Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 27

< June 26	June 28 >

June 27

Category:What Is This? members

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:What Is This? members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. What is this? It's a long defunct rock band, not especially notable except as a predecessor to Red Hot Chili Peppers, and the category "by [its] very definition, will never have more than a few members." There's four right now with a potential to get as high as seven if we ever created articles on the remaining members, who aren't necessarily notable anyway. --BDD (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Brad7777 (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

small, yes. Looked ok, until I looked at flea. The problem is over categorisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SMALLCAT (clause beginning 'unless'), part of Category:Musicians by band. Oculi (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True. In that case it should be kept. Brad7777 (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not need to categorize people by every band they were ever in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. There are some very notable people in this band.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:World War II Japanese tankettes

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:World War II Japanese tankettes to Category:Japanese tankettes

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, not part of an overall scheme, all contents already in parent by-period cat Category:Tankettes of World War II. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tanks of the Axis powers

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.

Propose deleting Category:Tanks of the Axis powers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Tanks of the Axis powers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Doesn't appear to be part of an overarching "Foo of the Axis powers" scheme; no comparable "Tanks of the Allied powers" category; only contents already properly categorised in Category:Tanks of World War II by country. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no real need to add a layer of organization under Category:Tanks of World War II by country, which is essentially what these do (even though that's not where they are). Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete unneccesary layer of cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and onlt two useful subcats. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Internet advertising and promotion

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Internet advertising and promotion to Category:Internet advertising

Nominator's rationale: Advertising is a form of promotion therefore the word "promotion" is redundant. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Healthcare advertising agencies

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Healthcare advertising agencies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one actual member and that is of dubious use in this category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as small cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pitchfork Media's Album of the Year

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Pitchfork Media's Album of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. May fall under WP:OC#Award and WP:OC#TOPTEN. Unsure of the significance of the Pitchfork Award in the music industry, so thought it best to let community determine whether this award is defining quality of these albums. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a sufficently defining award for categorisation - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Leones de Yucatan 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: speedy merge into Category:Leones de Yucatán players.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Leones de Yucatan players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category to Category:Leones de Yucatán players, which already existed in parallel to the main Leones de Yucatán team page. Dewelar (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Priories

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. This was a split vote with strong arguments on both sides. What broke the tie for me was the first few words of the article Priory: "A priory is a monastery..." Since we don't break the monastery tree by hierarchical structures of monasteries, this made sense to delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Priories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (but maintain as redirect to Category:Christian monasteries)

Nominator's rationale: Almost all of the priories in wikipedia are already classified as monasteries. I don't think we need to have a separate categorization for priories. The contents of this category already exist in monastery cats as well, so no need for merge either; delete will suffice. KarlB (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A priory is generally a governmentally distinct entity from a monastery. On that basis, I believe that it might well be counterproductive to lump them together into the same category. It may well be the case that some articles in the categories for monasteries might not belong there, but might instead belong in one of the priory categories. However, I cannot believe that we should necessarily categorize in a way to overlook what are significant differences between religious bodies. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unless the nom is going to include the 2 subcats (which provide the separate categorization for priories to which the nom objects). Oculi (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note a priory is a type of monastery, and since we already have a sophisticated category structure for monasteries, there isn't a point in recreating such a thing for priories. If this category exists, and we believe in it, then we should technically move over some of the hundreds of priories that are currently categorized in the monasteries tree. As to oculi's point, I don't think we need to delete the subcats, which seem to capture special categories of priories - those can remain - but the container cat doesn't need to exist; Category:Monasteries and its descendants is sufficient. I agree a priory has a different governance than a monastery, but an abbey is also governed differently, and we don't have category trees for Category:Abbeys, Category:Friaries, Category:Preceptories, etc. see Monastery for more details; there are many types of monasteries, but we don't categorize based on all of those types. --KarlB (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
example - this is a good example of the potential problem: Gisborough_Priory - it is currently categorized as a Category:Monasteries in North Yorkshire, Category:Augustinian monasteries in England, and Category:Christian monasteries established in the 12th century; if we are saying it is wrong to categorize this as a monastery and should be placed in a priory category, then in order to maintain the same fidelity, we'd need to establish a whole new category tree for priories, including Category:Augustinian priories in England and Category:Priories established in the 12th century and Category:Priories in North Yorkshire; I just don't think this is worth it, and is not in the interest of readers; they can easily see that something is a priory by the article title, but creation of a whole parallel category structure just to outline a difference in governance doesn't seem worth it. In addition, since priories and abbeys often were closely linked, having the abbey of X next to the priory of X makes sense. --KarlB (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I would have said "merge", but everyting is already categorised adequaqtely. Priories were a variety of monastery that was headed by a prior, not an abbot. The reasons for this are various, but it may be that the priory was a cell (out-station) of an abbey, or as at Worcester Cathedral that the bishop was nominally the abbot. Unless we are to split the monasteries into abbeys and priories (which seems inappropriate to me), we do not need a separate "priories" cat. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- This problem seems to have arisen because some one has started to split the Hampshire monasteries into Priories and Abbeys. I thought I had seen a nom for renaming a Hampshire category, while I was looking at this nom, but cannot now find it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Peterkingiron's analysis. The difference in governance does not seem to me to justify initiating a category division which is going to have to be carried across all monastery-related categories. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Peterkingiron and Mangoe. A note should be added to at least some "monastery" cat pages explaining that many convents, friaries, & priories are included. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just as there is a difference between a friar and a monk, so too between a priory and a monastery. - jc37 13:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; but does it mean we need a whole separate category tree in order to categorize priories? --KarlB (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to propose renaming to Category:Christian monasteries and priories, I'd support that. But I oppose this. - jc37 14:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_5#Category:Christian_monasteries - jc37 14:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The issue is, there are 652 categories with the word monasteries in their title. A priory is a *type* of monastery. If we're going to say we need to distinguish priories from abbeys, then for completion's sake we'd have to consider splitting this whole category tree, a move for which I doubt there would be consensus.--KarlB (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A priory is not a type of monastery. "Monastic" has a semantic meaning of "cloistered". Friars, are not cloistered from the local citizenry, but rather live within the local community. - jc37 14:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? From the catholic encyclopedia: Priory: A monastery whose superior is a prior. Nobody is disputing that priories and friaries and convents and nunneries and so on are not different, but the question is do we need to create a whole category structure for each of these terms - all of which have been used by multiple sources interchangably over the centuries. --KarlB (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that there is a denotative sense to the word monastery. I'm talking about the broader sense of the word, especially derivation words, such as "monastic". As all of these words source from "monk". But that's because many of these orders started out by coming away from the monastic life. (And I can provide references concerning this development away from the ermetic.) This is similar to the problems concerning denotation of the terms sisters and nuns.

Anyway, the new nom should help deal with much of this. Since I will agree that there is also some overlap. - jc37 14:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted above, a priory is a monastery with a slightly different level of organization and recognition than an abbey, yet both are monasteries. In English, the term is common to monks, friars (other than Franciscans) and canons regular. If any distinction is to be made, let it be on the nature of the community which occupies it. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Franciscans are not the only exception. There are priories which indeed are NOT monasteries. I believe that this is true of the "big four", as well as other denominations. We shouldn't be naming categories based upon what is convenient for us. - jc37 04:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment (to !vote above). I think most of these are in non-Anglophone countries, & I'm very dubious that the various languages concerned consistently make the distinction, or that local editors from those countries are always aware of the full range of terminology in English. I suspect if the category is kept it will never be filled to a % of actual priories that would make it very useful, at least outside English-speaking countries. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Christian monesteries. In general English usage monestery covers all priories. This might not always be technically correct, but we aim for common usage not technical precision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Mayotte

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. Category:People by department in France shows a clear preference for the current format over an obscure demonym.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Mayotte to Category:Mahoran people

Nominator's rationale: As "Mahoran" is the descriptive term for people from Mayotte, I believe that this category tree should use that term, as most of the "Fooian people" categories do. The "...by occupation" tree will be speedied if this passes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Support - Basically, I don't know that much about the other categories in question, so I myself don't know what the standard practices are. It is only on that basis that the support is said to be weak. But I can take on faith that The Bushranger is right in this regard, and I can't see any reason to object to such a move. Strengthening support based on evidence provided below. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tree at Category:Sportspeople by nationality provides a good example.

- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I regard this as an obscure demonym. While the adjective might be correct, People from Foo is also an accepted form in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is that we have category trees that are ~90% "Fooian people" and 10% or less "People from Foo", which frankly looks downright unprofessional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a very obscure denonym.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But this isn't the Simple English wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is the standard format for these categories. The nominated category can be a redirect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed new name makes it sound as if this category would comprise an ethnicity, while the current name would include anyone who grew up in or has otherwise lived a long time in Mayotte, regardless of ethnicity. Note that this would take the category away from the standard format for these categories — every single subcategory of Category:People by department in France is "People from départment", not "Départmental people". Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So... "Equatoguinean sportspeople" is ethnic Equatoguinean, and "French sportspeople‎" is ethnic French? Would just changing Category:Sportspeople from Mayotte to Category:Mahoran sportspeople be acceptable since the vast majority of subcats of Category:Sportspeople by nationality uses the Y X format? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. However, the problem still stands that you're proposing taking this category away from an established standard and making it the only one that doesn't follow that standard — unless, of course, you follow this up with a proposal to go with "Category:Haut-Rhinean people", "Category:Nordian people", etc. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I came across it in the "sportspeople" category, so I just went to the top, as it were. Should I withdraw it and renominate the sportspeople one? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And don't forget, Nyttend, for people from places in France that are "overseas" from municipal France, we do have examples such as Category:Wallis and Futuna people, Category:French Polynesian people, Category:New Caledonia people, and so forth. Others are in the format Category:People from French Guiana or Category:People from Réunion, with the subcategories taking on the "FOOian GOO" format. So I don't think there's any clear standard for these right now, but it would be great to adopt one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree - and I think "Yian X" is the format that should be used here. Also, isn't it "foo bar"? ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm personally fond of "FOO QUX", myself. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, assuming this is the correct demonym. This isn't WP Simple English as pointed out. Mayumashu (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By your logic we should also have Category:Liverpudlians (which is actually just a category redirect) because that is the correct denonym. Just because a term is in some way "correct" does not mean it is the common name. In wikipedia we use the common name and we use the term least likely to cause confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do we have Category:Utahns? No we do not. The relevant category is Category:People from Utah. Mayotte, like Utah, is a first level sub-division of the nation it is part of (in this case France). First level sub-divisions are a bit tricky, but there is nothing even close to a universal agreement to use denonyms across the board for first-level subdivisions. There are lots and lots of parellel People from x categories where x is a first-level subdivisions of a nation as is Mayotte, so I see no reason why we should rename this to a truly obscure denonym.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mayotte is a department of France, it is not a country, so Sportspeople from Mayotte is not a sportspeople by nationality category. Thus much of the above discussion is built on false assumptions about the status of Mayotte.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the category that probably shows we this rename does not work is Category:People from Hawaii. That is probably the closest parrallel to this category I can find, and it shows why the rename fails.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing to keep in mind is that Mayotte has not always been an overseas department of France—that is quite a recent status, actually. For many years it was not associated with France at all. So it may be more akin to Category:French Polynesian people. I don't think it's as clear cut as some are making it out to be based on precedents. Some are highlighting the precedential categories that favour their preferred outcome but ignoring the other ones that go the other way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hawaii was not always a state of the United States. For many years it was an independent kingdom. Anyway, French Polynesia is not an overseas department, so it is not an equivalent choice. Thus, Hawaii is relevant, French Polynesia is not relevant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- John, that distinction is a bit pedantic. Guadeloupe, Réunion, French Guiana, and Martinique are all overseas departments of France, and the use of "Guaeloupean", "Réunionnais", "French Guianan", and "Martiniquais" are all quite widespread in categories. It's just not as clear cut an issue as you are suggesting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but those terms obviously connect to what they mean, this one does not. Anyway, the ethnic issue is exactly why we do not use Hawaiian, so I think it is a more valid issue than people have admitted. Since Mayotte is not a nation, it does not have citizens in the same sense as nations and the issue of establishing who qualifies as citizens is more murky.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bodies of water of the Caribbean

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 consensus. The discussion has stalled, with no new comments in the past two weeks. However, there was much useful and informative debate which could form the basis of a follow-up nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose ~~merging~~renaming Category:Bodies of water of the Caribbean to ~~Category:Geography of the Caribbean~~ Category:Hydrography of the Caribbean
Propose renaming Category:Bodies of water of the Gulf of Mexico to ~~Category:Geography of the Gulf of Mexico~~ Category:Hydrography of the Gulf of Mexico
Propose ~~merging~~renaming Category:Bodies of water of the Mediterranean to ~~Category:Geography of the Mediterranean~~ Category:Hydrography of the Mediterranean
Propose ~~deleting~~renaming Category:Bodies of water by ocean to Category:Hydrography by ocean
Propose renaming Category:Bodies of water of the Arctic Ocean to ~~Category:Geography of the Arctic Ocean~~ Category:Hydrography of the Arctic Ocean
Propose renaming Category:Bodies of water of the Indian Ocean to ~~Category:Geography of the Indian Ocean~~ Category:Hydrography of the Indian Ocean

Nominator's rationale: These categories were created recently, and I believe they are unnecessary. They fill in the Category:Bodies of water by place, which appears to have been by country/by continent, with by-ocean/waterbody categories that are confusing (and, in MANY cases, had horriffically executed AWB recategorisings). These should be in the "Geography of..." categories, not on their own, or renamed to "Geography of..." if that doesn't already exist. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep I was invited to implement a cfd to change these water categories from 'landforms' to 'bodies of water'. And that is what I have been doing. Both landforms and bodies of water are co-equal parts of geography. It does not make sense to move the bodies of water to the geography parent. Hmains (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 12#Water bodies by country Hmains (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- ...huh, and I even closed that one too. But that was for 'by country' - having "bodies of water of [body of water]" makes no sense... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no need to place an article in Category:Bodies of water of X, so in that respect it is useless. However, it's sub-cats are worth keeping; which all do have the "water aspect" in common... I do then think it is useful to keep a category like Category:Bodies of water of X to contain the sub-cats, although the wording is horrible. But I think it would be a lot nicer to split Category:Geography of X by sub fields of geography if possible: such as Category:Hydrology of the Caribbean, Category:Hydrograpy of the Caribbean, Category:Physical oceanography of the Caribbean, Category:Limnology of the Carribean, Category:Physical geography of the Caribbean etc. etc. Brad7777 (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, "Hydrology..." might well work... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And who among our common readers is going to know these terms? 'Bodies of water' is clear; it works on land; it can work on 'bodies of water' within 'bodies of water' also, which is what this is about. Why confuse things? Hmains (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Average reader: 'How can there be a body of water inside a body of water? Huh?' We need to keep things non-jargony, but neither should we dumb things down; this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the article Body of water, rivers and straits are not bodies of water. This may be problematic in the case of Category:Bodies of water of the Caribbean‎. (I have not checked the other locations.) Perhaps Category:Geography of the Caribbean could be have a sub-cat Category:Geographic features of the Caribbean, with Category:Bodies of water of the Caribbean being renamed to Category:Hydrographic features of the Caribbean as a sub-cat of that??
Comment Hydrography, anyone? We have Hydrography of the San Francisco Bay Area, at least.- choster (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Hydrography of foo works best for this - I've updated the top accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hydrography defined in WP means "the mapping (charting) of water topographic features through the measurement of the depths, the tides and currents of a body of water and establishment of the sea, river or lake bed topography and morphology" How does this relate to the features found in the above 'bodies of water' categories? And what possible parents could there be other than Ocean/Sea itself? Would they still belong to Category:Bodies of water by place or what? Hmains (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Geographic features of foo would be its parent, and Category:hydrology and/or Category:hydrography would be an ancestor, (if the rename of Category:bodies of water of foo was to Category:hydrographic features of foo.) However, I do not think this is acceptable without sources, or it would be WP:OR. FWIW, Feature categories such as "rivers... " would be a direct subcat, no other sub-cat would be needed. (Rivers are not bodies of water.) I would also suggest that Category:bodies of water by place is renamed to Category:Hydrographic features by place Brad7777 (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  'by the by' according to WP Watercourse, "A watercourse is any flowing body of water. These include rivers, streams, anabranches, and so forth." And in any case, this discussion is only about features in seas and oceans, not land based features. Hmains (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply WP Body of water says "Rivers, streams, canals, and other geographical features where water moves from one place to another are not considered bodies of water." Im not sure why you say this discussion is only about features in seas and oceans? Could you explain please? I'm talking about the sub-cats of Category:Bodies of water of the Caribbean that includes Category:Rivers of the Caribbean and this should not be a sub-cat. Brad7777 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The rest of the heading of Body of water states: "However, there is no other term in English comprising "stationary" bodies of water as well as rivers and canals etc., and such moving bodies of water are included in this article." Since there is no othr English term, so 'body of water' it is. This discussion is only about the categories named and labeled above, not unlabeled subcategories. This is normal. Hmains (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - reply It is also normal to comment on a categories contents, when discussing a rename. And all the contents are hydrographic features but not bodies of water. from the source I have given: " hydrography features can be classified in various ways, according to:
the dimensionality of the feature (point, line or area)
the function of the feature (dam, stream, pond)
the cartography of the feature (ephemeral stream, perennial stream, double-line stream)" This includes both bodies of water and the others mentioned. I believe in categorizing by fact and not making up WP:BOLLOCKS Brad7777 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you choose to use bad language. In any case, WP categories are based on WP articles, not outside sources. The outside sources are used to write the articles. As far as I know, I have been stating what the articles currently say. Hmains (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not 'bad language', it's the acutal name of the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I considered it insulting and not part of a fair discussion. Hmains (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Im not sure why are saying sorry, it's not your fault. The article body of water has been updated. I suggest that you consider looking at outside sources, because otherwise how will you add anything new to Wikipedia? Brad7777 (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Using outside sources to update articles is a WP requirement, but not as a basis for category names and population since categories do not get citations in them. As far as your changing the heading of the Body of water in order to support your arguments here, you now have a heading which does not match the contents, which includes every known type of moving water. This change should be reverted by you as headings are to reflect the content and your change seems purpose-based. To get out of this go-around, I suggest we look at Stream and Category:Water streams. It says a 'stream' is a moving body of water and is better referenced than your single web page. If stream can be accepted as a subset of body of water, then we could create a category structure to reflect that: Stream categories (with subcats of rivers, etc) for the moving water as subcategories for the body of water categories (which would not directly include the moving water subcats). Hmains (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The unfortunate part of the my suggestion is that the Streams subcatgory at every level would likely only have one subcategory in it: the Rivers subcatgory. This would immediately lead to the suggestion that it is overcategorization and unnecessary since Streams does say that rivers, creeks, etc are just moving bodies of water, no less valid as bodies of water than stationary ones. Hmains (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Actually the one sentence, "A stream is a body of water with a current, confined within a bed and stream banks." is not sourced. Please explain why Category:Hydrographic features would not match the contents. Rivers, streams, lakes, dams etc are all hydrographic features. If you cannot, then at least find a source that says a stream is a body of water. Brad7777 (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC) We would need a category, Category:Watercourses for streams etc, but this could not be a subcat of Category:Body of water, because they are not. If you want them all together, then a category Category:Hydrographic features could contain them all. Brad7777 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC) BTW, im sorry for swearing, some people don't mind it :) Brad7777 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok then on BTW. In Streams citations I found Langbein, W.B.; Iseri, Kathleen T. (1995). "Hydrologic Definitions: Watershed". Manual of Hydrology: Part 1. General Surface-Water Techniques (Water Supply Paper 1541-A). Reston, VA: USGS. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). I just paged up a few pages and found its defintion of 'Stream' "Stream. A general term for a body of flowing water. In hydrology the term is generally applied to the water flowing in a natural channel as distinct from a canal. More generally as in the term stream gaging, it is applied to the water flowing in any channel, natural or artificial. Streams in natural channels may be classified as follows (after Meinzer, 1923, p. 5658):...". This is an official manual on hydrology definitons. Hmains (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Im not sure it is even worth seperating these from other geographical features. Brad7777 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rivers of the Gulf of Mexico

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 to Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rivers of the Gulf of Mexico to Category:Rivers flowing into the Gulf of Mexico

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure we even need this sort of category, but if we do, it needs to be renamed to a clearer, more appropriate name - like the one proposed - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom This is a better name. Hmains (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this cover Category:Rivers of the Gulf of Mexico watershed? (this would expand the scope) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good question; honestly, I'm not sure. Thoughts folks? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cmt This gets into the confusion between rivers, watersheds and drainage basins and the differing usages among countries(some countries do not have drainage basin articles, the material is found in their river articles). Look down through several levels of Category:Drainage basins, including the category on the Gulf of Mexico Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico In Jan 2011, these categories were cfd renamed from 'watershed' to 'drainage basin' Hmains (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:Rivers flowing into the Gulf of Mexico is chosen, is there any thought regarding having such categories with the same name pattern for Oceans, Seas, large Gulfs? Hmains (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not 100% sure those are category-things as opposed to list-things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know. I do not have access to suitable references so I don't write articles, including lists. I see some items in Lists of rivers but except for two differently named lists in Europe, there is not much in the way of lists for bodies of water to which they flow. I do think this would be an interesting-to-readers subject, however. Hmains (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge/recategorize, this is the only category that uses this form. I guess I am basically saying Delete but with an eye to making this properly categorized. I see no evidence that this is a standard form for categorizing rivers, since as far as I can see it is the only such category that exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading what I provided above, I change my idea to rename to Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico to match Category:Drainage basins of the Pacific Ocean among others in the parent category. We don't seem to have any 'flowing into' categories as first suggested above. Hmains (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be logical to me (i.e. support). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jacobean architecture in Pennsylvania

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: technical upmerge. While the !vote is for delete, the article in the category is not properly categorised under the parent cat Category:Jacobean architecture in the United States. Therefore, to preserve proper categorisation, it will be upmerged and deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Jacobean architecture in Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. One article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One article when nominated, no articles after I delete the category from A.J. Hazeltine House in Warren County, Pennsylvania. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't empty categories that are at CfD - I've reverted the removal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless it can be populated). If kept, it should be renamed Category:Jacobean-style architecture in Pennsylvania. I do not believe there are any buildings from the time of James I and VI to whom the epithet belongs in PA, as the colony was not established until hafter his reign. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as small cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:HC Donbass draft picks

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:HC Donbass draft picks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT etc. Two member articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep I'm not a big fan of these draft pick categories but we should be consistent: if we have Category:National Hockey League draft picks, on what grounds can we avoid similar categories for the KHL draft? Of course the category is small because HC Donbass just joined the KHL and has participated in a single draft but the category clearly has room for growth so SMALLCAT doesn't really apply. Pichpich (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, you need to have categories, with articles of course, for the league as a whole - just having them for a few teams doesn't cut it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that we can't keep a category for a KHL team draft picks unless we have already have such categories for every other team in the league? That seems contrary to the incrementalist philosophy we usually employ in these situations. Pichpich (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per WP:SMALLCAT, small categories (usually but not officially defined as ~5 or less articles) are usually only kept if they're part of an overarching categorisation scheme. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess it all depends on where you decide to look for a scheme. We categorize hockey draft picks by team in the NHL and the WHA. It's also been done in other sports such as the NBA. To me that's a categorization scheme even if the one for the KHL Category:Kontinental Hockey League Junior Draft picks is still incomplete. Pichpich (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Witches in popular culture

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: upmerge and delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Witches in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: one page and one cat. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is unclear what can be put here that does not belong in Category:Fictional witches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- In WP "Popular Culture" has in the past provided a measn of assembling unencyclopaedic trivia. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge to Category:Fictional witches, the Delete. Only member is a fictional character in a video game. - jc37 05:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Recipients of the National Defense Service Medal

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the National Defense Service Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Two member article. Listify into National Defense Service Medal. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we discorage categorizing people by award recieved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Austin Turfcats 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: keep.

Propose deleting Category:Austin Turfcats players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. One member article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT (obviously part of an established scheme). Pichpich (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Salisbury, North Carolina

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People from Salisbury, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Two member pages and one is in user namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems that there is plenty of room to expand this category. Lugnuts (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it clearly can be expanded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Pack. The category just needs to be filled....William 00:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wayang Tinggi

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wayang Tinggi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: not 100% sure on this one but since there is no article for the Wayang Tinggi company I will go for delete. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete we general discorage eponymous categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tempera painting in Twentieth Century United States of America

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Tempera painting in Twentieth Century United States of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It contains 11 articles about painters who did not always use tempura. Unneeded level of categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would hope the painters didn't always use tempura, it's quite fattening.

Joking about your incorrect link aside, I agree, we don't need this cat. Delete. Specs112 t c 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've added this to Category:American painters; I note that it parallels Category:American watercolorists; in addition, I note the Society of Painters in Tempera. I guess the question is, is it notable and defining that these artists used tempera? I think there is a case to be made for the watercolorists, but I'm not sure on tempera. However, see this section: Tempera#Tempera_revival_in_20th-century_American_art and recent art exhibition focusing on American tempera painters: [1]. I'm holding off on !voting, will await other comments and further input.--KarlB (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:American tempura painters. There is no reason to limit it by century, nor is their a reason for the complicated and irregular title. I would be open to merging the whole contents into Category:American painters as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Illinois Fighting Illini soccer 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: Keep and rename to Category:Illinois Fighting Illini men's soccer players. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Illinois Fighting Illini soccer players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one member page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established category tree, and rename to Category:Illinois Fighting Illini men's soccer players per the standard naming format for that tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per bushranger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Bushranger. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Internal security vehicles by era

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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Internal security vehicles by era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one member sub-cat. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Internal security vehicles - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge' to Category:Internal security vehicles. There is no reason for the category when there is only one era identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Internal security vehicles by country

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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Internal security vehicles by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Unnecessary level of categorisation. The three subcats only have one member page each and should also be deleted. Created in 2011. There has been enough time to get them populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Internal security vehicles - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to parent. This whole scheme has four articles, no country has more than one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Internal security vehicles

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Internal security vehicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. One member subcat that is up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ISVs are as present on the battlefield as self-propelled howitzers. I've added a few more examples. Marcus Qwertyus 00:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well-established and distinct type of military vehicle worthy of categorisation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the upmerges, there will be plenty of articles in this category. Pichpich (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nominator. Looks like it is worth keeping. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Batavia, Ohio

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. As the only article in this category is also already categorised in the consensus merge target, there is no need for upmerge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People from Batavia, Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. One member article. Batavia, Ohio is" a village in and the county seat of Clermont County, Ohio, United States" so there is no room for growth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category: People from Clermont County, Ohio. I agree with nominator otherwise, this is a category with little potential for growth....William 18:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the only article in the category is already in the suggested merge target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge too small a town to be significant. Pichpich (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; the county category is quite sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pace University Setters football 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: Keep and rename to Category:Pace Setters football players. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Pace University Setters football players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. One member article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:Pace Setters football players per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the consensus is that we split all College football players in the United States to their specific teams. There are lots of colleges with one-member football categories, and no reason to target the Pace Univeristy one alone for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, when the category was nominated the category here was uncategorised and thus uncertain of its provenance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:Pace Setters football players in accordance with standard college athlete naming conventions. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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