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:Rename I don't claim any sort of expertise here but all the comics by Dana Dutch listed on the main article are in fact short stories. In Wikipedia categories, the "short story" distinction does not exist for comics writers. Pichpich (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2011 (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.
Reconsider EPRs: I will tomorrow rename European Pressurized Reactor to "EPR (nuclear reactor)" as per discussion at Talk:European Pressurized Reactor. EPR (a trademark) is the name Areva has been using since 2005 or earlier, and the old name we currently use is hardly seen in news reports now. Category name could be left alone, or go to "EPR reactors" or "EPR (nuclear reactors)". Rwendland (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2011 (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. We don't categorize people by marital status. That alone is enough to justify deletion of this category, but the category also only includes living people. For living people, we especially do not categorize by marital status because it may and often does change later in the persons' lives. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:50, 20 March 2011 (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.
Sure, a renaming to bring it into line with the parent categories sounds like a good idea, and I'm happy to support it. It's a bit of a mouthful, but this is not the place to revisit the decision to rename the parent category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I was a little hasty to bring it to Cfd, there are multiple issues with the categories and their names that do need to be resolved. One issue, as BrownHairedGirl has addressed, is whether or not competitors in athletics should even be categorized by gender. A second, as Occuli has addressed, are the terminology issues associated with athletics articles (e.g. "sportspeople" vs. "athletes", "athletes" vs. "runners", "athletics" vs. "track and field"). Category:Athletes has been moved to Category:Competitors in athletics, therefore Category:Male athletes and Category:Female athletes should at the very least be renamed as Category:Male competitors in athletics and Category:Female competitors in athletics. A third issue is how gender-specific categorization is tied or not tied to nation-specific categorization. Location (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and populate. I approve of the five actions outlined by Location here. Since men and women effectively do not meet in the same competitions, categorisation by gender for common categories is a good idea. SFB19:51, 23 March 2011 (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:Rename per parent article and to reflect the fact that this category contains not only films but filmmakers. I think a rename is a better solution than creating Category:Drawn-on-film animation as a parent, as we do not have enough articles to properly populate such a split, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, renaming as nominated would mean that the contents could no longer be categorized in Category:Animated films by technique, which is itself an impediment to easy navigation. Given the lack of interest in this nom, I shall WITHDRAW and create Category:Drawn-on-film animation as a parent category, after all. Doing so will aid in integrating both films and more general articles on the technique and its practitioners into "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme," per WP:SMALLCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2011 (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.
Category:21st-century Native American conceptual artists
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: With conceptual art being a relatively new discipline, it seems to me that we have not yet established that we even need a "21st century" subcategory. If not, then clearly this category should be deleted (or upmerged). I believe that as 20th/21st century was judged as non-defining for the relatively new art form of photography, per the link in the Indigenous photographers by century group nom below, this even newer art form does not require or benefit from such a split. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. They are overwhelmingly referred to as "cable cars" in Europe; "aerial tramway" is very much a US-only term. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2011 (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: Standardization. The quasi-consensus at the previous discussion was to use the register name itself as the category name to avoid the problem of some of the registers not being limited to places or sites. Retrying, as the previous discussion was closed as "no consensus". --Muhandes (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I'm not sure that "place" is so problematic. The examples in the original discussion are a demolished bridge (former place) and moved building (changed place). (The American registry is plagued by boats which have an annoying tendency to set sail.) That being said, the proposed names are more straight forward and a 'register' implies that the included articles would be from a list.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I can live with this. Does this proposal extend to sub-categories such as Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne. Names such as Victorian Heritage Register sites in Melbourne, Victorian Heritage Register buildings in Melbourne and Victorian Heritage Register, Melbourne don't seem to be an improvement. Billingd (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the situation is in Victoria but in Queensland not all heritage buildings are on the Queensland register, some are on the Commonwealth register and some listed only on the National Estate list. This means that there is room for "Heritage Buildings in Queensland" which isn't a sub category of "Queensland Heritage Register". If needed, this could have a sub category "Queensland Heritage Register Buildings in Queensland" which is a sub of both "Heritage Buildings in Queensland" and "Heritage Buildings in Queensland". Would the same apply to a specific city like Melbourne? --Muhandes (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I am sorry I raised the side-issue of the sub-categories in this discussion. Can sort them out once agreement is reached for the higher level. Billingd (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2011 (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.
