!). --Bduke(Discussion) 01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy the subcategory if empty by the time this discussion is closed per C1. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Should be uncontroversial. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle -- but is there ever going to be enough content to warrant its existence? Since the isotopes category is likely to be deleted as empty, there will be nothing but a main article. There is thus a case for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isotopes of copernicium is already in the traget category. I did not see the point in correcting that. So, there are two articles, and I think that is just enough. --Bduke(Discussion) 20:48, 25 February 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:Delete I realize eponymous categories are one issue that there is disagreement on, but this one, for a retired congressman most notable for some suggestive text messages to pages, seems like overkill and a violation of both WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think there is general agreement that categories like this one serve no purpose and lead to articles such as Florida's 16th congressional district election, 2006 being categorised vaguely, as having 'something to do with Mark Foley' (it has 'something to do' with several other people too). The other one is properly categorised under a 'scandals' category. Occuli (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pcapping 10:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It would be better handled (if at all) by template. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 25 February 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 – much better. Ditto the 2 underneath. Occuli (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - great improvement. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match format used by other corresponding categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename as proposed for consistency. MRSC (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this nomination and the two previous ones as well. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 24 February 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 - great improvement. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match format used by other corresponding categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename as proposed for consistency. MRSC (talk) 07:08, 23 February 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.
Support Rename to match format used by other corresponding categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename as proposed for consistency. MRSC (talk) 07:09, 23 February 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. — ξxplicit 21:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - great improvement. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename — I created the original category based on the name of the school in its article. The article has since been renamed (diff), so these categories should be renamed too. Tom™(2¢) 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per arguments of nominator, consensus, and agreement of creator if this category. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 24 February 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:Forests and woodlands of County Kilkenny[edit]
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 as nominated. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. MrChris strikes again! Snappy (talk) 12:43, 22 February 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.
Upmerge per argument of nominator and editors above. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 24 February 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In this successful nomination, there was support for renaming these categories to eliminate the frequent changes in race names (e.g., the Subway 500 delightfully becoming the TUMS Fast Relief 500). I suggested we rename them by racetrack, as those names don't change very often. The defunct categories would change a bit; instead of dealing with defunct races, we'd sort by whether the track itself was current or defunct. This would take some categories with very little in them and combine them in a logical manner. It's possible these might want to be "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series races at...". The Daytona 500 and NASCAR Sprint All-Star Race might be special enough to retain individual categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Feel free to adjust the nomination if you can tell which ones need the leading article.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK did the ones I think needed it. Review and adjust as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the maybe nots, I would be inclined to leave Category:Daytona 500 as is. This race name is clearly deserving of a category. Now, if it changes to a sponsorship name, then I would be OK to rename to match the others. But as long is it keeps the current name, then Keep. 22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Support per considerable increase in clarity (adding the odd 'the'). I would have no idea what TUMS Fast Relief 500 might be, whereas I have some clue about NASCAR. Occuli (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to more effectively group races by location rather than title. The race names change constantly and it becomes a needless effort to change category titles to match the changed names of the race itself. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per above comments.- choster (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for clarity and ease of use except the Daytona 500 and the All-Star race, although I don't have a strong opinion about the All-Star race like I do for the Daytona 500. The Daytona 500 is special in its own right and it has way more season race articles that any other race. I've done a few of the most notable race articles myself for DYK. The way the races change names every year I can't keep track of which race is which anymore and sources usually talk about the spring and fall race at a particular track or the first and second race. I'll leave a message for my WikiProject NASCAR cohorts about this discussion. Royalbroil 00:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the All-Star Race will have to go to two categories: those of Atlanta and Charlotte. In 1986, it was in Atlanta, and then moved to Charlotte. As far as I can tell, it's the only race that's changed racetracks. But I could be wrong.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any thoughts as to what to do with category:Ford 300? That's a Nationwide Series race at Homestead-Miami, rather than a Sprint Cup Series race. We can either put that into the Homestead-Miami race category and not worry about which series races they are, or change all of these to "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series races at (X)". That's probably the right call. (Though if we don't get consensus on that, my original proposal seems like it has consensus.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:28, 26 February 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.
