The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. The issue of whether this should be "East India Company" or "British East India Company" may be pursued in a wider category nomination. For now, we can make this small change.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup
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:Productive discussion appears to have moved to the Jan 17th discussion, so closing this as no consensus..
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete Make more specific categories for these templates, although there are already some extant.
Bernolákovčina (
talk) 23:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Stamp collections
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. If users want to try out having this as a subcategory of
Category:Philatelic collections, then now would be an appropriate time to implement that, though this discussion really came to no consensus on whether such a set-up would be preferred to what currently exists..
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too similar to
Category: Stamp collecting and will cause confusion. Anything that can be put in the nominated category can just as well be placed in the established stamp collecting category.
Maidonian (
talk) 11:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I see these as quite distinct. Stamp collecting includes all the articles relating to the process of stamp collecting such as catalogs, stamp auctions, some technical terms, etc. Stamp collections should include famous stamp collections, which in theory merit their own category. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be more than one such article at present. If confusion is the concern, the name could be changed to collections of stamps.
Ecphora (
talk) 13:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. They are different things but even the proposed different name won't prevent this becoming a source of confusion. And is a an article on famous stamp collections going to be able to meet notability standards? Such an article is likely to be about the collections of individuals so are we saying that we would have an article about a philatelist and one about their collection? Which articles, specifically, would go in a stamp collections category? As mentioned previously, anything that could, could just as well go in stamp collecting. We already have unhelpful overlap between category philately and category stamp collecting so if this is retained we will have three similar ones. How are people supposed to know which one to use?
Maidonian (
talk) 13:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. Lack of notability is not a concern. There are dozens of stamp collections that have been the subject of their own books, journal articles, auction catalogs, and newspaper coverage and have been shown in exhibits and far exceed Wikipedia's minimal notability criteria. Some will (or do already) merit their own pages, such as the
Royal Philatelic Collection. Other similar ones are the New York Public Library's stamp collection. FDR's or George VI's stamp collections, each of which could merit their own articles, separate from that of the individual.
David Feldman is publishing
a series of books entitled "Great Philatelic Collections" of which eight have already been issued. Certainly, some collections might be handled under the article for the collector, but if an editor desires more detailed coverage, the collection may be split off into its own article. In some cases, the collection should the the main or only article. To the extent editors need help with this -- "How are people supposed to know which one to use?" --- a short explanation can be added on the top of the category page, which is commonly used in Wikipedia.
Ecphora (
talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. I created the category for use with
Philatelic calendar, and added it to
topical collecting where the nominator removed it. That is use of the category for types of collections. I think this category could be also be used for important collections, or perhaps a new category,
Category:Notable stamp collections, some of which are associated with a notable collectors, some not. Here is an example of a notable collection:
http://www.worldstampnews.com/2010/06/the-stamp-auction-of-the-century-is-on/#more-1270 although I am not proposing an article about it. However it did receive coverage in the trade press. There is always some ambiguity and uncertainty with respect to categories and classification. As a person who is interested in philately and in the stamp trade, but am not a stamp collector, I can relate to the absurdity involved in overlapping classifications, but find them more useful than not.
User:Fred BauderTalk 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I think the category "notable stamp collections" is an excellent idea; it accurately describes the category and eliminates any possible confusion.
Ecphora (
talk) 17:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep but possibly rename to
Category:Types of stamp collections (per the
original vision of its creator before the intervention of Maidonian). I know nothing about stamps but the difference between philately, stamp collecting, a stamp collection and a type of stamp collection seem to me fairly obvious. It would help if more types of stamp collections could be added.
Occuli (
talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep as Category:Notable stamp collections which makes it clear that the category is for articles on individual collections. But no need for
Category:Types of stamp collections which seems to suggest more subcategories by type eg for "Stamp collections involving trains" or Stamp collections involving fish".
Hugo999 (
talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Fred, you have jumped the gun by creating all three before the discussion has finished. You should wait until a consensus is reached rather than trying to preempt the discussion.
Maidonian (
talk) 10:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Follow up You still should have waited but I see that it has since been deleted anyway.
Maidonian (
talk) 17:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
And now some one will have to delete your new categories, if the rest of us disagree.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Not really a problem. I'll take care of any of that.
User:Fred BauderTalk 20:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Including "notable" is pointless. No article is allowed unless the subject is notable. If a collection is NN it will have no article and so cannot be in the category. If we were talking about a list article, "notable" would need to be part of the title.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Perhaps Famous stamp collections? I would not want any collections a auctioneer says is notable included. Slight press coverage occurs frequently regarding such collections. Actually I think common sense should rule here. Notable should mean more than just mentioned in a press release or auction catalog.
User:Fred BauderTalk 20:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Fred, if it passes
WP:Notable it can go in the category. If not it should go in AfD. RichFarmbrough, 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC).reply
We can write a guideline for this if necessary, but common sense should rule out puffing by auctioneers.
User:Fred BauderTalk 02:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I have come round to the view that a category for notable stamp collections could be useful as long as 1) it is not called stamp collections and 2) it does not cover the same material as in articles about individual collectors. For instance, details of the collection of
Thomas Tapling should be in the article about him until they justify splitting off into an article called Stamp collection of Thomas Tapling which would go in the new category. I don't see that we need an article on the collector and another on their collection except in the exceptional situation where the collector is notable in some other way, eg Thomas Tapling was also an MP and cricketer. Suitable candidates for this category would be the
British Library Philatelic Collections, the Smithsonian Philatelic Collection etc, ie mainly ones not likely to be covered by articles on individual collectors. Category stamp collections would still need to be deleted or it would fill up with the wrong articles (I understand redirects don't work well with categories) but what would be the correct name for the new category? I don't think there is a rule about using the word notable, although it does seem a little redundant as the previous editor noted.
Maidonian (
talk) 19:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Query If a category is to contain [articles about notable] stamp collections, how could any title be more appropriate than
Category:Stamp collections? RichFarmbrough, 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC).reply
Rename the title is more correctly
Category:Philatelic collections as such collections may include more than just postage stamps but also stationary, post cards, presses etc. BTW,
Category:Philatelic libraries is a likely parent cat, and so articles such as
British Library Philatelic Collections are probably better in that parent rather than this category, however specific collections within the same library such as
Tapling Collection would be correctly here.
Fæ (
talk) 01:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename, I thought of that name but dismissed it as "Stamp collections" seemed clearer. However Fae's argument is convincing - contents of
Category:Stamp collections should be moved to
Category:Philatelic collections -
Category:Stamp collections could properly be a sub-cat, but would be likely to remain empty in the medium term, since even modest collections often include covers, catalogues, books and other material. RichFarmbrough, 02:29, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
My thought would be that 'it depends', I would suggest creating the main Category:Philatelic collections and see what sort of beast gets put there. Once there are 20+ articles it would be easier to see if there are enough specialist collections (such as purely watermarks, postcards, franks) compared to multi-type collections (like the Tapling Collection) to be worthwhile having sub-cats.
Fæ (
talk) 16:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The categories named after these articles (if they existed) would properly be sub-cats of
Category:Philatelic collections. RichFarmbrough, 21:26, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Admin comment. You may all be getting close to consensus; that is good. However, please do not attempt to implement a solution until this discussion is closed. I've had to delete several categories already that participants here have created and attempted to implement. While these might be good solutions and ones that would work, we need to avoid doing this until this discussion is closed to avoid confusion. Some of the edits have involved removing articles from the nominated category, which the note on the category page explicitly says not to do. I know everyone is anxious to find a solution, but your patience with seeing the process to completion is appreciated.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment "Stamp collections" is a better name than "Philatelic collections." It is the ordinary term for the subject. And, as the term commonly is used "Stamp collections" are not strictly limited to "stamps" proper; covers, essays, proofs and other related material is included. If we had both categories, they would contain the same articles. The category "Types of philatelic/stamp collections" is hardly needed; it is adequately covered by the categories "Topical postage stamps" and "Stamp collecting."
Ecphora (
talk) 02:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I would suggest keeping both, if a collection is limited to postage stamps then calling it a stamp collection is a reasonable term, however it was made quite clear during discussions with the British Library philatelic collections head curator that the collections there are not stamp collections as they contain many other items apart from postage stamps and the term was incorrect to use in any document or website (the BL website recently got this wrong when it was re-designed by another department and had to be corrected). Other organizations in this field such as the Royal Philatelic Society make the same distinction in their literature as well as the title of their organization. Consequently deleting the category Philatelic collections is unhelpful and does not reflect the quality reliable sources referenced in the articles concerned.
Fæ (
talk) 06:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I can't imagine a "stamp collection" significant enough to merit an article that does not also contain covers, stationery, post cards, etc. (These are typically also included in "stamp catalogs" by the way.") In fact, the lead sentence in the
Stamp collecting article is "Stamp collecting is the collecting of postage stamps and related objects." So what's to distinguish a "stamp collection" from a "philatelic collection"? Presses? If you have both categories and no usable distinction, in practice they will be the same.
Ecphora (
talk) 08:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
You might be confusing the hobby of "stamp collecting" with categorizing a "stamp collection" versus other types of "philatelic collection". There is no common term of "philately collecting" even though stamp collectors may be philatelists. The category of stamp collections would not apply to a specific collection of newspaper stamps or a post card collection (see, for example the
Chicago Postcard Museum). To categorize the
Tapling Collection as a collection of postage stamps would be factually incorrect and itself confusing to the layman who might then think that newspaper stamps or revenue embossings were types of postage stamp. I suspect your assumption that there are no notable "pure" postage stamp collections could also be proved incorrect, you may wish to ask at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately.
Fæ (
talk) 11:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The category of "stamp collections" certainly would apply to "specific collections of newspaper stamps." Newspaper stamps are stamps, just as are revenue stamps, airmail stamps, telegraph stamps, and other types of stamps, and collections of such stamps are in fact called "stamp collections." Likewise,
Postal stationery with printed and/or embossed indicia (stamp like image) are traditionally part of stamp collecting and often are included in "stamp" catalogs. I see no reason why the Tapling Collection wouldn't also be a "stamp collection".
Ecphora (
talk) 13:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
So, you would class the following as stamps: embossed legal documents for raising revenue, a printing press used for printing stamps but also other materials, engraved official portrait images of royal family members and dignitaries in the Crown Agents archive, motor car tax discs of the 1950s or utility savings tokens purchased via the GPO? Again, the same reason that the curators at the British Library do not call their philately collections "stamp collections" (to avoid confusing their readers and researchers) should apply to our articles about the same collections.
Fæ (
talk) 14:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Not just me, but Wikipedia (and philatelists) classify several of these as "stamps". You might remember, for example, the The
Stamp Act of 1765, about which Wikipedia states:
The Stamp Act of 1765 ... was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America. ... The act required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London and carrying an embossed revenue stamp.
I don't know about the other items; but if a stamp collection includes some miscellaneous items that doesn't make it not a "stamp collection." Otherwise no serious stamp collection would be a "stamp collection." And some of the things you mentioned are not philatelic, such as "utility savings tokens".
Ecphora (
talk) 15:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Not sure this is going anywhere. I have already presented my rationale above as to why the category Stamp collections is a taxonomic child of Philatelic collections so can and probably should co-exist on Wikipedia, and we have discussed it thoroughly. As this discussion was raised about the possible deletion of Stamp collections (not Philatelic collections) we are in agreement on the keep outcome. As for GPO utility payment tokens, I was enjoying browsing these yesterday in the British Library Philatelic Collections exhibition, if you feel the Curator of philately (a former President of the
Royal Philatelic Society) has made a mistake in thinking these are philatelic, or is generally wrong about insisting that the collections are not described as "stamp collections", you are free to drop him a note via the British Library website, though you may want to consider the Greek root (ateleia) before doing so.
Fæ (
talk) 15:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nice exception example, however though Cinderella stamps do not fit the literal definition they are still philately-related as they would be used in conjunction with "true" philatelic-objects. Oops, my nitpicking alarm just went off.
Fæ (
talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. A perfectly acceptable and logical sub-category. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Modern American Weapons
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge, rename and delete respectively per revised nomination.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. What is "Modern"? Most of these categories don't define it. One says "all currently in service (as of early 2006)"; another, "designed, built, and operated by the United States since 1990". Subjective, nebulous, indiscriminate inclusion criteria. Two subcats of the main category aren't even "modern" (one seems to be intended as such; the other, however...). The other "modern weapons" categories probably have the same problem, but we'll start here with the U.S. ones.
The BushrangerOne ping only 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree that the word modern seems so ambiguous as to be useless, but surely these categories should be merged rather than deleted? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, most of the articles in these categories are already categoried in both the "Modern..." and generic "[Weapon] of the United States" categories. I suppose merging to the '[Weapon Type] of the United States' categories would technically make more sense, though, since that way none would be 'missed'. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Considering how many weapons were "carried over" from the Cold War period to the post-Cold War period, that would seem to be a very nebulous divider as well. I don't see why not just having them as '[Type of Weapon] of the United States' isn't fine. But I wouldn't argue against renaming as 'PCW [Weapons] of the US', I suppose -
The BushrangerOne ping only 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
(I think informing
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, or similar, might be appropriate, if not already done.) I'd prefer a more neutral
Category:Weapons introduced in the 19xxs etc. I know there are plenty of post-Cold War weapons that due to time-delays (or worse) are obviously only useful for a war between global superpowers. Post-Cold War weapons does give the impression that they are designed for the PCW, which may not be true.
Tassedethe (
talk) 06:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
MILHIST notified. The problem with "introduced in" articles is, what about weapons that didn't see service, weren't built, or took a long time to develop? IMHO, (Weapon Type) of (Country) should be the primary category, with subcats for WW1, WW2, and probably Korea and Vietnam. "Cold War (Weapon Type) of (Country)" seems rather indisciminate as well, as virtually all weapons developed between 1949 and 1991 would be considered "Cold War weapons". But I seem to be digressing! Anyway, IMHO, "Modern", at least, should be discarded, as I nommed, but I'm interested to see what the rest of the MILHIST people think. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 08:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comments – I agree that 'modern' won't do, but there is the large
Category:Modern weapons by country which needs to be considered as a whole ... a problem with cfd is that a few 'test cases' are considered, the show moves on, and the result is that all countries except the US have modern weapons acc to Wikipedia.
Occuli (
talk) 10:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, in that case, I'd "go after" (to use a perhaps unfortunate term, but I can't think of a better one at the moment) the other countries' "Modern Weapons" categories if this one came up delete. But, if you think I should, I can go ahead for the big kahuna and add all of the Modern Weapons categories here to this one for discussion now? -
The BushrangerOne ping only 17:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
No, I'd be inclined to see how this goes first; there may yet be a spirited defence of 'modern'. On the whole category names should be permanent which rules out adjectives such as 'current' and 'modern'.
Occuli (
talk) 17:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge/rename as amended.
Occuli (
talk) 14:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete we should not use 'Modern' in this sense. I agree fully with The Bushranger; we need to 'go after' all these categories that use 'Modern.' This is because in my first year history class, modern was defined as after 1500!! Suggest consideration of 'Twentieth century' and 'Nineteenth century' possibilities instead.
Buckshot06(talk) 23:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename or Merge -- "Modern" is not acceptable. Modern in history can start as far back as 500 AD, in contrast with ancient. A month or two back we deleted a load of 20th/21st century categories. We regularly reject "current" and "former" categories. "Post Cold War" might be acceptable, if appropriate to the subject matter.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
re-voted later -- revised comments below.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename or Merge - (Modern is of course acceptable where it has a technical meaning.) Consider whether there are defining characteristics that can be used - laser guided, squash head, jet powered, fly-by-wire, etc. etc.? RichFarmbrough, 21:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC).reply
Comments on revised nomination
Important note: Having noted the "Merge" suggestions, I went through the list and identified merge targets...and realised that five of the categories should not be deleted but absolutely renamed instead. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Looks good. I take it the contents of "Modern missiles.. " are covered elsewhere? RichFarmbrough, 23:11, 15th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Merge/rename as amended. Doesn't seem to be any desire for a synonym for modern.
Tassedethe (
talk) 23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename or merge all as amended, but don't delete any without a manual check. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 04:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge/rename etc as revised nom. A plain delete would lose category information, which ought to be preserved. This should presrve it in an acceptable (non-time-limited) form.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kamma people
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:administrative close: category is already under discussion at
2011 JAN 12 CFD.Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Deletion is suggested because the data is un-encyclopedic. Also the data is usually not verified.
Townblight (
talk) 03:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: Er...what 'data' is being referred to, and how is it un-encyclopedic? -
The BushrangerOne ping only 04:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Categories exist to categorise articles. If the articles are inaccurate, either fix them or (if the are unfixable) delete them ... but so long as the articles exist, the category stays. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 05:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Why is there this sudden rush of categories under simultaneous cfd in
2 places? Townblight should opine in the correct place (where the nom has a good rationale).
Occuli (
talk) 10:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Question: Could the nomination be clarified? The category looks reasonable and is well populated.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 21:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Watersheds of the Barents Sea
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. While watersheds is used in North America, it is ambiguous and not appropriate elsewhere.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
no action Watershed is just British English for basin. The choice is arbitrary.
User:Fred BauderTalk 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Watersheds of the Chukchi Sea
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. These look like a duplicate to me and Hike may not be the responsible party here. I'm proposing that we use the international convention for this since the sea appears to be between Russia and the US.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
People from, part 2
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. Disambiguation categories may be established on the old categories as appropriate.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Same as yesterday; rename to match main article, the plain title is ambiguous.
Tassedethe (
talk) 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support but Seaton (also Cumbria) and Yarmouth (also Norfolk) need dab categories (in addition to Occuli's items); perhaps more.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ice hockey personnel
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Per all other such categories of
Category:Sportspeople by sport, which use "people" rather than "personnel." There are several subcategories of this which I'll nominate if it comes to that.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 01:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Absolutely - also any other instances of "persons" for people or "individual" for person. RichFarmbrough, 21:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC).reply
Rename - We went with "personnel" as former players often become coaches, GMs, executives, etc. Changing to people for consistency with other cats seems reasonable.
Resolute 14:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename' It was originally people to begin with I believe and a prior discussion moved it to personnel. Or atleast the subcats were. Don't remember if this one was specifically. (ie Ice hockey people from Manitoba) -
DJSasso (
talk) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename To align with current standards. And all subcats as well. –
Nurmsook!talk... 17:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. The issue of whether this should be "East India Company" or "British East India Company" may be pursued in a wider category nomination. For now, we can make this small change.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup
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:Productive discussion appears to have moved to the Jan 17th discussion, so closing this as no consensus..
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete Make more specific categories for these templates, although there are already some extant.
Bernolákovčina (
talk) 23:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Stamp collections
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. If users want to try out having this as a subcategory of
Category:Philatelic collections, then now would be an appropriate time to implement that, though this discussion really came to no consensus on whether such a set-up would be preferred to what currently exists..
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too similar to
Category: Stamp collecting and will cause confusion. Anything that can be put in the nominated category can just as well be placed in the established stamp collecting category.
Maidonian (
talk) 11:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I see these as quite distinct. Stamp collecting includes all the articles relating to the process of stamp collecting such as catalogs, stamp auctions, some technical terms, etc. Stamp collections should include famous stamp collections, which in theory merit their own category. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be more than one such article at present. If confusion is the concern, the name could be changed to collections of stamps.
Ecphora (
talk) 13:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. They are different things but even the proposed different name won't prevent this becoming a source of confusion. And is a an article on famous stamp collections going to be able to meet notability standards? Such an article is likely to be about the collections of individuals so are we saying that we would have an article about a philatelist and one about their collection? Which articles, specifically, would go in a stamp collections category? As mentioned previously, anything that could, could just as well go in stamp collecting. We already have unhelpful overlap between category philately and category stamp collecting so if this is retained we will have three similar ones. How are people supposed to know which one to use?
Maidonian (
talk) 13:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. Lack of notability is not a concern. There are dozens of stamp collections that have been the subject of their own books, journal articles, auction catalogs, and newspaper coverage and have been shown in exhibits and far exceed Wikipedia's minimal notability criteria. Some will (or do already) merit their own pages, such as the
Royal Philatelic Collection. Other similar ones are the New York Public Library's stamp collection. FDR's or George VI's stamp collections, each of which could merit their own articles, separate from that of the individual.
David Feldman is publishing
a series of books entitled "Great Philatelic Collections" of which eight have already been issued. Certainly, some collections might be handled under the article for the collector, but if an editor desires more detailed coverage, the collection may be split off into its own article. In some cases, the collection should the the main or only article. To the extent editors need help with this -- "How are people supposed to know which one to use?" --- a short explanation can be added on the top of the category page, which is commonly used in Wikipedia.
Ecphora (
talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. I created the category for use with
Philatelic calendar, and added it to
topical collecting where the nominator removed it. That is use of the category for types of collections. I think this category could be also be used for important collections, or perhaps a new category,
Category:Notable stamp collections, some of which are associated with a notable collectors, some not. Here is an example of a notable collection:
http://www.worldstampnews.com/2010/06/the-stamp-auction-of-the-century-is-on/#more-1270 although I am not proposing an article about it. However it did receive coverage in the trade press. There is always some ambiguity and uncertainty with respect to categories and classification. As a person who is interested in philately and in the stamp trade, but am not a stamp collector, I can relate to the absurdity involved in overlapping classifications, but find them more useful than not.
User:Fred BauderTalk 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I think the category "notable stamp collections" is an excellent idea; it accurately describes the category and eliminates any possible confusion.
Ecphora (
talk) 17:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep but possibly rename to
Category:Types of stamp collections (per the
original vision of its creator before the intervention of Maidonian). I know nothing about stamps but the difference between philately, stamp collecting, a stamp collection and a type of stamp collection seem to me fairly obvious. It would help if more types of stamp collections could be added.
Occuli (
talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep as Category:Notable stamp collections which makes it clear that the category is for articles on individual collections. But no need for
Category:Types of stamp collections which seems to suggest more subcategories by type eg for "Stamp collections involving trains" or Stamp collections involving fish".
Hugo999 (
talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Fred, you have jumped the gun by creating all three before the discussion has finished. You should wait until a consensus is reached rather than trying to preempt the discussion.
Maidonian (
talk) 10:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Follow up You still should have waited but I see that it has since been deleted anyway.
Maidonian (
talk) 17:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
And now some one will have to delete your new categories, if the rest of us disagree.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Not really a problem. I'll take care of any of that.
User:Fred BauderTalk 20:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Including "notable" is pointless. No article is allowed unless the subject is notable. If a collection is NN it will have no article and so cannot be in the category. If we were talking about a list article, "notable" would need to be part of the title.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Perhaps Famous stamp collections? I would not want any collections a auctioneer says is notable included. Slight press coverage occurs frequently regarding such collections. Actually I think common sense should rule here. Notable should mean more than just mentioned in a press release or auction catalog.
User:Fred BauderTalk 20:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Fred, if it passes
WP:Notable it can go in the category. If not it should go in AfD. RichFarmbrough, 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC).reply
We can write a guideline for this if necessary, but common sense should rule out puffing by auctioneers.
User:Fred BauderTalk 02:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I have come round to the view that a category for notable stamp collections could be useful as long as 1) it is not called stamp collections and 2) it does not cover the same material as in articles about individual collectors. For instance, details of the collection of
Thomas Tapling should be in the article about him until they justify splitting off into an article called Stamp collection of Thomas Tapling which would go in the new category. I don't see that we need an article on the collector and another on their collection except in the exceptional situation where the collector is notable in some other way, eg Thomas Tapling was also an MP and cricketer. Suitable candidates for this category would be the
British Library Philatelic Collections, the Smithsonian Philatelic Collection etc, ie mainly ones not likely to be covered by articles on individual collectors. Category stamp collections would still need to be deleted or it would fill up with the wrong articles (I understand redirects don't work well with categories) but what would be the correct name for the new category? I don't think there is a rule about using the word notable, although it does seem a little redundant as the previous editor noted.
Maidonian (
talk) 19:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Query If a category is to contain [articles about notable] stamp collections, how could any title be more appropriate than
Category:Stamp collections? RichFarmbrough, 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC).reply
Rename the title is more correctly
Category:Philatelic collections as such collections may include more than just postage stamps but also stationary, post cards, presses etc. BTW,
Category:Philatelic libraries is a likely parent cat, and so articles such as
British Library Philatelic Collections are probably better in that parent rather than this category, however specific collections within the same library such as
Tapling Collection would be correctly here.
Fæ (
talk) 01:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename, I thought of that name but dismissed it as "Stamp collections" seemed clearer. However Fae's argument is convincing - contents of
Category:Stamp collections should be moved to
Category:Philatelic collections -
Category:Stamp collections could properly be a sub-cat, but would be likely to remain empty in the medium term, since even modest collections often include covers, catalogues, books and other material. RichFarmbrough, 02:29, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
My thought would be that 'it depends', I would suggest creating the main Category:Philatelic collections and see what sort of beast gets put there. Once there are 20+ articles it would be easier to see if there are enough specialist collections (such as purely watermarks, postcards, franks) compared to multi-type collections (like the Tapling Collection) to be worthwhile having sub-cats.
Fæ (
talk) 16:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The categories named after these articles (if they existed) would properly be sub-cats of
Category:Philatelic collections. RichFarmbrough, 21:26, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Admin comment. You may all be getting close to consensus; that is good. However, please do not attempt to implement a solution until this discussion is closed. I've had to delete several categories already that participants here have created and attempted to implement. While these might be good solutions and ones that would work, we need to avoid doing this until this discussion is closed to avoid confusion. Some of the edits have involved removing articles from the nominated category, which the note on the category page explicitly says not to do. I know everyone is anxious to find a solution, but your patience with seeing the process to completion is appreciated.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment "Stamp collections" is a better name than "Philatelic collections." It is the ordinary term for the subject. And, as the term commonly is used "Stamp collections" are not strictly limited to "stamps" proper; covers, essays, proofs and other related material is included. If we had both categories, they would contain the same articles. The category "Types of philatelic/stamp collections" is hardly needed; it is adequately covered by the categories "Topical postage stamps" and "Stamp collecting."
Ecphora (
talk) 02:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I would suggest keeping both, if a collection is limited to postage stamps then calling it a stamp collection is a reasonable term, however it was made quite clear during discussions with the British Library philatelic collections head curator that the collections there are not stamp collections as they contain many other items apart from postage stamps and the term was incorrect to use in any document or website (the BL website recently got this wrong when it was re-designed by another department and had to be corrected). Other organizations in this field such as the Royal Philatelic Society make the same distinction in their literature as well as the title of their organization. Consequently deleting the category Philatelic collections is unhelpful and does not reflect the quality reliable sources referenced in the articles concerned.
Fæ (
talk) 06:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I can't imagine a "stamp collection" significant enough to merit an article that does not also contain covers, stationery, post cards, etc. (These are typically also included in "stamp catalogs" by the way.") In fact, the lead sentence in the
Stamp collecting article is "Stamp collecting is the collecting of postage stamps and related objects." So what's to distinguish a "stamp collection" from a "philatelic collection"? Presses? If you have both categories and no usable distinction, in practice they will be the same.
Ecphora (
talk) 08:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
You might be confusing the hobby of "stamp collecting" with categorizing a "stamp collection" versus other types of "philatelic collection". There is no common term of "philately collecting" even though stamp collectors may be philatelists. The category of stamp collections would not apply to a specific collection of newspaper stamps or a post card collection (see, for example the
Chicago Postcard Museum). To categorize the
Tapling Collection as a collection of postage stamps would be factually incorrect and itself confusing to the layman who might then think that newspaper stamps or revenue embossings were types of postage stamp. I suspect your assumption that there are no notable "pure" postage stamp collections could also be proved incorrect, you may wish to ask at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately.
Fæ (
talk) 11:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The category of "stamp collections" certainly would apply to "specific collections of newspaper stamps." Newspaper stamps are stamps, just as are revenue stamps, airmail stamps, telegraph stamps, and other types of stamps, and collections of such stamps are in fact called "stamp collections." Likewise,
Postal stationery with printed and/or embossed indicia (stamp like image) are traditionally part of stamp collecting and often are included in "stamp" catalogs. I see no reason why the Tapling Collection wouldn't also be a "stamp collection".
Ecphora (
talk) 13:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
So, you would class the following as stamps: embossed legal documents for raising revenue, a printing press used for printing stamps but also other materials, engraved official portrait images of royal family members and dignitaries in the Crown Agents archive, motor car tax discs of the 1950s or utility savings tokens purchased via the GPO? Again, the same reason that the curators at the British Library do not call their philately collections "stamp collections" (to avoid confusing their readers and researchers) should apply to our articles about the same collections.
Fæ (
talk) 14:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Not just me, but Wikipedia (and philatelists) classify several of these as "stamps". You might remember, for example, the The
Stamp Act of 1765, about which Wikipedia states:
The Stamp Act of 1765 ... was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America. ... The act required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London and carrying an embossed revenue stamp.
I don't know about the other items; but if a stamp collection includes some miscellaneous items that doesn't make it not a "stamp collection." Otherwise no serious stamp collection would be a "stamp collection." And some of the things you mentioned are not philatelic, such as "utility savings tokens".
Ecphora (
talk) 15:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Not sure this is going anywhere. I have already presented my rationale above as to why the category Stamp collections is a taxonomic child of Philatelic collections so can and probably should co-exist on Wikipedia, and we have discussed it thoroughly. As this discussion was raised about the possible deletion of Stamp collections (not Philatelic collections) we are in agreement on the keep outcome. As for GPO utility payment tokens, I was enjoying browsing these yesterday in the British Library Philatelic Collections exhibition, if you feel the Curator of philately (a former President of the
Royal Philatelic Society) has made a mistake in thinking these are philatelic, or is generally wrong about insisting that the collections are not described as "stamp collections", you are free to drop him a note via the British Library website, though you may want to consider the Greek root (ateleia) before doing so.
Fæ (
talk) 15:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nice exception example, however though Cinderella stamps do not fit the literal definition they are still philately-related as they would be used in conjunction with "true" philatelic-objects. Oops, my nitpicking alarm just went off.
Fæ (
talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. A perfectly acceptable and logical sub-category. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Modern American Weapons
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge, rename and delete respectively per revised nomination.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. What is "Modern"? Most of these categories don't define it. One says "all currently in service (as of early 2006)"; another, "designed, built, and operated by the United States since 1990". Subjective, nebulous, indiscriminate inclusion criteria. Two subcats of the main category aren't even "modern" (one seems to be intended as such; the other, however...). The other "modern weapons" categories probably have the same problem, but we'll start here with the U.S. ones.
The BushrangerOne ping only 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree that the word modern seems so ambiguous as to be useless, but surely these categories should be merged rather than deleted? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, most of the articles in these categories are already categoried in both the "Modern..." and generic "[Weapon] of the United States" categories. I suppose merging to the '[Weapon Type] of the United States' categories would technically make more sense, though, since that way none would be 'missed'. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Considering how many weapons were "carried over" from the Cold War period to the post-Cold War period, that would seem to be a very nebulous divider as well. I don't see why not just having them as '[Type of Weapon] of the United States' isn't fine. But I wouldn't argue against renaming as 'PCW [Weapons] of the US', I suppose -
The BushrangerOne ping only 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
(I think informing
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, or similar, might be appropriate, if not already done.) I'd prefer a more neutral
Category:Weapons introduced in the 19xxs etc. I know there are plenty of post-Cold War weapons that due to time-delays (or worse) are obviously only useful for a war between global superpowers. Post-Cold War weapons does give the impression that they are designed for the PCW, which may not be true.
Tassedethe (
talk) 06:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
MILHIST notified. The problem with "introduced in" articles is, what about weapons that didn't see service, weren't built, or took a long time to develop? IMHO, (Weapon Type) of (Country) should be the primary category, with subcats for WW1, WW2, and probably Korea and Vietnam. "Cold War (Weapon Type) of (Country)" seems rather indisciminate as well, as virtually all weapons developed between 1949 and 1991 would be considered "Cold War weapons". But I seem to be digressing! Anyway, IMHO, "Modern", at least, should be discarded, as I nommed, but I'm interested to see what the rest of the MILHIST people think. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 08:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comments – I agree that 'modern' won't do, but there is the large
Category:Modern weapons by country which needs to be considered as a whole ... a problem with cfd is that a few 'test cases' are considered, the show moves on, and the result is that all countries except the US have modern weapons acc to Wikipedia.
Occuli (
talk) 10:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, in that case, I'd "go after" (to use a perhaps unfortunate term, but I can't think of a better one at the moment) the other countries' "Modern Weapons" categories if this one came up delete. But, if you think I should, I can go ahead for the big kahuna and add all of the Modern Weapons categories here to this one for discussion now? -
The BushrangerOne ping only 17:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
No, I'd be inclined to see how this goes first; there may yet be a spirited defence of 'modern'. On the whole category names should be permanent which rules out adjectives such as 'current' and 'modern'.
Occuli (
talk) 17:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge/rename as amended.
Occuli (
talk) 14:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete we should not use 'Modern' in this sense. I agree fully with The Bushranger; we need to 'go after' all these categories that use 'Modern.' This is because in my first year history class, modern was defined as after 1500!! Suggest consideration of 'Twentieth century' and 'Nineteenth century' possibilities instead.
Buckshot06(talk) 23:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename or Merge -- "Modern" is not acceptable. Modern in history can start as far back as 500 AD, in contrast with ancient. A month or two back we deleted a load of 20th/21st century categories. We regularly reject "current" and "former" categories. "Post Cold War" might be acceptable, if appropriate to the subject matter.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
re-voted later -- revised comments below.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename or Merge - (Modern is of course acceptable where it has a technical meaning.) Consider whether there are defining characteristics that can be used - laser guided, squash head, jet powered, fly-by-wire, etc. etc.? RichFarmbrough, 21:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC).reply
Comments on revised nomination
Important note: Having noted the "Merge" suggestions, I went through the list and identified merge targets...and realised that five of the categories should not be deleted but absolutely renamed instead. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Looks good. I take it the contents of "Modern missiles.. " are covered elsewhere? RichFarmbrough, 23:11, 15th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Merge/rename as amended. Doesn't seem to be any desire for a synonym for modern.
Tassedethe (
talk) 23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename or merge all as amended, but don't delete any without a manual check. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 04:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge/rename etc as revised nom. A plain delete would lose category information, which ought to be preserved. This should presrve it in an acceptable (non-time-limited) form.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kamma people
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:administrative close: category is already under discussion at
2011 JAN 12 CFD.Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Deletion is suggested because the data is un-encyclopedic. Also the data is usually not verified.
Townblight (
talk) 03:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: Er...what 'data' is being referred to, and how is it un-encyclopedic? -
The BushrangerOne ping only 04:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Categories exist to categorise articles. If the articles are inaccurate, either fix them or (if the are unfixable) delete them ... but so long as the articles exist, the category stays. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 05:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Why is there this sudden rush of categories under simultaneous cfd in
2 places? Townblight should opine in the correct place (where the nom has a good rationale).
Occuli (
talk) 10:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Question: Could the nomination be clarified? The category looks reasonable and is well populated.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 21:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Watersheds of the Barents Sea
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. While watersheds is used in North America, it is ambiguous and not appropriate elsewhere.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
no action Watershed is just British English for basin. The choice is arbitrary.
User:Fred BauderTalk 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Watersheds of the Chukchi Sea
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. These look like a duplicate to me and Hike may not be the responsible party here. I'm proposing that we use the international convention for this since the sea appears to be between Russia and the US.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
People from, part 2
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. Disambiguation categories may be established on the old categories as appropriate.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Same as yesterday; rename to match main article, the plain title is ambiguous.
Tassedethe (
talk) 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Support but Seaton (also Cumbria) and Yarmouth (also Norfolk) need dab categories (in addition to Occuli's items); perhaps more.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ice hockey personnel
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Per all other such categories of
Category:Sportspeople by sport, which use "people" rather than "personnel." There are several subcategories of this which I'll nominate if it comes to that.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 01:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Absolutely - also any other instances of "persons" for people or "individual" for person. RichFarmbrough, 21:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC).reply
Rename - We went with "personnel" as former players often become coaches, GMs, executives, etc. Changing to people for consistency with other cats seems reasonable.
Resolute 14:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename' It was originally people to begin with I believe and a prior discussion moved it to personnel. Or atleast the subcats were. Don't remember if this one was specifically. (ie Ice hockey people from Manitoba) -
DJSasso (
talk) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename To align with current standards. And all subcats as well. –
Nurmsook!talk... 17:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.