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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 00:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Khotan to Category:Hotan

Nominator's rationale: Hotan is the article title and common name for the city for which this category is named and populated. It is also the official name for the modern city, based on a transliteration of the Uyghur. "Khotan" primarily refers to the ancient Kingdom of Khotan, but is seldom used for the modern city, as it doesn't reflect any Hotanese endonym. Shrigley ( talk) 23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename based on main article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename to match parent article.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- I suspect that the problem here is how to transliterate a soft ch (as of the Scottish loch or the Greek letter chi) into English. The "official" name may well be the result of transliterating from Uyghur into Mandarin, and then from Mandarin into English. This is a Uyghur city, so that we should be transliterating the Uyghur name. If this contains the "kh" sound, even if the Mandarin name does not, we should be moving the city article, not the category. I note that two of the articles use the "kh" name. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  • "Hotan" is not the Mandarin name; "Hetian" is. Out of all the alphabets used to write Uyghur, none use "kh" to represent the voiceless velar fricative. The archaic "Khotan" spelling originates in the ancient kingdom that predated proto-Uyghur settlement in the area concerned. Hotan is a transliteration of the modern Uyghur. The category is sparsely populated, probably because it uses such a weird spelling. Once it's renamed to "Hotan", there are plenty of articles to add, such as Hotan County, Hotan Airport, Kashgar–Hotan Railway. Other articles will need renaming to use "Hotan" as well, because they don't represent the common or correct name. Shrigley ( talk) 00:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Music videos directed by Benoît Di Sabatino ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Benoît Di Sabatino

Category:Music videos directed by Giorgos Gavalos ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Giorgos Gavalos

Category:Music videos directed by Carlos Pérez ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Carlos Pérez (director)

Category:Music videos directed by White Room ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) White Room (production company)

Category:Music videos directed by François Hanss ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) François Hanss

Category:Music videos directed by Alexandros Grammatopoulos ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Alexandros Grammatopoulos

Category:Music videos directed by Manolis Tzirakis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Manolis Tzirakis

• Nominator's rationale: Delete The subjects in which these categories are related to do not have articles. Quasy Boy 22:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; if the director is insufficiently notable to merit an article, a category is premature at best. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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 & leave redirect. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional meerkats ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not needed; there are only two pages in this useless, barely looked at category. How can you sort things out with it? Rcsprinter (state) 21:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Fictional mongooses. No objection to recreating cat when there are more articles. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment. My concern here is that people will not understand that meerkats are part of the mongoose family. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I had no idea until I looked at the category trees. They don't look or act like a mongoose but I'll have to take the biologist's words for it. I'm open to a redirect in this case. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge and leave a category redirect for the reasons above. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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. - jc37 05:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Cold War intercontinental ballistic missiles

Category:Cold War intercontinental ballistic missiles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one member which is proposed to be merged away below. It doesn't seem justifiable to me to distinguish from supposed non-Cold-War ICBMs given the large number that continued in service past the fall of the Soviet Union. Mangoe ( talk) 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge as nom. There cannot be enough classes of ICBM to require them to be split by period. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now. The Category:Intercontinental ballistic missiles is already subdivided by country. This has not produced large categories (e.g. Category:Intercontinental ballistic missiles of the United States‎ has only 14 articles|), so there is no need to add an extra layer of categorisation. However, there is a large multi-layered category tree under Category:Weapons of the Cold War, and a wider discussion is needed about how deep the cold war split in categories should go.
  If the consensus is to merge, then the merger should be to both parents, i.e. Category:intercontinental ballistic missiles and Category:Cold War intercontinental ballistic missiles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Wild Wolf ( talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Cold War intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union

Propose merging Category:Cold War intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union to Category:Intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: What's a non-Cold-War Soviet ICBM? All the pages are in the child category, and in any case the US ICBM categories are not split this way. Mangoe ( talk) 21:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge as nom. There cannot be enough classes of ICBM to require them to be split by period. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now. The Category:Intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union contains only 1 articles plus the 19 inm this category, so there is no need to split the USSR's ICMs by period. However, there is a large multi-layered category tree under Category:Weapons of the Cold War, and a wider discussion is needed about how deep the cold war split in categories should go.
  If the consensus is to merge, then the merger should be to both parents, i.e. Category:Intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union and Category:Cold War intercontinental ballistic missiles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Wild Wolf ( talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Hamilton Tigers players to Category:Hamilton Tigers (baseball) players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ambiguous as there are two sports teams with this name with articles (see Hamilton Tigers) and the baseball team isn't one of them. Good possiblility of editors placing players who should go in Category:Hamilton Tigers (ice hockey) players being put here. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 20:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename no-brainer. Pichpich ( talk) 14:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Mercyhurst College to Category:Mercyhurst University

Propose renaming Category:Mercyhurst College alumni to Category:Mercyhurst University alumni

Nominator's rationale: The college has been named to Mercyhurst University. GrapedApe ( talk) 12:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename to match parent article's change.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greek infantry divisions to Category:Ancient Greek infantry types

Nominator's rationale: "infantry divisions" bears wrong connotations of a modern division, whereas this category is about the types of infantry used in Ancient Greek armies Constantine ✍ 12:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. 198.252.15.202 ( talk) 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support -- These are differnet classes of infantry soldiers, not the names of military formations. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support agree with above. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support - these are all types of soldier, not formations Monstrelet ( talk) 08:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Greek resistance members to Category:Greek Resistance members

Nominator's rationale: per main article on Greek Resistance Constantine ✍ 10:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename to match parent article.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 02:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename because of the main article but it should be noted that both make sense and that there's some inconsistency within Category:World War II resistance members. Pichpich ( talk) 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment: there is indeed a semantic difference on whether they were members of the "Greek Resistance" or whether they were Greek "resistance members". The capitalized form emphasizes the movement, while the other is descriptive. Anyhow, per the main article it should be capitalized. Constantine ✍ 16:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Intercontinental ballistic missile sites ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A brain teaser from TfT. While we could populate this with more AFBs, do we want to? The sole article is an AFB and, if I'm reading the article correctly, not one of the 6 actual missile sites was on the AFB. So including this is at best misleading. I suppose that since these are an important part of history, we should have a consolidated list somewhere (no I did not search). Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete? Populate? See related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 23#Category:Lashup Radar Network, which is of the same ilk, except that he did manage to get around to populate it. This latter case is also a lot less open-ended, as "ICBM site" could just as well encompass Vandenburg, Canaveral, and Baikonur. OTOH I don't see any category structure that does encompass ICBM-related sites. Mangoe ( talk) 21:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete might be possible to populate this but I don't think it would be defining of teh AFBs. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment Soviet ICBM sites were not operated by the air force. IIRC, neither are Chinese ones. 70.49.124.157 ( talk) 05:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Right now the only article in the cat is an American Air Force Base. Are there other articles you can point to that would populate this cat? RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. 198.252.15.202 ( talk) 19:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- I assume this is a subset of US AF bases. Greenham Common (the subject of a long-running protest in UK) should probably appear. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Several US AFBs in Britain are understood to have held US nuclear weapons at some time, but none of those, including Greenham common, were sites for ICBMs; GC just held cruise missiles, presumably for use within this continent. Ephebi ( talk) 08:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• That's really kind of the issue: most of these "sites" were never places from which one could launch a missile. For instance, the only current member, Lowry AFB, was many miles from the Titan I launch sites, as you can see on the map to the right. That was always the case for the US missle squadrons: they were associated with a particular base, but the silos were way out in the boondocks in the middle of open fields and far from the base's runways. There are a very few articles on test ranges and preserved silos as museums, but these seem to me to be better categorized as they already are. Mangoe ( talk) 13:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Since we appear to have no articles on actual launch sites, this category should be empty. It is therefore pointless and should be deleted ... without prejudice to its re-creation if and when there are half-a-dozen articles on actual launch sites. (I dunno whether any of them would be notable, and in any case notability is not the business of CfD. If the articles exist, they need to be categorised). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Events on the Gettysburg Battlefield ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After removing the two camps which I can not fathom as events, we are left with only 2 articles in this category from TfT. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 06:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per nom. Neither article is categorized under the main Gettysburg Battlefield cat. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. 198.252.15.202 ( talk) 19:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete overcategorization. Pichpich ( talk) 14:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- Merge is usually a better solution, though NO cat-redirect should be kept. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete performance by location, OCAT. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Forts of the American Indian Wars to Category:Military sites of the wars between the United States and Native Americans

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. A single entry category from TfT. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 06:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per nom. Wild Wolf ( talk) 16:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per nom. 198.252.15.202 ( talk) 19:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Populate -- I find it hard to believe that there was only one fort! Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Firebombing to Category:Firebombings

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Normally we use the plural form for categories. There is another problem here in that the category is about WW II. So while the current name follows the main article, it is inherently ambiguous and could use a more specific name. The only thing that pops out at the moment as an option would be something like Category:Firebombing in World War II. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. 198.252.15.202 ( talk) 19:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Loutrochori ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization--why do we need a category for a village of 466 people? After 2 years, there is only one article (about the village) in this category. Macrakis ( talk) 03:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete Can't find any other articles to add. RevelationDirect ( talk) 06:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete as small cat.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete The category is essentially empty since the image should either be moved to Commons or deleted as too awful to be of any encyclopedic use. Note that if kept, the category should be moved to Category:Loutrochori, Pella. Pichpich ( talk) 14:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. The contents have been moved to the parent cats. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Former military facilities in New Jersey ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per this this CfD. Brought to you by TfT. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 06:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to all parents. Correct info is lost with a simple 'delete'. Oculi ( talk) 12:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Wild Wolf ( talk) 03:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

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