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: per WP:OVERCAT. The Tampa Bay team that played in the AISA and ASL/APSL were all from the same franchise from 1975–1993 and the current Tampa Bay Rowdies team that plays in the new NASL began as FC Tampa Bay before being renamed to Tampa Bay Rowdies in 2012. – Michael (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- It is presumably all one team. We treat alumni of merged universities and colleges as alumni of the successor, despite the anacrhonism involved. I do not see why the same principle should not apply to sporting teams. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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, though for the sake of encyclopedic pedantry I feel compelled to point out one thing. All of Ovid's extant work is in the form of poems. However, he did write one play, Medea, which is lost but which has generated enough commentary (regarding the ancient testimonia, scholarly conjecture about his treatment based on what he says about Medea elsewhere, what his sources would've been, whether Seneca drew on it, what the circumstances of its performance would've been in Augustan Rome) to support a little article. I offer this only as a possible reason (excruciating correctness) for why such a category would've been created in the first place. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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—People with Down syndrome are still referred to as Mongols in parts of the English-speaking world (even though this is usually considered offensive in many circles), so there is potential for confusion in the current name. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Muslim Mongols. The nom has not checked the contents of the category. Mongolians refers to a modern state, but the people whom I checked belonged to the medieval period, when the Mongol Empire (not Mongolian Empire) stretched much of the breadth of Asia. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support—People with Down syndrome are still referred to as Mongols in parts of the English-speaking world (even though this is usually considered offensive in many circles), so there is potential for confusion in the current name. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. The association is hardly trivial. It's quite specific. If you have a problem with the category title, try being a little more specific about your concern. And if you're concerned there aren't enough categories within the category, that's a completely different concern. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case right now, but that isn't the case in general. It's better to have the categories not have to be constantly changed once that is no longer the case than to move them all right now only to remove them again in the future once someone gets around to adding songs or artists with songs which are not J-pop. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example, most of the songs released by Baby Metal would hardly be classified as J-pop since they are mostly heavy metal (or other metal). However, they are idol stars, too, so that would be one example. Currently, no one has create articles for any of their songs, but they are still fairly new. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. It was years ago now that we deleted all the categories that categorized people by university or college fraternity/sorority. This is another one that has popped up since. It can simply be merged with the appropriate alumni category. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Reverse merge both It makes sense to subdivide colonial governors by the nation they were appointed by, but we should use consistent names for the place involved and the office they held to make it easy to navigate between them. This is the English wikipedia, so in general we should use English titles. For example we have category Category:Kings of France, even though king is not the French term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. We use the singular for the "by" parameter. As for the sub-cats for screenplays, the person was working in the capacity of a writer rather than actor/director when writing the screenplay, so it is not appropriate to separate out these categories. It might be interesting to listify one as "Screenplays by writers better known as actors" or "...also known as actors", but crossovers between acting, writing & directing are not unusual and I am not sure how valuable such a list would be. – FayenaticLondon09:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to Category:Works by filmmaker per naming conventions. For the other two, I have to agree that the fact that a particular film's screenwriter happens to also have been an actor or a director does not constitute a defining characteristic of the film. Listification maybe (though I'd suggest that even that would be excessively trivial), but unequivocally WP:OCAT by non-defining characteristic as a category. Delete both of those. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are enough films with a lead actor who was als writer and director (God's Army and Life is Beautiful come to mind and I am sure there are others), that the two screenplays by categories do not work. As it is I can see no way to avoid putting Life is Beautiful in both categories, except that maybe it makes no sense to put a film in a screenplay category when the screenplay was written by the person who directed the film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename to Category:Tubes The term "tubing" is inherently ambiguous, and while "tubing" may well be a better category name than "tubes", I would have to say that Category:Tubes is significantly better than Category:Tubing (fluid conveyance) both in terms of the fluidity of the name (pun intended) and the ability to correctly select the category name when editing the articles or searching for related material. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not ready to support the nom since I'm not convinced that Category:Tubing (fluid conveyance) is the correct option. The introduction has a see also for hose (tubing) and includes Category:Hoses and claims tubing (material) as the main article. Then if you look at the contents, Tube (fluid conveyance) is shown as the main article. However, I wonder how this overlaps with piping and by extension Category:Piping. The parent categories don't provide any guidance for me. This all leave me wondering if a merge to multiple other categories may be the best choice. Tube bending, one of the articles, applies to electrical conduits which is not categorized anywhere. Maybe some cleanup on the articles? Note that I do not consider production tubing to be tubing in the sense that may be intended here. Aren't those pipes? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can ignore the article name in this case and once we decide on a name here, rename the article. Given that, Category:Tubing (material) would seem the best solution mentioned so far with the article moved to Tubing (material). There is at least one comment on the talk page questioning the title and definition since it did not cover electrical conduits which are illustrated in the image on the article. I cleaned up the lead on the article a bit. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Speedy close. I am closing both of these discussions together, because the same issues apply to both. In each case, an existing category was emptied out of process by the editor who made these nominations to delete the pre-existing categories. Whatever any editors views on the merits or demerits of a category name, a renaming should take place only if a consensus has been established at CFD ... but these two nominations simply seek the rubber-stamping of a renaming which has already been implemented. I will revert the edits by which the two nominated categories were emptied, to restore the status quo ante. If the nominator (or any other editor) wants to pursue this renaming, it should be done in the normal way: by making a proposal at CFD to rename the existing category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is overly ambiguous. Île-de-France has an alternate spelling of "Isle de France" in English, and a former French spelling of "Isle de France".
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.
