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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:2.13.61 Records albums to Category:2.13.61 albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main, 2.13.61. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Confusing, as it may look like albums that were released on 13 February 1961 rather than releases on the 2.13.61 record label. Orderinchaos 08:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename Per nom. There's no confusion here. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Gobonobo ^{T C} 07:25, 18 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Democratic Organization of African Workers' Trade Union to Category:World Confederation of Labour

Propose merging Category:Central Latinoamericana de Trabajadores to Category:World Confederation of Labour

Nominator's rationale: These two categories hold only their respective main article. For now defunct organizations (merged into the African Regional Organisation of the International Trade Union Confederation resp. the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas) this seems too narrow. So I propose to merge these categories of regional organizations to the category of their (also defunct) global mother organization. — PanchoS ( talk) 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:38, 20 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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:ICFTU Inter American Regional Organisation to Category:Trade Union Confederation of the Americas

Nominator's rationale: per the renamed main article Trade Union Confederation of the Americas. See also this first CfD filed before the main article was renamed. — PanchoS ( talk) 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 03:44, 17 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.

The result of the discussion was: RENAME. postdlf ( talk) 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:ICFTU African Regional Organisation to Category:African Regional Organisation of the International Trade Union Confederation

Nominator's rationale: per the renamed main article African Regional Organisation of the International Trade Union Confederation. See also this first CfD filed before the main article was renamed. — PanchoS ( talk) 22:31, 15 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.

The result of the discussion was: DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 16:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Department of Education, Science & Training (Australia) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Arguing that category is obsolete as: 1. Only has one entry, which would otherwise be correctly classified if this one is removed. 2. The department is now called Dept of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. ( [1]) 3. It is the only govt department in Australia to have a category. Orderinchaos 20:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Can we assume that it is deletion that is being proposed? Or is there a merge target? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Correct - deletion is being proposed, as there's only one entry and it doesnt belong in the parent category. Orderinchaos 08:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Since there is no larger scheme at this stage and apparently no other articles to add to the category, I think deletion makes sense here. (But if we were to keep it for some reason I would support renaming it to the current proper name. In case it is kept, I have added to the category what would presumably be the main article, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 17 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.

The result of the discussion was: .... No discussion or rationale = no result. No point in relisting if there's nothing to relist. postdlf ( talk) 16:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Religious action on climate change to Category:Environment and religion

Nominator's rationale: Neutral. Proposed by 99. anon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 15 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.

The result of the discussion was: .... No discussion or rationale = no result. No point in relisting if there's nothing to relist. postdlf ( talk) 16:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Environmentalism and religion‎‎ to Category:Environment and religion

Nominator's rationale: Neutral. Proposed by 99. anon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 15 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.

The result of the discussion was: RENAME. postdlf ( talk) 16:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Following an inconclusive debate at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_1#Category:Australian_education_organisations

Propose renaming Category:Australian education organisations to Category:Educational organisations in Australia

Rename per convention of Category:Educational organizations by country. -- Xdamr ^talk 14:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, and per convention of Category:Educational organizations by country. The previous discussion included several objections, whose grounds were not very clear, but which seemed to amount to the fact that some of the organisations were actually education providers. Fine: that's a situation which also also occurs in other countries, and is dealt with by sub-categorising as appropriate. None of the "oppose" at the previous CFD seemed to me include any coherent reason why this Australian category could not follow the same naming convention as similar categories in other countries, and I think it's regrettable that the closer has reverted a perfectly proper closure of the earlier CFD. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. I agree with BHG that the "oppose" argument in the recent cfd was not very clear (and remains unclear after several reads). Occuli ( talk) 16:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose on the grounds that, for whatever reasons, the category is not limited at present to "educational organisations" (i.e. organisations of education) but includes many, for want of a better description, organisations in education whose primary purpose is not educational, but rather social or cultural. Hence, it would be factually incorrect for some of the contained items, although not for others. One could argue that it should be split up and then the result renamed - yes, that's fine, but where do the other ones go? If someone has an answer to my question that actually works, I would support its renaming without the included additional items. (For the record, I notice some incorrect entries in other countries' as well, although it isn't as systematic as ours - for instance, many include "Student organisations" which, apart from containing members of an educational institution, don't even try to serve an educational purpose beyond, perhaps, advocacy.) Orderinchaos 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  Reply. This really seems to be be a very odd response. If the organisations concerned are not "educational organisations", then what are they doing in "education organisations"? I really cannot see what huge difference is caused by the addition of the adjective "al" (from "education" to "educational") which generates such objections to the rename such a bad idea.

  Please look carefully at the global parent category, Category:Educational organizations. It includes a range of sub-categories such as Category:Educational foundations and Category:Educational charities, as well as Category:Educational institutions, the latter being for those bodies which provide education. The bodies to which Orderinchaos refers may need to be recategorised under a new Category:Educational institutions in Australia (which should include as sub-cats the existing categs for schools, colleges, universities, etc), but that job needs to be done regardless of whether this category is renamed. The fact that some sub-categorisation is needed is not a valid argument against a minor-change to standardise a category name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  Good question, I didn't create or populate the category (and indeed I think, but I'd have to ask SatuSuro, there was even some controversy at the time of its creation, but I've long forgotten the details). I'm a little confused, I must admit, after looking at the populated UK one to the purpose for this category hierarchy - I can't honestly think of any Australian organisations which would fit the bill, beyond about five - Universities Australia, Australasian Language Technology Association, Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, Australian Teachers of Media and IDP Education Pty Ltd. The foundations and charities don't really exist here as we have a universally accessible university system. This lack of them meant that, until this, I had thought institutions and organisations were the same thing. We do need an institutions category. I'm going to make a subpage to try and figure out what the hell to do with this category. Orderinchaos 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've had a go at analysing the contents here. Orderinchaos 17:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Tricky one Now that I understand the basis of the nom a little better, I support its aim, but getting it to actually work is going to be more difficult than a rename, as only a minority of its present scope equates to the new one. I'm coming to the view this category needs to be disbanded, but how exactly is a good question. If anyone can think of a good way to do this, given the mass of competing parallel "by country" categories for educational institutions worldwide, I'm all ears. This may actually flag a likely needed change in those hierarchies, as there's independent overlap everywhere I look. Orderinchaos 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  Would anyone be opposed to transferring Libraries, Archives and Museums subcats so they descend from Category:Australian culture and Category:Education in Australia? This is in line with other countries with similar categories, and would at least shrink our problem. Orderinchaos 21:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  I just started going though your list, and I disagree with most of your assessments; you seem to take a very narrow view of education]]. Please look at how the higher level categories are parented:

  1. Libraries not educational? So why does every university make a library a high priority? Category:Libraries is a subcat of Category:Educational organizations
  2. Category:Museums is also a subcat of Category:Educational organizations, and so is Category:Archives

  But this isn't really the place for that discussion. The decision to be made here is about renaming the category fit a long-standing convention, and assessing every last bit the category's contents is a separate issue. I suggest a discussion on the category's talk page, with pointer to it from WT:AUSTRALIA. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  I work in the education sector, and I'm well aware of the cultural sector thanks to some of my other activities and research interests. To give you some idea - around here, the Department of Education and Training here manages schools and TAFEs, the Department of Culture and the Arts manages libraries, museums and archives. They don't have any interaction with each other. Yes, universities contain their own libraries, but that's an entirely separate issue, most of *these* libraries are not university libraries, they're largely public ones (There are a few uni ones now I look, but the category as a whole is focused on public or state libraries). That seems to be pretty much the same no matter where I look. The interim proposal I put above would bring Australia into line with the European countries. I'm still of the opinion that this category is too over-broad to simply be renamed, and that a decision should be made on its contents first. Orderinchaos 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  As an aside, what was the rationale behind including "Archives" in EO? They have no educational purpose whatsoever, their sole purpose is either cultural or administrative. (Although I disagree with the rationale for libraries and museums, I can at least see how in some construct (or alternate universe maybe?) they may be EOs, but for archives it's just plain wrong.) If I wasn't so busy offline I'd actually consider raising that as a wider issue. Orderinchaos 08:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Rename per BHG. I really don't understand why we would consider not renaming this category—it should be consistent with the others for other countries. Any further work on subdividing, cleaning up the contents, debating what is "education" vs. "educational" etc. can be pursued at any time, and we don't need to resolve all the issues now. At the present time, this category name sticks out like a sore thumb within Category:Educational organizations by country. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:18, 16 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.

The result of the discussion was: RENAME. postdlf ( talk) 16:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Defunct Northern Irish association football clubs to Category:Defunct association football clubs in Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Inline with numerous other categories recently changed from Northern Irish to in Northern Ireland. This one seems to have been missed out Djln-- Djln ( talk) 17:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support Not only in line with previous consensus but in this case reads better too. Orderinchaos 17:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Category is not tagged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Note: this was corrected the same day. postdlf ( talk) 16:39, 23 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Solar system geography to Category:Solar System

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; badly named, and if it were to be separated from the parent category, many articles and categories would need to be moved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete it was necessary before the category was created, so no upmerging is necessary. All entries in this geography category have nothing to do with geography. There are no landforms in this category. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 04:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge Asteroid belt to Category:Solar System. The two other articles are already in Category:Trans-Neptunian region, which is a already a subcategory of Category:Solar System. Debresser ( talk) 12:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete—I agree with the above. The structure and layout of the Solar System is already described in the main article for that topic.— RJH ( talk) 15:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above. A rename to Category:Solar System regions would be possible but it does not seem necessary as there would be too few entries. Cjc13 ( talk) 19:51, 17 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.

The result of the discussion was: DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Camp files ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective category; those films "intentionally" so made might be appropriate, but there could be disputes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support Certainly, what is or isn't camp is a subjective call, and one that would seem to evolve over time, along with current tastes. So I do agree this is a case of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. The handful of film titles currently categorized here aren't listed in Campy#Film but could be, if there is consensus that these titles are as representative of camp film as the examples currently cited; which takes us back to the core problem with this categorization scheme, imo, its subjective nature. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I should also point out that the main article has had an WP:OR tag on it for a year, another indication that we may be wading into the realm of the subjective with this category. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Any attempt to define inclusion criteria for this category will inevitably be either WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE or WP:OC#ARBITRARY, or maybe even both. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete as subjective, especially since Category:National Film Board of Canada films is not a subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 22 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.

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 23#Category:CFA Charterholders. postdlf ( talk) 16:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:CFA Charterholders to Category:Financial analysts

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This appears to refer to Chartered Financial Analyst, but there are no sub-cats of Category:Professional certification in finance for holders of the many other types of professional certification in finance. This appears to me to be a similar issue to WP:OC#Award_recipients; people can and do receive professional or academic throughout their lives, but the defining characteristic of them is their occupation, not what particular qualifications they hold in that area. A useful parallel is Category:Accountants: we do not have a sub-cat for Category:Chartered accountants. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Merge. If a D.Phil or Ph.D. isn't defining, I doubt even a level 3 CFA would be. That's not to trivialize the accomplishment, but most people advanced enough in a profession to have a WP article probably have some sort of certificate in that profession. If anything, what would be interesting is a list of people who lack such credentials in high-profile positions.- choster ( talk) 17:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep, expanding ititials I can't see any reason to delete this, given we have various medical & legal etc "by qualification" categories. Nor would I see any objection to splitting the accountants in this sort of way. Johnbod ( talk) 20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Are you sure about the legal and medics? The only such categs I can see for medical doctors are for the learned societies, such as Category:Fellows of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, which is part of the wider categorisation of learned societies: Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United Kingdom, subcat of Category:Members of learned societies. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • A glance at Category:Professional certification indicates that it is not the norm to classify individual people by professional qualification, although qualification/certification/licensure often overlaps with occupation and we do categorize by occupation. The achievement of a qualification may or may not be defining depending on the era and location, and indeed the criteria for becoming a Professional Engineer vary from state to state within the U.S.- choster ( talk) 22:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Members of the Bar of England and Wales anyone? Johnbod ( talk) 12:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Which should be renamed to match Barristers in England and Wales, a name which reflects a natural overlap between licensure and occupation. If someone has not been admitted to the bar in this jurisdiction, presumably s/he could not be called a barrister.- choster ( talk) 14:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It is a "qualified in" category, capturing people admitted to the E&W bar, many of whom, like Ghandi, then go or return elsewhere. Apparently the CFA operates in the same way, with many foreign students. There is also Category:English barristers. Johnbod ( talk) 14:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Members of the Bar of England and Wales does seem a bit superfluous to me, because there must a very high level of overlap between that and Category:English barristers+ Category:Welsh barristers. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:41, 17 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.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn following a successful requested move discussion. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 05:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:English College, Rome to Category:Venerable English College, Rome

Nominator's rationale: Rename per head article Venerable English College, Rome. Google searches suggests that the formal title (i.e. with the "Veberable" prefix) is the commoname of the college: 348,000 ghits with venerable, but only 49,600 ghits without "venerable".
Suggest re-creating old title as a {{ category redirect}}. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Nomination withdrawn. Main article has now been renamed to English College, Rome per move discussion at Talk:English College, Rome#Suggested_name_change. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment Although this is the formal name, I'm very doubtful it is the most common. There are book and article titles that don't use it ( Drama in the English College, Rome, 1591-1660', S Gossett - English Literary Renaissance3, 1973. etc) though full-length histories do, and passing references usually don't. Google searches don't work well here. I'm sure the category can be greatly expanded with alumni btw. Johnbod ( talk) 14:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  Per the head article, the college was renamed in 1818 to include the word "venerable" (see Venerable English College, Rome#The_age_of_the_martyrs_.281581-1679.29), so a book dealing with an earlier period would obviously use the name applying at the time. AIUI, our convention is to use the current name for college categories, even when that creates an anachronism for periods before the renaming. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  Even so, I would think omitting the Venerable more usual in references. Johnbod ( talk) 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've now found an alumni cat that was not linked (!!) so I wonder if the 2 remaining articles can't go there, though no doubt some staff have bios too. Otherwise there are currently just two college articles. That still leaves the name issue for the alumnus category. Johnbod ( talk) 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Rename to match the article. There is Robert Gradwell (not an alumnus) who was rector from 1818, so there could be Category:Rectors of the Venerable English College, Rome (other rectors are mentioned in the article). Occuli ( talk) 15:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep current name. The college is usually referred to as simply the English College. The college was founded in 1579 and the Venerable was only added in 1818, so existed for a long time without the Venerable. The entry in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia does not use the Venerable in the title. There is only one English college in Rome so there is no ambiguity and no need to change the name. Cjc13 ( talk) 12:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • My main concern is that the category name should align with the article name; to achieve that, either category or the article needs to be renamed. I was going to suggest that if editors feel that the article is incorrectly named, they should open a WP:RM discussion at Talk:Venerable English College, Rome ... but I see that Cjc13 has already done that. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename for now to match the article name. If the article name changes, we can always move it back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I suggest that this discussion remain open until the outcome of the move discussion at Talk:Venerable English College, Rome#Suggested_name_change. I did some more checking there, and found that 172 hits for "Venerable English college" rome and 585 hits for "English college" rome.
  Redoing the search with Google scholar, I get 159 ghits for "Venerable English college" rome and 2,670 ghits for "English college" rome.
  On that basis, I support renaming the article ... and if that goes ahead, then I will withdraw this nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The name of the related article has now been changed to English College, Rome as a result of the discussion at Talk:English College, Rome#Suggested_name_change. Cjc13 ( talk) 22:04, 25 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.

The result of the discussion was: moot per the outcome of #Category:English College, Rome. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 05:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the English College, Rome to Category:Alumni of the Venerable English College, Rome

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To follow existing cfr for the College's category. Ian Cairns ( talk) 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Please add this to the one below on the parent. Johnbod ( talk) 20:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom and Venerable English College, Rome. Occuli ( talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename for now per my comments in the above discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I suggest that this discussion remain open until the outcome of the move discussion at Talk:Venerable English College, Rome#Suggested_name_change. I did some more checking there, and found that 172 hits for "Venerable English college" rome and 585 hits for "English college" rome.
  Redoing the search with Google scholar, I get 159 ghits for "Venerable English college" rome and 2,670 ghits for "English college" rome.
  On that basis, I support renaming the article ... and if that goes ahead, then I will oppose this nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. The name of the related article has now been changed to English College, Rome as a result of the discussion at Talk:English College, Rome#Suggested_name_change. Hence the nom is no longer appropriate. Cjc13 ( talk) 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Cjc13. The situation has changed since the nomination was made, and the category name now matches the article name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:29, 26 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.

The result of the discussion was: DELETE. postdlf ( talk) 16:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Spin-off albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This seems trivial and ill-defined to me. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Agree with nom Seems an odd basis on which to categorise albums - WP:IINFO seems to apply. Orderinchaos 17:46, 15 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.

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 22. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Fan club releases to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: Fan clubs aren't just for musical groups or musicians, so it's not clear that this category strictly applies to musical releases. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:16, 15 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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:2009–10 Colonial Athletic Conference men's basketball season to Category:2009–10 Colonial Athletic Association men's basketball season

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The correct name of this conference is Colonial Athletic Association. Dale Arnett ( talk) 04:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Seems like an uncontroversial no-brainer given the name of the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 03:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• My Bad I created it and just flat missnamed it on accident. Id change it myself if I knew how...so yes, it should be changed. Bsuorangecrush ( talk) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Would this nomination now meet CFD speedy criterion C2 (C) as "bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree"? This is part of a CAA category tree in which every other member contains the correct conference name of Colonial Athletic Association. — Dale Arnett ( talk) 21:41, 19 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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:All-female bands. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:All-women bands to Category:All female bands

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, all female band. — ξ ^xplicit 06:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom to match head article, but re-create the old category name as a {{ category redirect}}, in case people are looking under the old name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support rename although shouldn't both article and category have a hyphen? Nitpicky grammar, I know, and Google doesn't answer the question as it seems to be split between those with and those without. Orderinchaos 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename to match the main article. I too think use of the hyphen would be grammatically more correct. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 03:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Please hold pending a response to my inquiry at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#'All female band' or 'All-female band'. If the hyphenated form is correct, then we should move the article and rename the category accordingly. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 06:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  There appears to be general agreement at the Reference desk that there should be a hyphen—more precisely, that prescriptive grammar requires a hyphen—so I moved the article to the hyphenated form. Rename the category to Category:All-female bands. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 17:48, 2 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 result of the discussion was: listify to List of television series with episodes in the public domain. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 06:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:TV series with episodes in the public domain to Category:Television series with episodes in the public domain

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:Television series. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Listify. Better dealt with as a list to explain what episodes are in the public domain. Also I'll note that this is a triple intersection and it is not likely defining for the shows. The target category is a redirect to the existing one. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Listify Picking several at random, none mentions public domain. Why is Hawkeye and the Last of the Mohicans (say) included? Looks like OR to me. (It should always be obvious from the article why it is placed in a particular category.) Occuli ( talk) 16:35, 15 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.