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: Split all, and uncapitalise television. Courcelles 00:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:2011-12 Television program seasons to Category:2011 Television seasons and Category:2012 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:2010-11 Television program seasons to Category:2010 Television seasons and Category:2011 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:2009-10 Television program seasons to Category:2009 Television seasons and Category:2010 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:2008-09 Television program seasons to Category:2008 Television seasons and Category:2009 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:2007-08 Television program seasons to Category:2007 Television seasons and Category:2008 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:2006-07 Television program seasons to Category:2006 Television seasons and Category:2007 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:2005-06 Television program seasons to Category:2005 Television seasons and Category:2006 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:2004-05 Television program seasons to Category:2004 Television seasons and Category:2005 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:2003-04 Television program seasons to Category:2003 Television seasons and Category:2004 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:2002-03 Television program seasons to Category:2002 Television seasons and Category:2003 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:2001-02 Television program seasons to Category:2001 Television seasons and Category:2002 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:2000-01 Television program seasons to Category:2000 Television seasons and Category:2001 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1999-2000 Television program seasons to Category:1999 Television seasons and Category:2000 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1998-99 Television program seasons to Category:1998 Television seasons and Category:1999 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1997-98 Television program seasons to Category:1997 Television seasons and Category:1998 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1996-97 Television program seasons to Category:1996 Television seasons and Category:1997 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1995-96 Television program seasons to Category:1995 Television seasons and Category:1996 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1994-95 Television program seasons to Category:1994 Television seasons and Category:1995 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1993-94 Television program seasons to Category:1993 Television seasons and Category:1994 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1992-93 Television program seasons to Category:1992 Television seasons and Category:1993 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1991-92 Television program seasons to Category:1991 Television seasons and Category:1992 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1990-91 Television program seasons to Category:1990 Television seasons and Category:1991 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1989-90 Television program seasons to Category:1989 Television seasons and Category:1990 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1988-89 Television program seasons to Category:1988 Television seasons and Category:1989 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1987-88 Television program seasons to Category:1987 Television seasons and Category:1988 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1986-87 Television program seasons to Category:1986 Television seasons and Category:1987 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1985-86 Television program seasons to Category:1985 Television seasons and Category:1986 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1984-85 Television program seasons to Category:1984 Television seasons and Category:1985 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1983-84 Television program seasons to Category:1983 Television seasons and Category:1984 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1982-83 Television program seasons to Category:1982 Television seasons and Category:1983 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1981-82 Television program seasons to Category:1981 Television seasons and Category:1982 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1980-81 Television program seasons to Category:1980 Television seasons and Category:1981 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1979-80 Television program seasons to Category:1979 Television seasons and Category:1980 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1978-79 Television program seasons to Category:1978 Television seasons and Category:1979 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1977-78 Television program seasons to Category:1977 Television seasons and Category:1978 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1976-77 Television program seasons to Category:1976 Television seasons and Category:1977 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1975-76 Television program seasons to Category:1975 Television seasons and Category:1976 Television seasons

Late additions

Propose renaming Category:1974-75 Television program seasons to Category:1974 Television seasons and Category:1975 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1973-74 Television program seasons to Category:1973 Television seasons and Category:1974 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1972-73 Television program seasons to Category:1972 Television seasons and Category:1973 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1971-72 Television program seasons to Category:1971 Television seasons and Category:1972 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1970-71 Television program seasons to Category:1970 Television seasons and Category:1971 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1969-70 Television program seasons to Category:1969 Television seasons and Category:1970 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1968-69 Television program seasons to Category:1968 Television seasons and Category:1969 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1967-68 Television program seasons to Category:1967 Television seasons and Category:1968 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1966-67 Television program seasons to Category:1966 Television seasons and Category:1967 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1965-66 Television program seasons to Category:1965 Television seasons and Category:1966 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1964-65 Television program seasons to Category:1964 Television seasons and Category:1965 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1963-64 Television program seasons to Category:1963 Television seasons and Category:1964 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1962-63 Television program seasons to Category:1962 Television seasons and Category:1963 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1961-62 Television program seasons to Category:1961 Television seasons and Category:1962 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1960-61 Television program seasons to Category:1960 Television seasons and Category:1961 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1959-60 Television program seasons to Category:1959 Television seasons and Category:1960 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1958-59 Television program seasons to Category:1958 Television seasons and Category:1959 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1957-58 Television program seasons to Category:1957 Television seasons and Category:1958 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1956-57 Television program seasons to Category:1956 Television seasons and Category:1957 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1955-56 Television program seasons to Category:1955 Television seasons and Category:1956 Television seasons

Propose renaming Category:1954-55 Television program seasons to Category:1954 Television seasons and Category:1955 Television seasons

Also please comment on the parent category discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_6#Television_programs_by_season.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose It seems to me that the vast majority of season articles (of shows of sufficient notability to have such articles) span a TV season such as the season represented by the 2010–11 United States network television schedule. However, support moving from hyphen to dash.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Additionally, I think the word program should be in the category to clarify that it does not for use in categorizing articles such as 2010–11 United States network television schedule.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Split into Category:2010 in television in the United States or similar. While in the good old days when a show ran for 39 weeks or so, it made sense to categorize like this. Now with shorter series, we should not be limited to what is prime season on the major networks (5 out of hundreds of networks). Even the major networks have summer seasons with new series. Category:2010 in television in the United States works for me, but if someone feels the need for Category:2010 television seasons in the United States (note spelling) or some such, I can live with that. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The point is to have separate categories like we have Category:2010 television episodes as a subcat of Category:2010 in television. The category you name is like Category:2010 in American television, which is not currently used for episodes or seasons.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 02:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support. I tried to place the Dexter seasons into one of these categories, but found it impossible. If motion is to oppose this move, perhaps more categories should be made, for seasons spanning only one year...? That Ole' Cheesy Dude ( Talk to the hand!) 02:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support I guess if people don't feel it is clear that Dexter (season 1) belongs in Category:2006-07 Television program seasons, then I will have to support the move.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 02:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support To avoid confusion. Agree with the above. — Mike  Allen 03:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose To avoid confusion. Disagree with the above. So i pointed out that television seasons differ a little in almost every country. As it is it is not perfect and never will be. The proposition is to make it worse. The one thing not a single one of them have is what is proposed here - broadcast by calendar year. If people don't know the span of the US television season then what are they doing trying to edit such a topic? Shall next be the dismantling of the categories and articles which say the US tv seasons span calendar years? It is the ignorant who oppose Dexter (season 1) belonging in Category:2006-07 Television program seasons. Sure the show aired in one year but this is not grouping it by years; this is grouping it by tv seasons and the seasons span years in most every county. If you group it by years then you split the seasons of the respective shows and thus the category is improperly named. If you realise that the categories are named based on the television broadcast season then you see this proposal has no merit. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support Per nom. Only the main US TV networks use the 2010-11 season and so forth. Cable networks don't usually follow that format. Not forgetting season articles from non-US shows. -- Matthew RD 19:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support – while technically nothing wrong with the "television seasons" separation this is very limited and only applies to the five big U.S. networks. And the way it's currently setup, Category:2010-11 Television program seasons as subsection of both Category:2010 in television and Category:2011 in television, is inaccurate for shows that aired in only one year. de-capitalize "Television" like Category:2010 television episodes does.  _Xeworlebi ^{( talk)} 22:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You do realise this proposal makes it inaccurate for all tv show seasons that do not get shown in a single year - aka the opposite of your concern. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • No it doesn't. ??? A season that airs in both 2010 and 2011 should be part of Category:2010 in television and Category:2011 in television. If you're not part of 2011 then you should't be in Category:2011 in television. Even networks shows that are announced as 2010–2011 but got canceled before they reached 2011 should not be part of Category:2011 in television, as they are not part of the calendar year 2011. An television episode that would be aired on new years eve and cross over into 2011, would be placed in both Category:2010 television episodes and Category:2011 television episodes, as it's part of both.  _Xeworlebi ^{( talk)} 13:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • You don't seem to realise that you are talking about taking broadcast season categorisation and turning it into annual categorisation whilst still calling it tv show seasons. So long as the categories contain the word "season" it is inherently incorrect to have them (only) for a single year. To be most accurate one would need to take Category:2010-11 Television program seasons and change it to Category:2010-11 Television seasons and Category:2010 Television seasons and Category:2011 Television seasons. If a show that only airs a season in 1 year is mislabelled to be in a year-spanning category despite the broadcast season then a show that has a season span years is mislabelled to put it in categories that are year-specific as it implies that season only was broadcast in that year. For this and the redundancy to the Category:Lists of drama television series episodes i do certainly oppose this on any and all propositions. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
        • You appear to be entirely missing the point of this change. This change would eliminate the arbitrary naming that is a "television season", which would be abandoned by this and we would go by calendar year. This is not a change from the already limited 2010–2011 television season to the entirely non-existent 2010 and 2011 television seasons, but rather a separation of show seasons in the calendar year they aired in, as in "a season of a television show from the year 2010" etc. This is getting rid of the entire problem of what exactly is a "television season", who uses it and when does it start/end etc. not at all making it more complex, which is what you are suggesting.  _Xeworlebi ^{( talk)} 22:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• (ec)Oppose per Deliriousandlost. Not just the 'big five' networks do "over the end of the year" seasons, I know Sci-Fi (I refuse to call it SyFy) "carries over", for one. Aside from that (and ngetting away from the US), the argument that "2010-2011...is inaccurate for shows that aired in only one year" is only half the story; "2010" and "2011" would be inaccurate for shows that spanned both years in a single season. While the system might be broke, changing it to something else that's broke isn't the way to fix it; two wrongs don't make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Having a show that airs over the end of the year does not magically make you part of the invention of U.S. network TV and thus part of 2010–2011 television season. This is going by calendar year, how is it inaccurate to put a season that aired in two calendar years as part of each calendar year? Or is a season that airs over two years suddenly not part of either year? Lets take an example, lets say an article for the first season of Lone Star exists, Fox announced it would be part of the 2010–2011 television season and would thus be categorized in Category:2010-11 Television program seasons, which would make it, because of the way subsections are setup now, part of Category:2011 in television, but it never was part of the calendar year 2011. If that article would exist it should be in Category:2010 in television and nothing else, not Category:2009 in television not Category:2011 in television, not any other calendar year.  _Xeworlebi ^{( talk)} 13:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • As I stated at WT:TV, A useful solution to the existent naming conventions would be a statement at the top of each category saying this category is for season containing episodes that originally aired in the United States between September 18, 20xx and September 17, 20xx+1 or in Canada between September 3, 20xx and September 2, 20xx+1.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • "Lets take an example, lets say an article for the first season of Lone Star exists" - it would be my first ever AFD nomination. If you are going to use examples at lease use ones that have some probability of existing if they do not yet exist. You are still thinking as though categorisation by broadcast season is the same as categorisation by calendar year. Just because season 5 of Dexter was shown in 2010 doesn't mean it is wrong to categorise it as part of the 2010-11 broadcast season but it would be wrong to put season 5 of Dexter in a category of tv seasons from 2011 as season 6 would belong in that annual category. Broadcast season does not equal calendar year and this proposal is so messed up because some people are acting as those they are nigh perfectly interchangeable terminology. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Sigh, it was an example, if you're really starting to obsess about the possibilities of an example rather than the actual point and the problem at hand…
        • First of, that is exactly my point, this is categorizing Dexter (season 5) as part of 2011 because it would be placed in 2010-2011 television season, which is a subcategory of "2010 in television" and "2011 in television", that is inherently wrong.
        • And secondly, again here, entirely missing the point of this. This proposal is not making up a "2010 television season" like there is the network "2010–2011 television season". This is going by what year they originally aired in. A season airs one day, which makes it part of a calendar year, so the season is categorized as part of that calendar year, say Dexter (season 5) aired in 2010, which would put it in "2010 in television", there is a 2010 television episodes" which is a subcat of this were all the episodes are put in, this is just its equivalent but for season articles. A season airs in december 2010 does not make it automatically part of the 2010–2011 television season, for example every UK show, is not part of this, it is however part of the calendar year in which it aired. Which makes this is a much cleaner, clearer and more encompassing category system then going by the arbitrary and U.S. "television seasons" system.  _Xeworlebi ^{( talk)} 22:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment not too fussed about the division over two years, but if the range of years is used, we should use the en-dash to separate the years (per WP:MOS), not the hyphen. Also, no matter what, Television is not a proper noun, so it's either "2001–02 television seasons" or simply "2001 television seasons" & "2002 television seasons". The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oh, my sweet fuck, noooooooooo. Delete all as trivial overcategorization, PLEEEEEEEEASE. If, for some reason, they really must be kept at all, the word "television" should be uncategorized, to boot. Bearcat ( talk) 02:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Humber basin to Category:Humber drainage basin

Propose renaming Category:Thames basin to Category:Thames drainage basin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basins is ambiguous. This rename is not being offered with options since the parent category is being renamed to drainage basins. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Humber river basin and Category:Thames river basin. It seems a more accurate and logical desciption of the categories as they are just concerned with rivers and would still fit in with the parent category as drainage basins. Cjc13 ( talk) 16:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This is a fundamental change to the categorisation of the world's rivers on Wikipedia which needs to be properly discussed first at the Rivers Project by those who understand rivers, basins, etc. Otherwise we will end up with a huge mess and a lot of unnecessary work. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: allow renaming from "basin" to "drainage basin" only, where appropriate. We have reached consensus that "basin" is ambiguous and cannot be left alone. So where a category contains articles about the basin, it can become "drainage basin." But changing "basin" to "tributaries" has not been endorsed. So this close will change Category:Reuss basin to Category:Reuss drainage basin and Category:Aar basin to Category:Aar drainage basin, and do nothing with the Moselle and Saar categories. The latter two can be renominated for further discussion, though.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Reuss basin

Propose renaming Category:Reuss basin to Category:Tributaries of the Reuss or Category:Reuss drainage basin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As always, basin is ambiguous. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. This is a fundamental change to the categorisation of the world's rivers on Wikipedia which needs to be properly discussed first at the Rivers Project by those who understand rivers, basins, etc. Otherwise we will end up with a huge mess and a lot of unnecessary work. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Aar basin

Propose renaming Category:Aar basin to Category:Tributaries of the Aar or Category:Aar drainage basin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As always basin is ambiguous. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. This is a fundamental change to the categorisation of the world's rivers on Wikipedia which needs to be properly discussed first at the Rivers Project by those who understand rivers, basins, etc. Otherwise we will end up with a huge mess and a lot of unnecessary work. "Basin" is not really ambiguous at a river article. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Moselle basin

Propose renaming Category:Moselle basin to Category:Tributaries of the Moselle River

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the introduction this is about the tributaries. If we ever get a main article on the basin, then we can reconsider. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The article starts off with a very nice image of the Moselle drainage basin so it probably should be renamed to Category:Moselle drainage basin, but I agree the article is just about the river system. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This is a fundamental change to the categorisation of the world's rivers on Wikipedia which needs to be properly discussed first at the Rivers Project by those who understand rivers, basins, etc. Otherwise we will end up with a huge mess and a lot of unnecessary work. "Basin" cats do not need a main article: a basin includes all the waterbodies in a river's catchment area including tributaries, sub-tributaries, lakes, reservoirs, moors, springs, etc. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Saar basin

Propose merging Category:Saar basin to Category:Moselle basin or to Category:Tributaries of the Saar (river)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to one parent since the others really apply to the individual rivers. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge to whatever is decided about Category:Moselle basin above. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This is a fundamental change to the categorisation of the world's rivers on Wikipedia which needs to be properly discussed first at the Rivers Project by those who understand rivers, tributaries, basins, etc. Otherwise we will end up with a huge mess and a lot of unnecessary work. These rivers are large and their basins categories will become big and contain all other waterbodies in their catchment area. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. We did indeed just discuss this.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Articles on deletion review to Category:Category:Wikipedia pages that are the subjects of deletion reviews

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is populated by a template that serves all namespaces, not just articles, and the category should be renamed to reflect its actual scope. Bsherr ( talk) 19:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep per 'too soon'. We have just discussed this. Occuli ( talk) 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 19:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Recursion theory to Category:Computability theory

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should match main article. — Ruud 18:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename: Per nom. The terms are more or less synonyms, but to me 'computability' is broader and this reflects the articles that have been included. There seems to be quite a bit of duplication between this and the parent Category:Theory of computation. Computability is one aspect of computation so perhaps with the rename the articles can be organized a bit better.-- RDBury ( talk) 08:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Not only is the "main article" called that, but the name makes sense as a description of what the topic is about. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:People from Uganda to Category:Ugandan people

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I see no useful purpose served by this category. The text in the categ says it is for "for people who are not citizens of Uganda but who were born in Uganda or who are resident in Uganda". At least one of the people in the category ( Dolar Popat) was one of those Ugandan Asians expelled by Idi Amin, so presumably he was a Ugandan citizen before his expulsion; but whatever the precise citizenship status, it seems to be to me unhelpful to split "people from" categories in this way. Categories exist to facilitate navigation, but navigation is impeded by dividing "people from foo" from "Fooian people" on the basis of a pedantic split wrt to citizenship, which in any case is hard to verify. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete – these are explicitly not Ugandan people. Being born in Foo or being otherwise 'from' Foo does not make a person fooian. (The Ugandan Asians were mostly British as far as I recall.) I am sure we have customarily deleted 'born in' categories anyway. (Note that we have Category:People from London but not Category:People from England (a redirect). Category:People from London are assumed via category inclusions to be 'English' so Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is English, apparently.) Occuli ( talk) 20:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. I'm not too concerned about keeping the categories FOOian people limited to those with citizenship. It makes more sense to treat the category ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Ugandan people as essentially being synonymous with "People from Uganda" without too much pedantry, as nom indicates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merge per consistency with all other country-people cats, which are all in fact treated as "People from Foo" and contain all people related to a given country. The only other occurrence of a similar case seems to be People from Singapore, which we could consider merging as well with Singaporean people. If we move all such categories from People by nationality to Category:People by country it would certainly make sense and be more realistic, but we can't single out Uganda and Singapore. Place Clichy ( talk) 12:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • That might be a slightly more complex issue, since Singapore is also a city, and one could read this category as being akin to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:People from Berlin, for example. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Well, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:People from Singapore is currently a subcat of only ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:People by country and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Singapore (so no reference to a city classification there), and has the same weird introduction wording as the discussed Uganda cat. Plus I don't think there are other cities in Singapore than Singapore City. So a merge shouldn't be a problem. A bigger trouble would be to move all FOOian people cats to People from FOO, which would however probably make a lot more sense. Place Clichy ( talk) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • If you look at the actual contents though, some appear to be people who lived in Singapore but were not of Singaporean nationality. Others were merely born there. It's essentially operating as a very loose/inappropriately applied "people from city" category, minus all the Singaporean nationals who live there. So I would say a deletion would be appropriate, but probably not a merge. I think we agree that one way or the other it probably should go, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 19:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Video games by region to Category:Video games by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More appropriate as this category is split by country. Tassedethe ( talk) 16:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep, noting the outcome ("not moved") of the RM discussion at the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 19:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Taiwan to Category:Transport in Taiwan

Propose renaming Category:Proposed public transportation in Taiwan to Category:Proposed public transport in Taiwan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Transportation in Taiwan was nominated for speedy renaming at the same time as the one below. While Transportation in Taiwan (which I've also nominated for this change at Talk:Transportation in Taiwan) makes a case the other way, I think this should be renamed. There's no clear indication that "Transportation" is in widespread use in a country that mostly speaks Hokkien and Mandarin.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• comment what matters is not how widespread English is in a country, but the English dialect that is used by the country when English is used. For example, see the official site: Ministry of Transportation and Communications(in Chinese). From what I can see, this English use of 'transportation' is from the government itself, not some subsequent translation. Hmains ( talk) 19:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Also this site of the Executive Yuan of Taiwan: [1] Hmains ( talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Right, but as far as I can tell, this is the only clear use of this term in Taiwan. There doesn't seem to be any general use of Americanisms over Britishisms there. But I'm not from Taiwan, so perhaps someone who is can weigh in.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Follow article name, whichever it ends up at. I don't know which is correct in this case, but it seems to me that when they do use English, Taiwanese sources use American forms. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename to follow the rest of the category tree. There is no good reason to use American English so the standard format should be used. McLerristarr |  Mclay1 04:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• do not rename There is no default to use in these cases and no presumption that British English has some kind of priority use. Evidence shows that American English is used in Taiwan by the government of Taiwan. Hmains ( talk) 06:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The default is to match the category tree, which uses British English. If we asked the Taiwanese government, I'm sure they wouldn't mind. McLerristarr |  Mclay1 06:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • No, the widest default is to follow the article name, and it is a very longstanding courtesy that article names are not to be renamed willy-nilly over ENGVAR issues.- choster ( talk) 19:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• For Pete's sake, keep and redirect from alternative. 1) Taiwan, like South Korea and to some extent the PRC, uses a mix of British and American forms. That the ministry uses "Transportation" would indicate that "Transportation" is an officially accepted local variant. 2) The proposer's argument that the category "looks messy" is no argument at all. 3) A category redirect can handle any accidental adds. Given that, I see no reason to disturb the peace here short of any project-wide effort to limit the use of North American English.- choster ( talk) 19:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Recommend also a consistency nomination for the Canadian categories. Timrollpickering ( talk) 00:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in the Arctic to Category:Transport in the Arctic

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In the mass rename of Transportation -> Transport, this one didn't get addressed. It was nominated for speedy renaming, where the WP:ENGVAR objection was raised. I think renaming is right, though. There's no ownership of the Arctic Ocean, and since we've made only a few places use "Transportation," this should default to "Transport."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. If there is no single country that governs usage, we should default to what the parent category ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Transport uses. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename – There is no obvious English variation for the Arctic so it should follow the rest of the category tree. McLerristarr |  Mclay1 04:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename Canadian English is the obvious English variation for the Arctic, and it uses "Transport" preferentially over Transportaiton. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 06:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Why then is it ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Transportation in Canada? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • It should be Category:Transport in Canada given that the main article and most of the subcategories use "transport". McLerristarr |  Mclay1 07:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • It's been my personal experience that "transport" is preferred over "transportation" in Canada. However "transportation" is also widely used. But, if we call it "transportation" that would fit with both English variants that have an interest in the Arctic, what having arctic territory and all. "transport" would only fit Canadian English, which has a greater affinity to the arctic, and much more arctic territory than any country, (probably including Russia) 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 18:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Do not renmae Given the US and Canadian use of 'Transportation' in nearly all their category names. Hmains ( talk) 06:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, most of Canada's transport category tree uses "transport". McLerristarr |  Mclay1 07:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps you are looking at a different category tree. Look at the first level, look at the second level, etc Hmains ( talk) 03:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I could have sworn there were more last time I counted. You are probably right; however, there is a large number using "transport". After this discussion is over, a new one involving Canada is probably a good idea. McLerristarr |  Mclay1 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 12:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Beast members to Category:Beast (South Korean band) members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Beast (South Korean band). There are multiple bands by this name. Note that ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Beast (South Korean band) albums and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Beast (South Korean band) EPs already exist in this format. ( Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Wikipedia:Disambiguation provides that article page names should not be disambiguated unless there is an actual conflict. It's analogous to categories. Even though the article name is disambiguated, there is no need to do so for the category name in absence of a conflict. The content of the category page itself is sufficient to do so. -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, category names have not typically been treated as analogous in this way, because they are different than articles and appear at the bottom of an article without further explanation. In any case (if I must), I've now created ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Beast (Canadian band) members, so now there is a conflict and the nominated category should be a disambiguation category. Finally, why would we deviate from the naming structure of the pre-existing categories for Beast (South Korean band)? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The existence of the conflict resolves the matter. But to address your questions: Though category names appear without explanation, so do articles in "see also" sections. Both can also be linked to in surrounding context. Why treat them dissimilarly? If the category were to have been renamed, I wouldn't object to renaming of other categories for consistency. -- Bsherr ( talk) 16:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Why treat them dissimilarly? I'm just commenting on what past consensus has been w.r.t. categories. The "see other" section is another matter entirely that I don't know much about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename highly ambiguous categories require constant supervision, so are renamed, regardless if the main article is not disambiguated, further if the category doesn't match a disambiguated article name, it is renamed to match. Further not just bands are called "Beast", which have members. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Degrassi (franchise). Ruslik_ Zero 19:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Places on Degrassi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is entirely comprised of one article and redirects from the same article. The article, List of places on Degrassi, can be put into Category:Degrassi (franchise); the redirects don't need categorization.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 08:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Do you mean redirects to the same article? They are valid search terms, and I believe they should remain categorized. Should they be moved to elsewhere in Category:Degrassi (franchise), or do you think they should be uncategorized redirects? 117Avenue ( talk) 08:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • They should be uncategorized. We don't categorize by search terms. We categorize articles, and these aren't those.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Categories like this are pointless when all the redirects go to the same place. In general, redirects do not need to be categorized and I've never understood the push to do so. Something can be a valid search term and it not being categorized has no effect on users' ability to search for that term and to be directed to the correct place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete – in general some redirects can be usefully categorised, eg Degrassi Community School is usefully categorised under 'fictional schools' (someone browsing for fictional schools will find it). Someone seeking places on Degrassi would be well-advised to head for List of places on Degrassi ... one needs a few actual articles to justify a category. Occuli ( talk) 15:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I agree. 117Avenue ( talk) 00:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm fine with including redirects in some cats but they do NOT count as an article. This cat only has one article. Upmerge the list article to Category:Degrassi (franchise). RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Burials at Holy Cross Cemetery to Category:Burials at Holy Cross Cemetery, Culver City

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article Holy Cross Cemetery, Culver City. Holy Cross Cemetery is ambiguous and we also have ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Burials at Holy Cross Cemetery (Brooklyn) and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Burials at Holy Cross Cemetery (Colma), so the nominated category should be a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support clearly ambiguous. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 09:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support per above. Occuli ( talk) 15:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support Rename to match title of parent article and reduce obvious potential for ambiguity. Alansohn ( talk) 22:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Anti-aircraft artillery because it now contains Category:Anti-aircraft guns. Ruslik_ Zero 08:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Air Defense Artillery ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Do we need this category? It has no parents, and it only contains the subcategory ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Air defense artillery units of the United States Army, which pretty much contains everything that one would expect the nominated category to contain. If kept, it should probably be renamed to match the main article Air Defense Artillery Branch (United States Army). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The subcategory seems to cover it.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Populate as Category:Air defence artillery-- Other countries must have (or have had) this class of guns. CErtainly both UK and Germany had AA guns in WWII. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Why would we create a duplicate to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Anti-aircraft weapons? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Air defense artillery units. I've added a parent category. -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Note: We should get input from WP:MILHIST on this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Air defense artillery units. I added two articles. There are probably more. Hmains ( talk) 05:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Anti-aircraft artillery units. 'Triple-A' is the common name for this sort of thing. I'll also post a note at the WT:MILHIST page to request comment from the experts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment (nom). If we're going to keep this as a non-exclusively-U.S. container category (which seems to be what users would like to do), the surely rename to Category:Anti-aircraft artillery units is preferable to a rename to "air defense artillery units", since the latter seems to be uniquely the American terminology for their own AA artillery units. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Anti-aircraft artillery units per the above Nick-D ( talk) 09:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This area probably needs a clean up though. In real life there are a variety of elements to this: AAA units and AAA equipment. Equipment can be subdivided into fire-control, guns, and ammunition. An overall category is useful. There is a Category:Anti-aircraft guns, which has various sub-categories.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 11:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • If we're keeping we need to know under what name it will be kept. The current name does not seem to be an ideal one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. I see no other option how to name the category for Lotus Software software. Ruslik_ Zero 08:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Lotus software to Category:Lotus Software software

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is for software produced by Lotus Software, so standard naming conventions suggest that this should be the name, which would be similar to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Atlas Games games or ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:London Films films. (I initially proposed changing this to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Lotus Software at the speedy section, but this was opposed because the category is for software; it's not an eponymous category for the company itself. But the current name is deficient because there is no company called just "Lotus".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename. This parallels Category:Steve Jackson Games games (which can't be "Steve Jackson games"), Category:General Aircraft aircraft (which can't be "General aircraft"), and the like. Sometimes there's no way to be consistent and avoid repetition.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 08:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Unless the whole category structure is altered to read Category:Software produced by Foo company this is the only way to ensure the category title matches the intended contents. Tassedethe ( talk) 01:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep unless Alt Rename to Category:Lotus Software. Change category to be eponymous and allow someone to add non-software articles if applicable. I would reluctantly vote to mangle the English language if this cat became so big it needed subcats for peoople, buildings and software, but that should be a last resort. RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Main (river) basin, which was created as a result of the other discussion referenced. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Tauber basin to Category:Main basin

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category with limited growth potential.a Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge as per nom. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. This isn't about the nomination per se, but "Main basin" did not communicate to me that it was the Main River. That might deserve its own nomination later on.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Yea, I have been concerned about that. Main is a really bad word to have pointing to an article. Hopefully someone will take that to WP:RM. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • OK, the nomination is here comment if you wish. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose rename Category:Main basin to something else, Category:Main River basin, since "Main basin" is extremely ambiguous. And merge to that. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 06:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • If the rename of Main happens, then Category:Main basin will likely be renamed to Category:Main (river) basin. This discussion is not about the ambiguous nature of Category:Main basin. You can also suggest a rename of Category:Main basin if you believe that would help. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This will become larger over time. See de:Kategorie:Flusssystem Tauber. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Main (river) basin, which has since been created via CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Regnitz basin to Category:Main basin or rename to Category:Tributaries of the Regnitz

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Apparently this is a part of the Main basin. If this sub-basin ever gets and article, then we can reconsider the need for this subcategory. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Main basin. The article for Regnitz states that it is only 56 km long so it hardly seems to justify a sub-cat for its tributaries. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose rename Category:Main basin to something else, Category:Main River basin, since "Main basin" is extremely ambiguous. And merge to that. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 06:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This is work in progress and 8 is quite big enough for a category. Plus there is potential for great expansion. The German Wiki category has 80 entries! -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The scheme is the scheme, and this fits neatly in it. But there might be support for changing the scheme because it creates singletons like this. A more global nomination is needed.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Battlecruisers of Australia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains and will only ever contain one entry. ShipFan ( talk) 03:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• keep part of the categorization scheme. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 04:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy. Calistemon ( talk) 04:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Single-item categories are acceptable when they are part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete redundant to Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy - Australia has only ever operated one battlecruiser, and it was operated by the RAN. Nick-D ( talk) 05:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Category:Battlecruisers is subcatted by era (war), by country and by navy. Perfectly reasonable schemes. Occuli ( talk) 15:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Nick-D. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep this one as part of the Category:Battlecruisers by country scheme, which can be said to be part of an established categorization scheme ( Category:Naval ships by country, which is a subcategory of Category:Ships by country and Category:Military equipment by country). -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 00:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 11:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains and will only ever contain one entry. ShipFan ( talk) 03:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)} reply

• keep part of the categorization scheme. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 04:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep this one, even if it has only one entry, and delete Category:Battlecruisers of Australia, Category:Indefatigable class battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:World War I battlecruisers of Australia. Calistemon ( talk) 04:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Single-item categories are acceptable when they are part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep Not a very useful category, but it's needed for the usual category tree Nick-D ( talk) 05:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Category:Battlecruisers is subcatted by era (war), by country and by navy. Perfectly reasonable schemes. Occuli ( talk) 15:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- All Australian battlecruisers will belong to the Royal Australian Navy. Do we really need two categories - one for the country and one for its navy? Without having investigated, I suspect that we have two parallel trees that need to be merged. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep as part of the Battlecruisers by navy category tree, which can be said to be part of an established categorization scheme ( Category:Ships by navy). -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 00:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to merge to the now-renamed Category:Main (river) basin, but three out of four were in favour of changing the category in some way (IP user wanted to go further than the others and do an upmerge, and nominator would have been OK with that too); so rename to Category:Franconian Saale for now. Regarding the voice opposed to doing anything: there is indeed a difference between a river and a basin, but as it stands right now, the category seems to contain articles that make it of the type contained in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Categories named after rivers and is not a typical "river basin" category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Franconian Saale basin to Category:Franconian Saale or merge to Category:Main basin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Really about the river and tributaries and not a basin. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Franconian Saale. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose rename Category:Main basin to something else, Category:Main River basin, since "Main basin" is extremely ambiguous. And merge to that. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 06:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. There is a big difference between a river and a basin. The basin includes all waterbodies in the catchment area including lakes, reservoirs, springs, moors, etc. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The scheme is the scheme, and this fits neatly in it. But there might be support for changing the scheme because it creates singletons like this. A more global nomination is needed.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:World War I battlecruisers of Australia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains and will only ever contain one entry. ShipFan ( talk) 03:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep part of a categorization scheme. 64.229.101.119 ( talk) 04:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy. Calistemon ( talk) 04:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Single-item categories are acceptable when they are part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - Australia has only operated one BC, and it was during World War I. HMAS Australia is already directly categorised in Category:World War I battlecruisers, which seems the best way to handle things. Nick-D ( talk) 05:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Category:World War I battlecruisers is subcatted by country. (There might be a case for changing this by a more general upmerge.) Occuli ( talk) 15:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- Do we really need three categories for this? Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Nick-D, ShipFan. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Nick-D. Six categories (of which four are barely populated) do not a categorization scheme make, and navigation is not helped by the existence in three categories trees of an extra layer for just one article. Upmerge the single article ( HMAS Australia (1911)) to Category:World War I battlecruisers and Category:World War I naval ships of Australia. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 23:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • In my opinion, what makes this different from Category:Battlecruisers of Australia and Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy is that this one is a triple-intersection of war, equipment and country, whereas the others intersect only two characteristics (equipment and country/navy). -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 00:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 19:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Basins of Antarctica to Category:Landforms of Antarctica

Nominator's rationale: Merge. With basins being ambiguous and with limited growth potential, this category becomes one based on a shared name. Better to just upmerge. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Landforms of Antarctica. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge as suggested. Ruslik_ Zero 20:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Indefatigable class battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains and will only ever contain one entry. ShipFan ( talk) 03:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete as per Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy. Calistemon ( talk) 04:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Single-item categories are acceptable when they are part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is pointless category - Australia only operated one of this class of ships, so it shold be categorised into Category:Indefatigable class battlecruisers to simplify things (and save one mouse click for people following this category tree). Nick-D ( talk) 05:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Fair point. Changing to Delete on that reasoning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per reasoning above. Orderinchaos 10:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:Indefatigable class battlecruisers which should have no subcats (there are only 3 such altogether: 1 UK, 1 Aus, 1 NZ). Occuli ( talk) 15:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge seems a very good solution. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge as above. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 01:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC). reply
• Upmerge per Occuli. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Isère basin to Category:Isère drainage basin or rename to Category:Tributaries of the Isère

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basin is ambiguous. Another option is to upmerge to both parents. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Isère drainage basin. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 23:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Aude basin to Category:Basins of the Gulf of Lion Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Lion or rename to Category:Tributaries of the Aude

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Basin is ambiguous and this is a two entry category with unclear growth potential. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Note: Category:Basins of the Gulf of Lion was renamed to Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Lion. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 00:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Nomination modified to reflect this. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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