Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 16

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 per nom (taking into account the latest suggestion of Vegaswikian). Ruslik_Zero 17:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:International Space Station components to Category:Components of the International Space Station

Rename Category:International Space Station facilities to Category:Facilities of the International Space Station

Rename Category:International Space Station supply vehicles to Category:Supply vehicles for the International Space Station

These categories should be renamed to the "X of Y" format that is preferred, and is already used by Category:Crew members of the International Space Station and Category:Expeditions to the International Space Station. Category:International Space Station experiments is also in this tree, but seems to be primarily in the Category:Science Experiments tree, so it should probably be left as-is for now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If we do this, I think the last reads better as Category:Supply vehicles for the International Space Station. They are vehicle that are specifically built in some cases for the sole purpose of delivering supplies to the station. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, that's a good point. Changed per. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per revised nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I just noticed that the second one should be to Category:Science facilities on the International Space Station to match the main article. So if the closing admin does not move it to that name, then let me know and I'll nominate it for discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles 03:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thor Able (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A seeming "catchall" category placed in Category:Expendable launch systems; the intent, being there, would be a category for Thor Able rockets, but there was only one launch vehicle by neither of the rockets with that name - Thor-Able and Thor-Ablestar - which isn't are even in the category. Instead the category includes a variety (but not all) satellites launched by Thor-Able rockets, and "satellites launched by X" is, I believe, a category tree that doesn't exist. Should it? In which case, it should be renamed to Category:Satellites launched by Thor-Able rockets. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BTO people to Category:British Trust for Ornithology people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose expanding abbreviation to match British Trust for Ornithology. BTO is ambiguous, and many Americans and Canadians will probably immediately think of Bachman–Turner Overdrive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The first thing I thought of was Bombing Through Overcast... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. As the category's creator, I have no problem with this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this be Category:Members of the British Trust for Ornithology as a subcat of Category:People by association? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is no standard. And we don't want to categorise people because they were simply members of the organisation; it should only categorise people who are defined by their connection to the organisation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. They;re not all members (some are staff, for instance) and we wouldn't want to add every member to this category. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, I certainly thought of the band rather than the British organization. Resolute 14:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand abbreviation as nom. I assume that the "people" are officers or employees. Mere membership would be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People associated with the British Trust for Ornithology. Personally I hate the "Foo people" construction, and this construction, which is far better English, is already used elsewhere (e.g. Category:People associated with the University of Oxford). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately that format only seems to exacerbate what is already an unclear meaning for a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way? It seems to me to describe it pretty accurately. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. I will also put Manifest Destiny in the Category:Political theories. Among the remaining two articles The_Clash_of_Civilizations is already in that category and Death panel is not a theory. Ruslik_Zero 17:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political myths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An inherently biased and POV category. Also, "myths" itself is ambiguous—does it refer to mythology, or things that people commonly believe but are not true? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "Manifest destiny" may have been many things, but "political myth" isn't something I'd associate with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I created the category. Not POV. Here's why: the article political myth, which I created, defines it and a political myth can be true or false. I would say, according to WP:POVTITLE, and yes, I'm aware it is written for articles, but "True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental." Jesanj (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we're talking the "mythology" definition. The problem is determining what constitutes political mythology. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We let reliable sources tell us what is a political myth then we can categorize an article. Jesanj (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the articles categorized in the category have a referenced statement that they are "political myths". It doesn't appear that this is a defining feature of the articles that are categorized, which is generally required for categorization. If you want to include sourced statements in the articles, that seems to be the way to go with this idea. It's just too obscure and not central to the topics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something like Category:Political theories (which would in fact be a merge). The problem is that "myth" has a technical meaning in anthropology or religion. This is rather different from the popular usage of the word, which is something akin to a lie. I note that the three examples that we have so far are all from US politics, one being a scare story put about to discredit the Obama health insurance reforms. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it seems the popular usage contrasts with its academic definition. It was my writing/editing at death panel that got me thinking we needed the political myth article (and category). Jesanj (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: Per Peterkingiron's logic. In a folklore class in college, "myth" was used neutrally but I think that's almost a jargon/academic definition. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Political theories per Peterkingiron. Current category is inherently POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't merge. If we were to keep and rename, it would need to be to something like Category:Political names assigned to rational concepts so that the public would view them negatively or some such. Heck, drop the view negatively and we would have every bill created in the US. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename first to Carlisle, Cumbria, rename second and fourth as proposed, keep third as is.. Dana boomer (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Carlisle to Category:City of Carlisle

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Carlisle to Category:Mayors of Carlisle, Cumbria

Propose renaming Category:Deans of Carlisle to Category:Deans of Carlisle, Cumbria

Propose renaming Category:People from Carlisle to Category:People from Carlisle, Cumbria

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match appropriate article title, Carlisle is ambiguous. Category:Carlisle and Category:People from Carlisle should become dab categories as there are Category:Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Category:People from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and Category:People from Carlisle (district), Tassedethe (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the principle, but for consistency it should be Category:Carlisle, Cumbria. Keep Category:Deans of Carlisle, unless the Pennsylvania town has a dean and chapter in a Cathedral. I note that Category:Bishops of Carlisle is not included, so that there is no reason for the deans to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – as far as I can tell, City of Carlisle is the region surrounding Carlisle (which is not intuitive to a non-Cumbrian), and Carlisle (district) is an invention of DShamen's (along with many other such inventions). This would suggest Category:City of Carlisle and its subcat Category:Carlisle, Cumbria and some reorganisation. I support the addition of 'Cumbria' where confusion is likely. Occuli (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. Yeah its a mess. Category:Bishops of Carlisle wasn't included as Category:Diocese of Carlisle isn't in the Carlisle tree. Category:People from Carlisle (district) should probably be upmerged as Carlisle (district) redirects to City of Carlisle. I've notified WP:CUMBRIA to see if anyone can weigh in. Tassedethe (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Support as per [[Peterkingiron. The difficulty in going for Category:City of Carlisle is that Carlisle is a city and also a separate local goevernment area. The LGA includes all the City of Carlisle but not vice versa. NtheP (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Peterkingiron. This will follow the same format as Bradford, Canterbury, Lancaster, Leeds, Preston, Salford, St Albans, Sunderland (that one is reversed), Wakefield and Winchester where the name "City of Foo" means a wider local government unit and the category is "Foo". Timrollpickering (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States communities with Asian American majority populations to Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian American majority populations

Propose renaming Category:United States communities with Native American majority populations to Category:Populated places in the United States with Native American majority populations

Propose renaming Category:Colorado communities with Hispanic majority populations to Category:Populated places in Colorado with Hispanic majority populations

Propose renaming Category:New Mexico communities with Hispanic majority populations to Category:Populated places in New Mexico with Hispanic majority populations

Propose renaming Category:California communities with Hispanic majority populations to Category:Populated places in California with Hispanic majority populations

Propose renaming Category:United States communities with Hispanic majority populations to Category:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic majority populations

Propose renaming Category:United States counties with Hispanic majority populations to Category:Counties in the United States with Hispanic majority populations

Propose renaming Category:United States counties with Native American majority populations to Category:Counties in the United States with Native American majority populations

This will bring the categories into line with all other "populated places" categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected your nomination target from 'Mexico' to 'New Mexico' 76.105.54.215 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico definitely has a majority Hispanic population. ☺ Thanks for the cleanup.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all: Support per updated nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to match naming used for similar categories. Alansohn (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is the purpose of these categories? Entirely unnecessary over-categorisation. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- We recently had a debate about US places with "large ethnic populations" which I think ended in a delete. We may need to re-create something similar to be a parent to these. The present parent "Ethnic enclaves in the United States" does not quite sum these up. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom following the accepted term populated places and the word order of of such names. Hmains (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kuskokwim Bay Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The lone entry is for a city which is not a watershed. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if this is deleted, Category:Watersheds of the Bering Sea will also need to be deleted since this is the sole entry. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom - both of them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom - both — Look2See1 t a l k → 21:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian Ocean basins to Category:Drainage basins of the Indian Ocean

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify that this is for drainage basins and to follow the form for other oceans. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "basin" of an Ocean would be abyssal basins on the ocean floor. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename first, delete second. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Watersheds of the Pacific Ocean to Category:Drainage basins of the Pacific Ocean

Propose renaming Category:Watersheds of the Bering Sea to Category:Drainage basins of the Bering Sea

Nominator's rationale: Rename. At the ocean level we should be using the unambiguous name. Adds span international areas and should be renamed for the same reasons. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1st per nom and Delete 2nd per above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming 1st 'Pacific Ocean' per nom and Delete 2nd 'Bering Sea' per delete 'Kuskokwim Bay Watershed' above. — Look2See1 t a l k → 21:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Cobham to Category:People from Cobham, Surrey

Propose renaming Category:People from Redhill to Category:People from Redhill, Surrey

Propose renaming Category:People from Sunderland to Category:People from Sunderland, Tyne and Wear

Propose renaming Category:People from Coleshill to Category:People from Coleshill, Warwickshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Oldbury to Category:People from Oldbury, West Midlands

Propose renaming Category:People from Normanton to Category:People from Normanton, West Yorkshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Yeadon to Category:People from Yeadon, West Yorkshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Tisbury to Category:People from Tisbury, Wiltshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Westbury to Category:People from Westbury, Wiltshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Preston to Category:People from Preston, Lancashire

Propose renaming Category:People from Sandgate to Category:People from Sandgate, Kent

Propose renaming Category:People from Acton to Category:People from Acton, London

Propose renaming Category:People from Rothesay to Category:People from Rothesay, Bute

Propose renaming Category:People from Thornhill to Category:People from Thornhill, West Yorkshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Haddington to Category:People from Haddington, East Lothian

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As before 1, 2, 3; these are ambiguous, rename to match main article. Consider making dab categories for Cobham (Category:People from Cobham, Kent), Sunderland (Category:People from Sunderland (district)), Preston (Category:People from Preston, Connecticut, Category:People from Preston (district)) and Thornhill (Category:People from Thornhill, Ontario). Tassedethe (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, and make dab categories where more than one "People from Foo, Bar" category exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename bit several of these need to be re-created as dab-cats: certainly Westbury, Ildbury, Preston and Acton. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Dana boomer (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete see Category_talk:Style_guidelines_of_WikiProjects. User:Bebestbe was the creator of Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects.

He may have made the category in goodfaith, and the reasons were because at the time, guidelines where not defined the way our community defines them now.Bernolákovčina (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bernolákovčina is correct that most (but not all) of these advice pages are not technically "official" community-approved WP:GUIDELINES. They are instead the kind of advice pages that are encouraged by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Advice_pages. I think that a technically accurate category name would be something like Category:WikiProject style advice (thus permitting us to include both "official" and unofficial advice originated or maintained by WikiProjects, as it is possible for a page to be both the work of a WikiProject and an official guideline, although that is less common that a page that is only known to or used by members of the WikiProject), but I would much prefer that Bernolákovčina withdraw this nomination and go do something useful, by which I mean 'almost anything other than fussing about the correct words to use when describing WikiProject advice pages'.
  Really: Who cares? The category admirably performs its actual duty (helping editors find the pages). Readers never hear about cats like this. So why should we go through the hassle of changing it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Would it be more appropriate to make subcategories and place style advice, content advice, naming advice, etc., in their own subcategories?Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you have concerns about the content of the style guidelines, then start discussions to have them modified or deleted. However, so long as the style guidelines exist, the category serves a valid purpose in grouping them. It may be appropriate to rename this category so as not to use the word "guideline", but I don't see off simple formula to achieve that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Strikes me as just about the least important thing to discuss in the Wikipedia. These are pages made by projects for projects, and this category oranzes them in one place. This is a good thing. The title of the category seems the most logical, but I suppose it could be named something else. I'd hate to see any brain cells wasted on thinking about such a trivial thing though. 2005 (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This category helps identify WikiProject style standards, which tend to be enforced by editors as local consensus throughout the wiki. In fact, having a category helps those who monitor the MoS to find any style standards that may contradict central guidance. A rename may be necessary, but no rename has been proposed, nor a clear rename candidate comes to mind. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been established that wikiproject guidelines or style guidelines cannot contradict the wider wikipedia:manual of style and its guidelines. I am not sure if there a protocol that would state this, but there has been a rfc in the past which addressed this, or someother dicussion. The link escapes me. I would support a rename if that is possible.Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How about Category:WikiProject standards or Category:Standards of wikipedia?Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, these are not standards. How is advice equivalent to a standard?? 65.93.13.210 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hidalgo to Category:Hidalgo (state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow article: Hidalgo (state). TopoChecker (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 16 January 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.