Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 1

< January 31	February 2 >

February 1

Category:WikiProject StarCraft

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.

Nominator's rationale: WikiProject no longer exists (was made a task force of WP:VG), and thus is deprecated. Izno (talk) 20:48, 1 February 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.

Hurricane seasons 1890-1949

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) 13:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1890 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1890–1899 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1891 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1890–1899 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1892 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1890–1899 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1893 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1890–1899 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1894 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1890–1899 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1895 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1890–1899 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1896 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1890–1899 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1897 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1890–1899 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1898 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1890–1899 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1899 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1890–1899 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1900 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1900–1909 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1901 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1900–1909 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1902 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1900–1909 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1903 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1900–1909 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1904 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1900–1909 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1905 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1900–1909 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1906 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1900–1909 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1907 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1900–1909 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1908 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1900–1909 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1909 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1900–1909 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1910 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1910–1919 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1911 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1910–1919 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1912 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1910–1919 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1913 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1910–1919 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1914 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1910–1919 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1915 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1910–1919 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1916 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1910–1919 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1917 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1910–1919 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1918 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1910–1919 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1919 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1910–1919 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1920 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1920–1929 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1921 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1920–1929 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1922 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1920–1929 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1923 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1920–1929 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1924 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1920–1929 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1925 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1920–1929 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1926 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1920–1929 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1927 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1920–1929 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1928 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1920–1929 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1929 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1920–1929 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1930 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1930–1939 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1931 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1930–1939 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1932 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1930–1939 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1933 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1930–1939 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1934 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1930–1939 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1935 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1930–1939 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1936 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1930–1939 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1937 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1930–1939 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1938 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1930–1939 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1939 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1930–1939 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1940 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1940–1949 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1941 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1940–1949 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1942 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1940–1949 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1943 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1940–1949 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1944 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1940–1949 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1945 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1940–1949 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1946 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1940–1949 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1947 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1940–1949 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1948 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1940–1949 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1949 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1940–1949 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Nominator's rationale: These categories contain one summary article per season plus, on average, an article a season on specific storms. A few years also contain a category on a major storm. As with earlier years, it seems to me to make as much sense to group these by decade given that most yearly categories will contain only one or two articles; I made a separate group for these, however, as some people might feel these are populated enough to be broken out. Storm naming started in 1950, and from then on every year has at least five to ten articles; therefore this will be the last consolidation nomination made. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 11#Category:1859 Atlantic hurricane season. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support without prejustice to the 1900-1949 ones being re-broken-out again at a later date. ~~Note that the 1940s ones do not appear to have been tagged.~~ - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All categories should be tagged now. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1930 and later. This portion of the tree is reasonably well populated at this time with more content to be added. Like The Bushranger, any deletions here should not prevent the deletion of the 10 year categories and the recreation of the by year categories if and when there is sufficient material to support this. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Count: To save some other people some time, 32, 33, 35, 41, 44, 49 each have 3-4 articles. The remainder in 1930-1949 have 1-2. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah ah ah ah! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - To save anyone else the trouble, the totals by decade: Mangoe (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - 1890-1899: 19 articles
        
        1900-1909: 18 articles
        
        1910-1919: 16 articles
        
        1920-1929: 18 articles
        
        1930-1939: 22 articles
        
        1940-1949: 23 articles
Support delete with no objection to recreating later. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The limit of 1950 was introduced late into the 1859 discussion, which is the predent for this. A category with two dozen articles is not unduly large. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 4 February 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:Old Birkdalians

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Birkdalians to Category:People educated at Birkdale School

Nominator's rationale: Per the recent CfDs that renamed "Old Fooian" categories to the more logical, clearer, and now-preferred "People educated at Foo" format, this one is proposed for renaming to the last mentioned format for the same reasons the others were renamed: clear, concise, understandable by all. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a format that can be understood and aids navigation per these CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – Birkdale School (in Sheffield) is a relatively recent public school and the term "Old Birkdalian" has not gained any great recognition, even in Sheffield. Oculi (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to the standard descriptive Plain English format. The purpose of the category system is to facilitate navigation between articles by wikipedia's non-specialist readership, and category names should be constructed in a form that makes sense to a non-specialist. In this case, the "Old Birkdalians" term appears to have little or no currency outside the circles of those connected to the school, so there is no reason to diverge from the standard "people educated at foo" format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename WP:JARGON; it is also not about old people from Birkdale. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- "old fooian" is common terminology for "people educated at foo", but with the excpetion of perhaps a dozen of the most famous public schools, the term is only common between fellow old fooians. I will oppose this if the precedent is carried too far, to Eton, Harrow, Marlborough. Shrewsbury, Charterhouse, Westminster and a few more major public schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 February 2012

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.

Hurricane seasons 1860-1889

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) 13:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1860 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1860–1869 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1861 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1860–1869 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1862 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1860–1869 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1863 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1860–1869 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1864 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1860–1869 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1865 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1860–1869 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1866 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1860–1869 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1867 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1860–1869 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1868 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1860–1869 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1869 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1860–1869 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1870 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1870–1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1871 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1870–1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1872 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1870–1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1873 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1870–1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1874 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1870–1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1875 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1870–1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1876 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1870–1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1877 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1870–1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1878 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1870–1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1879 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1870–1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1880 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1880–1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1881 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1880–1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1882 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1880–1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1883 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1880–1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1884 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1880–1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1885 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1880–1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1886 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1880–1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1887 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1880–1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1888 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1880–1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1889 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1880–1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Nominator's rationale: These categories contain one summary article per season plus a couple of articles per decade on specific storms. Given the low population it makes sense to group these by decade, especially since season articles vastly outnumber storm articles. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 11#Category:1859 Atlantic hurricane season. Mangoe (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - supported this at the CfD that spurred this, support it now, for the same reasons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom, according to precedent for 1859. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 4 February 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.

Subcategories of Category:1850–1859 Atlantic hurricane seasons

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) 13:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1851 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1850–1859 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1852 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1850–1859 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1854 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1850–1859 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Propose merging Category:1856 Atlantic hurricane season to Category:1850–1859 Atlantic hurricane seasons

Nominator's rationale: Members of these categories already belong to the parent and there is no more than one page per subcategory. The four pages involved constitute 4/5ths of membership, so there's no call for subcategories. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 11#Category:1859 Atlantic hurricane season. Mangoe (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - supported this at the CfD that spurred this, support it now, for the same reasons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom -- per precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 4 February 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:CDDL images

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) 13:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The template that would populate this category was deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 26#Template:CDDL Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 1 February 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:Cold War nuclear bunkers

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cold War nuclear bunkers to Category:Nuclear bunkers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. A single entry TfT creation. While we can argue if there are more possible entries, are any of the candidate article about bunkers or facilities that have a bunker? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only member shouldn't be characterized as a bunker to begin with: it's a former Nike missile site of which a few foundations remain (at least judging from the Goggle map view), and the article should probably be deleted anyway given that it is just a long-winded version of data that ought to be in List of Nike missile locations. The only "bunker" was the underground control room, but it wasn't built primarily for that purpose. Mangoe (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe's logic. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. If the sole member is not correctly categorised, it should be recategorised to somewhere appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 4 February 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:Works about politicians by politician

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Works about politicians by politician to Category:Works about politicians

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge I believe this is another unnecessary "works about y by y" category by User:Stefanomione, similar to discussion now underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_30#Category:Works_about_writers_by_writer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the rationale provided by Shawn for the "about writer by writer" discussion. His point is just as valid for this category. Pichpich (talk) 02:19, 3 February 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:Animation-related websites

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 and purge. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming and purging Category:Animation-related websites to Category:Websites about animation

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion, I'm nominating this by itself. Consensus seemed to favor "Websites about animation" rather than "Animation websites," and while the majority of website categories are "(X) websites," the lack of clarity suggests renaming to the clearer form.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. There are a few articles which are not about animation, but they're miscategorized here to begin with. They belong in Category:Animated internet series or Category:Webcomic publishers. – Pnm (talk) 22:58, 1 February 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:India national cricket team selectors

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: Reverse merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:India national cricket team selectors to Category:Indian national cricket selectors

Nominator's rationale: Merge It's clear that the two categories have the same intended scope. Either name would be fine but the main article is Indian national cricket selectors and for what it's worth Google seems to indicate that "Indian national cricket selectors" is a more common phrase than "India national cricket team selectors". Pichpich (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Indian national cricket selectors. The correct title is India national cricket team selectors (and the article ought to be moved here). These are selectors for India national cricket team and this follows the standard naming structure for all national team selectors. See the other cats at Category:Cricket selectors, the structure was arrived at after discussion at WT:CRIC, I can't seem to find the link now, but I'll post there to see if someone else can find it. Also, the newly created cat is wrong on a couple of fronts "Indian" (at least as far as sports team naming for WP purposes) does not define the "team" (everything is "India national", "Australia national", "West Indies.." -- no national here of course) and there's nothing to merge as it's a subset. —SpacemanSpiff 05:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above India is the correct term, not Indian. They are India Test cricketers, not Indian. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge as I said above, I feel both names are viable and if people prefer Category:India national cricket team selectors then let's go for that. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: There is a consensus for 'reverse merge', but Category:Indian national cricket selectors was not tagged; it is now tagged. Also, what are we to make of the title of the article Indian national cricket selectors – should it be renamed?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge – and it should IMO be India national cricket team selectors (as these might easily not be of Indian nationality). Oculi (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If the above discussion is correct, we should certainly reverse merge and the closing admin should also rename article to match per consensus above. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 4 February 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:Cosmic background

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. No prejudice against revisiting this should an article be created as noted in the discussion below. - jc37 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete There's no such thing as a "cosmic background" and in fact cosmic background is a disambiguation page. The articles of the category are only loosely associated through the use of the term "background". Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The category may be diffuse, but it is something appropriate to have as a category. The article is a dabpage because no one has produced an overview article on all wavelengths, etc. It would be useful if the present dabpage could be converted into a substantive article providing such an overview, with a short summary on each topic using the listed articles as "main" articles. Sorry, I am not qualified to write it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 4 February 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:Events

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; split out if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Events or doing something else

Nominator's rationale: Not sure if this is a rename or a delete or what. Clearly it needs a discussion. Event is a wide ranging dab page leaving the intended purpose of this category totally ambiguous. While the simple answer is to delete this mess and the entire tree, that may not be the best approach. I suspect that splitting this out into unambiguous subcategories would be the best and maybe leaving this category with a hat note in addition to a parent category template. Clearly one subcategory would be Category:Sporting events should be one of these new categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That category is at Category:Sports events. – Pnm (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep generally, but I think it needs work. Some categories should be moved into Category:Events by topic (combat incidents, military nuclear incidents, immigration incidents, social events), some should be removed (current events). Category:Organized events significantly overlaps Category:Events by topic. Most of the article contents should be dispersed. – Pnm (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering if the direction you are suggesting says that what can be included are only from the first section of items on the dab page? When you get to science and technology, we seem to have items that should be in different category trees. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm thinking there are two main things it should include: (1) happenings and (2) gatherings. That might be a way to split, and identify other things which fit less well like Category:Events (computing). – Pnm (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps what's needed is the counter category: Category:Nonevents, for things that didn't happen (the 1940 Summer Olympics, and various end of the world predictions that didn't pan out could be placed there - and everything that happened goes in this one); tongue only somewhat in cheek. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is diffuse category, but I do not think it can usefully be renamed. No objection to splitting some items inot new subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a diffuse master category that should not contain articles, useful in organizing articles into major heirarchies. (is it: a location, an object, a concept, or, an event? -- seems to be the most basic types of articles we have) 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:51, 5 February 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:Coastal defense sites

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:Coastal fortifications. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded extra navigation level for one category with two articles.Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Category:Coastal artillery --Northernhenge (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've just added Device Forts, Martello tower, Maunsell Forts and Nab Tower, but I'm struggling with Conwy Castle - is it a coastal defense site because it is on the coast? Maybe the category is too vague, and also there must be thousands of possible members. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Coastal defence is a dabpage for Coastal management and Coastal defence and fortification so I'm sticking with merge as above. I'm also wondering if a broader rationalisation is needed of these and any other similar categories. (Category:Coastal fortifications is another one.) --Northernhenge (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and sort?~~ There seems to be a categorization issue with Category:Coastal artillery in that it mixes types of equipment (gun models, specific design features, etc.) with coastal emplacements (that is, specific sites). I'm not sure that this is the right name for the "site" category but I think it would make sense to separate the equipment from the locations. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that doing the merge followed by an intelligent split if needed is the best way to go forward. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe has a good point about artillery being equipment. How about merging them all into a new Category:Coastal defence and fortification to match the article that seems to have the most directly relevant name? --Northernhenge (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: I am relisting instead of closing as 'no consensus' to allow more time to discuss the latest comments and ideas.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Coastal fortifications. Whatever needs to be sorted out about Category:Coastal artillery, everything remaining in this particular category is definitely a fort. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mangoe. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Mangoe seems to have found the ideal solution. It seems to have been purged before I got here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 4 February 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:British civil servants to Ceylon

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:British civil servants in Ceylon. An Administrators category could be created as a parent if need be. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British civil servants to Ceylon to Category:Administrators in British Ceylon

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category Category:People of British Ceylon, and similar categ Category:Administrators in British India. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Sri Lanka has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected capitalization within the name of the target category: 'In' → 'in'. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- Category:British civil servants in Ceylon. I am not clear why the Indian category is administrators, rahter than civil servant. It may be so as to include pre-1857 officers of HEIC, who were servants of the company, bit civil servants of the crown; or perhpas so as to include residents who were notionally ambassadors to princely states but often in fact ran them. However the preposition should be "in" not "to". These were people engaged in ruling, not in the nature of ambassadors. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you sure that it it is technically correct to refer to such colonial officers as "civil servants"? It seems to me to be better to use the broader term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Civil servant" may be an anachronism here, I'm not sure. Better not to use it if we can avoid it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can look these things up on something called "Wikipedia" you know, where you will find the Ceylon Civil Service was founded in 1833. See also Indian Civil Service - certainly correct there, after the Indian Mutiny, sorry War of Indian Independence, anyway. It's a lot clearer. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: more appropriate.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject British Empire has been notified, and I've also pinged WikiProject Sri Lanka again. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be difficult, rename to Category:Civil servants in British Ceylon - some were certainly locals not expats. There is nothing wrong with "civil servants" imo - see above - the Ceylon Civil Service was founded in 1833. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:British civil servants in Ceylon or maybe Category:Members of the British civil service in Ceylon, since we are categorizing people in a given civil service, not categorizing by nationality or citizenship intersecting with location and occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename In looking over Category:Administrators in British India, it seems to me that that is a broader category than just the civil servants. I note for example that Category:Indian Civil Service officers exists as a subcat of that category. I think that, should it be needed, Category:Administrators in British Ceylon could be created as a parent/container cat. Speedy Rename Category:British civil servants to Ceylon to Category:British civil servants in Ceylon (change the "to" to "in"). - jc37 17:04, 9 February 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:Newspaper people by newspaper

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. Feel free to renom (for example, for the remerge suggestion below). - jc37 17:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Newspaper people by newspaper to Category:Journalists by publication.
Nominator's rationale. The vast majority of people who are notable for their connections with newspapers are journalists. I am really not convinced we need these two independent trees. I would be fine with merging all the newspaper types into the one category, and moving the TV types elsewhere (especially since I am not sure 60 Minutes is a "publication").John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – looking at say Category:Journalists by publication in the United States, these 2 trees do seem hopelessly intertwined. There will be the occasional non-journalist such as Rupert Murdoch ... rather a mess in fact. Oculi (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think at some point the thought was that we would have seperate categories for journalists, editors, ad execs (Thomas S. Monson was primarily that when he wasemployed by the Deseret News), publishers, owners and whatever other types of newspaper people you can think of. The problem is that newspaper editors generally fit some definition of "journalist", many publishers fit at least some definitions of journalist, if owners and publishers do not fit definitions of journalist they will often not be truly notable for their connection to that newspaper, and how many newspaper ad execs are notable enough to have articles period? I have named one, but one person does not make it a worthwhile thing. I think I know what is going on here. One possibility is that we would take all the "Newspaper people by x newspaper", such as Category:Deseret News people, Category:New York Times people, Category:The Times of London people, Category:Los Angeles Times people, Category:Detroit News people and whatever else, and make subcategories of each for journalists. I would support this plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Johnpacklambert. Category:Whatever Times people would match the people by company tree and keeps things more straightforward. Also works for newspapers, magazines, TV news, whatever. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. There are many notable people involved with newspapers who are not journalists, notably publishers and owners. Many of them are highly notable, particularly in some of the bigger papers, and in the UK the phone-hacking scandal and ongoing Leveson inquiry are throwing up dozens more notable non-journalist people. Merger will leave those people outside of a category related to their company, so it will be disruptive to navigation if we lose the Category:Newspaper people by newspaper categories.
I support the suggestion of creating and populating journalist subcategories where they do not already exist, but I don't support removing the newspaper people categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BHG - Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner are hardly journalists; they're businessmen. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about reverse merge -- All the jounralists are newspaper people, but "newspaper people" includes proprrietors, publishers, executives, etc, many of whom are not journalists. The difficulty with this is that some of the sub-cats are for broadcast (rather than print) media. We may therefore need a parallel Category:Broadcast newsmedia people by broadcaster to deal with these. I limit this to newsmedia because we would not want general broadcasters included. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Newspaper people" includes publishers and other non-journalists, making the current title a more meaningful reflection of its contents. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 5 February 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.