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. RDF is ambiguous and is a disambiguation page. The main article for this topic is at Resource Description Framework. To cure the ambiguity, I suggest we follow the naming convention which states that article names and category names should usually correspond: see here. This speedy nomination was opposed by the category creator: see copy of speedy nomination and opposition below. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (and most other computing acronym articles listed today) - per WP:COMMONNAME. Use of the acronym form is universal and there is very little use of the long form anywhere. A need to disambiguate means that 3-letter acronyms are unlikely to survive as article names and RDF has rightly been expanded rather than disambiguated. However if we don't need to do this for the category name, then we shouldn't disambiguate unless and until we have to - RDF is still the more common and more recognisable form than Resource Description Format. We also have such sub-categories as Category:RDF data access to consider. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - horribly ambiguous category name. Upon seeing Category:RDF, the first thing I think it contains is articles relating to Radio direction finding. Wherever possible, category names should be spelled out, not acryonymised, and this is a good example as to why, even when it seems it should be "commonly named" or "ambiguous" - if there is any possible ambiguity, and there is a reasonable and clear alternative, that alternative should almost always be used. - The BushrangerOne ping only17:24, 2 March 2012 (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. There's a strong feeling the category should match the main article, and no Requested Move has been initiated for the latter. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Main article is at Common Object Request Broker Architecture; CORBA redirects there. Nomination is based on the guideline which states that article names and category names should usually correspond: see here. I suggest that if the article should be at CORBA, then it should be proposed that the article be moved there. In the meantime, the category and article can match. This speedy nomination was opposed: see copy of speedy nomination and opposition below. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (and most other computing acronym articles listed today) - per WP:COMMONNAME. Use of the acronym form is universal and there is very little use of the long form anywhere. The only reason for the canonical article using the long name, rather than its redicrect at CORBA, is WP's fondness for creating WP:NEOlogisms from a pointless and arbitrary consistency. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would normally support this renaming but I really feel that what we need is a requested move of the article. Who actually uses the term Common Object Request Broker Architecture? True the phrase is used in gazillions of textbooks but typically only in the first sentence of a chapter called CORBA... Pichpich (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While it is the predominate meaning of CORBA, there are alternatives - a Google for CORBA has the Concerned Off Road Bicyclists Association come up as its fourth result, with the Chippewa Off Road Bike Association not too far behind. While the article in question should probably be renamed per WP:COMMONNAME and hatnoted if and when the associations or other useages of CORBA have pages created - CORBA, as it is now, redirects to the porgramming language's article - categories cannot be hatnoted, and, thus, an ambiguity would persist if the category was kept at the abbreviated/acronymized title. - The BushrangerOne ping only17:28, 2 March 2012 (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 - Any instance of "philosophy and religion" in Wikipedia together should be split. I think there are still some from the early days under WP:CONTENTS. Anyway every philosopher could also be considered a "critic of religions or philosophies" so the category itself doesn't work. The proposed move is also consistent with the category's contents.Greg Bard (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to be pedantic in building WP but since categories and hard and fast, black and white we have to sit on one side of the fence or the other. Most of the dictionaries that I checked define Buddhism as a religion so if there is sufficient articles for a Category:Critics of Buddhism (as philosophy), which I doubt there is, then we can create it as a category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would the new category include Critics of atheism or not? Both a yes and a no would have strong arguments. We should keep this category, because it avoids the ambiguous limit issue that the new name would lead us to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2012 (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.
I certainly am open-minded to moving it to "Wikipedia philosophy maintenance" or "Philosophy Wikipedia maintenance." This category helps me identify which articles are in philosophy categories without being in the WikiProject Philosophy and vice-versa.Greg Bard (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
COMPLETE baloney. I see a dozen hidden categories for organizing all kinds of strange things I don't care about on plenty of articles and categories. I don't begrudge them their tools. Please don't begrudge me mine. Greg Bard (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories that exist only to contain a bunch of content categories for someone's AWB convenience? Please do let me know so that I can nominate them here too. Hidden categories for the most part categorize talk pages and not articles and I have never seen something like Category:Philosophy maintenance categories and I think you're underestimating the mess we would get if people kept creating categories for their editing convenience, hidden or not. Pichpich (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't go around questioning other people's tools. It's a hidden category. That means no crying about "clutter."Greg Bard (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually skeptical that you can find anything comparable, i.e. a whole subtree of categories maintained for someone's AWB convenience. There's actually plenty of precedent against categories maintained for basically a single user's benefit and plenty of precedent for categorizing talk pages instead of articles/categories for maintenance. The hidden feature does not resolve the clutter issue at all. Pichpich (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not at all clear what this is used for, but if kept it should be renamed to include the word "Wikipedia". Is this an important category to the WikiProject or is it solely for the convenience of one editor? If the latter, there's less of a case to be made for it existing. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this category has a purpose than Im not sure its worth deleting. I can not see a problem with having it, but can not really understand the need for it. Brad7777 (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2012 (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 nom. Even though the "old boys" is a clearer way of showing these are people categorized by the school they were educated at (although that takes us to the issue "what do we do if a current student is notable enough for an article", and anyway "clearer" does not mean the name is clear) BSG has shown this does not impart knwoledge of which school is involved to any reader outside of those who know the Byzantine complexities of the old fooite/ian/ist system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2012 (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.
Merge per nom & per past CFDs. Note that the target is the older category by 18 months ( [1] & [2] (don't know if non-admins can see the first link), though was renamed last September. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2012 (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.
Delete so the songs will be articles and they'll be in a song category, but music vidoes wil be images as a subcat? I don't get it. Any case, 1 image file, not part of a scheme so delete per WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2012 (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, to a plain English descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) to include the title of the head article on Latymer Upper School, in Hammersmith, London. This will clarify that this category is only for former pupils of Latymer Upper School and its predecessors in Fulham, and will distinguish it from pupils of The Latymer School in Enfield, which appears not to use the "Old Latymerian" term, and also from alumni of the more recent Godolphin and Latymer School in Hammersmith.
When confronted with the "Old Latymerian" catgory name, the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written has no way of knowing which of these schools is the "Old Latymerian" one, and the ambiguity also creates a risk of miscategorisation by editors. The information on the Latymer Upper School's terminology will be better introduced by a hatnote in the category than by appearing without explanation as a category name.
Rename per nom and per precedent in many similar CFDs in 2012. I admit to a conflict of interest as my son is an Old Latymerian, but then I am an old Edwardian and they have all been changed already. --Bduke(Discussion)13:00, 2 March 2012 (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:Discuss whether consensus has changed about this re-created material. This category was deleted in a 2007 CFD and was just recently re-created. On the talk page, the creator recently stated that he created it "because there was no category for Islam at Category:Critics of religions or philosophies and the parent Category:Criticism of Islam was cluttered up with biographical articles." So I think this needs to be re-discussed, and if the category is to exist, we need to positively establish that consensus has changed since the previous discussion was unanimously in favour of deletion. Thanks. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sufficiently specific to distinguish between criticism of islamic faith and criticism of the actions of some muslims. Potentially infalmmatory, and also (imo) likely to have constant POV issues. Springnuts (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both cases that you mention are applicable to the category and it is splitting hairs to make that distinction. As for the POV issue that is no reason for deletion. Half of WP would be deleted if that were the case. I would argue that it makes WP far less POVy by having this category since similar categories exist for other religions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is the converse of apologists. "Critics" of was I think adopted to replace a term which was regarded as derogatory or POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However we need to make sure that the people included are known for criticizing Islam. Just because someone somewhere made a comment against Islam who is notable for other things does not mean they should be included. Also those who are self-identified practicing Muslims who criticize those who use Islam to justify mass murder, or those who are devout Muslims who critize attempts to make "Islamic" government should not be included. We might consider a seperate category Category:Critics of Islamist politics for those who criticize the attempts to use what some claim are teachings of Islam to create a political state. We might also go down the path and create sub-categories like Category:Critics of Wahhabism (sorry if I misspelled that).John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2012 (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. Contains only a template and an article about the first season of this television series. Probably unneeded at this time. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:14, 1 March 2012 (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. In my opinion these are overcategorization of unrelated subjects by shared naming feature. The relevant guideline is here. All the contents of Category:Numbered armies are disambiguation pages. All the categories are recent creations by the same user. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All clicked through a few to give it a chance but I'm not seeing this as a meaningful grouping. Even if we accepted Shared Name categories.. , these name similarities appear to be coincidental rather from a common source. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. bd2412T 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
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:delete. Category:Electricians by nationality and its other sub-cats should likewise be nominated, as I did not find a bio of any person who was notable for being an electrician. I have listified the current members at List of electricians, which strikes me as more useful. If there is a citation for the political significance of the Israel Electric Corporation as a training ground for future politicians, this can be stated in the list. – Fayenatic L(talk)15:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of why this category is notable or useful. Created in 2008, it contains two members, neither of whom (one politician, one assassin) is notable for their activities as an electrician. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this feedback was written, I have better populated the category. Hence the comment no longer seems relevant to the current situation. gidonb (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comment is still relevant. Despite your efforts, still only five category members, a mix of politicians and terrorists, none of whom is notable for being an electrician. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are not at two anymore. Furthermore, the fact that so many are politicians illustrates why this intersection is meaningful in Israel. Electrician is an important profession in that country. The Israel Electric Corporation is a very political organization from where electricians often continue into national or local politics. gidonb (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two members are dead, one is closing in on ninety, a fourth assassinated Rabin seventeen years ago, and maybe one has union membership of some slight relevance to his political career. In other words, I don't agree with this thesis. Mangoe (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, not even one of these electricians murdered Rabin. He was murderer by Yigal Amir. I wrote an article about an accomplice who is now an electrician. The observation about the union activities is also incorrect. But perhaps you can explain the relevance of an electrician-turned-politician being dead or alive and young or old to your conclusion? This was the first point that you listed. gidonb (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Electrician is a well-defined and important profession with extra importance in Israel, among others due to the strength of the Israel Electric Corporation in labor disputes. Category:Electricians is a legitimate and notable category with several electrician by nations subcategories, all very useful in the categorization and navigation of our encyclopedia. gidonb (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this feedback was written, I have better populated the category. Hence the comment no longer seems relevant to the current situation. gidonb (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm still seeing a bunch of people whose career as an electrician is an insignificant detail of their public lives. Moreover, at least a couple should be categorized as electrical engineers. We don't use Category:Walmart people to include anyone who has ever worked there, only people whose involvement with the company is a significant aspect of their lives. Pichpich (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the comparison between electricians and Walmart people a rather weak one? It appears detached from both the profession and the locale. Being an electrician was a significant part of their professional life that advanced their technical skills and - through the union activities in powerful unions - their political skills, power, and experience. Moreover, for the former prisoner it is the only profession he has ever had... gidonb (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being an electrician in Israel is a very different profession to be a Walmart cashier. We should not categorize people by either though if it is not defining notable to that person. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! And we do need the category for categorizing people when being an Israeli electrician is defining notable for a person. gidonb (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of Category:Electricians by nationality. People are categorised by defining characteristics (in addition to characteristics for which they are notable). If 'electrician' is not mentioned in the article then the category can be removed from that article. Oculi (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole Category:Electricians hierarchy The Israeli subcat consists of a bunch of politicians, insurgents, and terrorists; a quick look at a couple of other national subcats doesn't even show that level of commonality (I found a novelist, a spree killer, another politician...). This is plainly a trivial intersection across the board, and the whole hierarchy should be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the labor union is what is notable or defining, that would suggest that a labor union cat rather than a profession one is appropriate. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By Wikipedia standards we could have both, when both are significant for the person. My point however was that it is strange that among all valid electricians by nationality categories, the Israeli one is being suggested for deletion, while that one seems more significant and coherent and is now even better populated than most others. gidonb (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the electricians by nationaly cats with dual upmerge. Most are too small to justify and the others seem to be a random intersection. Just like I question throwing irrelevent ethinic/racial/religious cats, I question throwing the electrician cat on articles were the subject is not known for causing a blackout, inventing a new transformer or running an electrician's union. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other electricians by nationality are probably also underpopulated. For Israel this definitely was the case. We have tags through which one can request to populate the categories. gidonb (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- we have lots of intersections between profession and nationality. AS an artisan profession the population may well be small, but there is no reason not to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about "other stuff exists" or does not exist? This CfD is about Israeli electricians, who often continue into politics. There is no connection between these and florists or Walmart people elsewhere! gidonb (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because people are now dead does not mean we stop categorizing them. If that were the case we should get rid of the category Category:French counts because they are all dead, and have been for some time. The question was "was their being electricians notable when they were alive" and the more I read, the more I come to say yes. Anyway I am tired of the occupational snobbery shown in discussions like this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to chime in on this since it is a trivial intersection. While I favor deletion, I think the question that needs to be addressed at the parent category level and not here. So I'm hoping that this closes with an Upmerge to all parents. This way we address the valid points made for deletion as a trivial intersection and keeps the articles in the proper trees. If this does happen, doing the same for the other sibling categories would make sense. Then if anyone still believes strongly that being an electrician is not notable, then that can be discussed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this discussion has turned into a clear case of snobbery. There is nothing trivial about being an Israeli electrician when this is an important station in one's career. This is the case for all members of the category. gidonb (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the comparisons and statements are pure snobbery. Totally disconnected from the profession and its special significance in the locale. Why would one delete an important profession only at the place where it has on-and-beyond significance and coherence? This nomination and discussion -starting under "miscellany for deletion" without notifying the creator and with one word "trivial"- come across as surrealistic. There are lots of questions to the delete-sayers throughout this discussion about facts that do not add up and hardly any good answers. gidonb (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both keepers and deleters try to weigh the pros of cons. That is not a negative by itself. On the contrary. The deleters just seem a bit shorter on coherence. For example, why is it important if Israeli electricians in the category are dead or alive and young or old? gidonb (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category is not problematic per se or by definition, but as currently constituted, it is not categorizing people who were notable for being Israeli electricians. In each case, the person's notability is derived from some other fact unrelated to the electrician profession. So I don't currently see a need to categorize any articles by this characteristic. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From Wikipedia:Categorization "A central concept used in categorisation is that of the defining characteristics of a subject. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." Its quite clear electrician is not a defining characteristic here. In the whole electrician tree I've found three for whom electrician is a defining characteristic Frank Chapple, Jesse Sullivan, Guðmundur Gunnarsson, and possibly Lech Wałęsa due to the strikes organised as a electrical trade union organiser. So there is a need for Category:Electrician but its so small that is does not need dividing up into countries.--Salix (talk): 13:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For all Israeli subjects being an electrician was a defining characteristic, by itself and by impact on subsequent activities. Exception is the former prisoner for whom it is the only profession he has ever had. A uniquely defining characteristic, but no impact on the subsequent career. I'm guessing -but did not check- that you missed defining characteristics also with others. gidonb (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2012 (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. Should this really be "carriages" museums, with an "s"? I thought it should be "carriage museums", but I see all of the subcategories use "carriages museums", so I wanted to bring it here rather than just nominate it for speedy renaming in case there was a mysterious naming convention being applied here that I am not aware of. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - In proper English it's carriage museum or museum of carriages. The category contains several carriage museums and one museum of carriages and "other stuff". This is also the Wikipedia convention. The category could have been speedied, now it's better to leave it here. gidonb (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2012 (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. This category is for Wikipedia:Teahouse, not for anything about tea houses. I suggest adding "Wikipedia" to clarify per the guidelines here, which state: "Categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories." I think confusion could result here without the addition of "Wikipedia". Good Ol’factory(talk)00:02, 1 March 2012 (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.
