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 all to be consistent with the main article, named Grêmio Barueri Futebol. ----Carioca (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Carioca (talk) 21:34, 17 May 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.
Category:VSV EC players
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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge Both names would make sense but the title of the corresponding is (currently) EC VSV. Pichpich (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom to match parent article. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 17 May 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.
Category:Unicode chart templates
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some of the templates in this category have been renamed into lists. Rather than put those pages into a separate category, might be better to just rename this category. WOSlinker (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So long as pages can still incorporate the templates with {{Unicode chart foobar}} (Where foobar is the name of the block), I don't see an issue with calling them something else. But they really are templates.DRMcCreedy (talk) 20:07, 17 May 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.
Category:Films with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee
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. Incorrect categorization of films based on the people who acted in them. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Films should not be categorized by who acted in them. There's a precedant for this, but I can't find it right now. Lugnuts (talk) 18:21, 17 May 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.
Category:Universal's Dracula
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. I'm just not seeing the utility in splitting off these fifteen films from the herd. The films are already linked together through their own articles and through at least two templates for the Universal and at least two for the Hammer. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:51, 17 May 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.
Category:Mathematics articles with no comments
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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. WP:DCS says that comment subpages are depreciated, so this category is no longer needed. Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something else I have to do to get a decision on whether this category should be deleted? Guy Macon (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(...Sound of Crickets...)
Again, the category of Mathematics articles with no comments subpage is equal to the category of Mathematics articles (8,582 of them!), and the number of Mathematics articles that do have comments subpages is equal to zero. That's because we no longer use comments subpages per WP:DCS. Thus this category is useless, and should be deleted. Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 26 May 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.
Category:Beauty pageant contestants from Caracas
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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization based on location. What country a pageant contestant is from is defining; what city she's from is not. Mbinebritalk ← 15:50, 17 May 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.
Leigh RMI F.C.
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/rename. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The club was renamed as Leigh Genesis F.C. in June 2008. Since precedent is that categories should be named after the subject's most recent name, this category and its subcategories should be renamed to reflect the club's new name (goodness, that's a lot of uses of the word "name"!). I am also proposing that Category:Leigh RMI F.C. players be merged with Category:Leigh Genesis F.C. players, since they are for players of the same club, only under different names. – PeeJay 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – PeeJay 15:43, 17 May 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.
Category:PD-Russia
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: Category is now unused, as License tag which categorises here was deprecated and the media migrated to more specific categories. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 17 May 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.
Category:Famous amateur chess players
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. If they aren't famous, there wouldn't be articles about them. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of these people are known primarily as chess players. None of their articles talk extensively about their chess playing and the only one that covers chess beyond passing mention is Nabokov's and he's already categorized as a chess problemist. As a general rule of thumb I don't think categorizing people based on hobbies is a good idea (and yes I know about Category:Hobbyists). Harley Hudson (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Harley has done his homework and makes an excellent point. If one looks at the four articles in this category to date it does seem like this cat generally falls under the banner of WP:OC#TRIVIA. While we do have some other amateur FOOian categories it's not quite the same thing: for example, Category:Amateur golfers and perhaps other amateur athletic categories must exist because of the amateur/pro parallel systems. But here, with the exception perhaps of Nabokov, these people are amateur in a different sense, it seems to me. Indeed, as the category description states: "This category is for people who were highly skilled but non-professional chess players and who are famous for some other reason." (italics added). Meaning that by its very definition this is a non-defining characteristic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid argument. A defining characteristic is one which is important to the individual, not a characteristic for which the individual is notable. (eg 'Alumni of', 'People from', Category:Vegetarians etc etc.) Occuli (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Yworo (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Occuli is right that someone does not have to be famous for a thing they are categorized under.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#TRIVIA. We don't categorize people by hobby or interest, which this seems to be in this case. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Famous is not a good word, and removing it is better, although this is a fickle issue, so it is not the best solution.Curb Chain (talk) 06:49, 25 May 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.