From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 22

Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups by genre

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. These two categories appears to constitute a redundant intermediate level which would have made some sense if they were part of a global scheme, but that seems not to be the case. It looks to me as there would be no negative consequences of simply removing these category and allow all their members to go directly into their one parent, Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups/ Category:Swedish heavy metal musical groups. __ meco ( talk) 15:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. I have just learned about the existence of another three categories,
I am now unsure how to proceed with this nomination, especially so as this added level is also present one level up, i.e.,
My principal contention remains, however, that this level seems unneeded and that removing it would not cause the categories which would be the upmerge targets to become crowded or difficult to assess or otherwise deal with. __ meco ( talk) 19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Expanding nomination:


  • I have no objection to this expansion, leaving out America (United States). It would be feasible to also include this category as there exists an adequate solution for that particular situation where there exists two axes of sub-categorization: by genre and by state. That alternative solution would entail giving all state-categorized sub-categories a sort key of the state name preceded by an asterisk (e.g. |*Nevada). That would not be awkward in my opinion. __ meco ( talk) 08:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Chemistry prefixes

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 09:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Improvement to grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 13:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: See related discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply


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

Category:Chemistry suffixes

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. No prejudice against immediate renomination for a rename. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Improvement to grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 13:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: See related discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply


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

Category:Cthulhoid

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "Cthulhoid" is not a word, its meaning is not apparent, and the category offers no definition. A Google search shows no useful results; the fact that the category itself is one of the first of them demonstrates just how esoteric and unhelpful the term is. Judging by its contents, which range from Zoidberg to Davy Jones (Pirates of the Caribbean), "Cthulhoid" seems to mean "things with tentacles on their faces", which is hardly a classification of any encyclopedic value. — Flax5 17:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by illegal baggage

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only 1 entry and its a unreferenced one. No where in the media reports does it say carrying a crocodile in your baggage is illegal. ...William 16:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I am in agreement with the nom. "Illegal baggage" is never a cause of any accident or incident; the cause is always something else: overloading, an explosive stored in baggage, greed (smuggling) mixed with stupidity (an improperly secured crocodile in a duffel bag (seriously?) in an enclosed space thousands of feet above the ground). The fact is that nothing fits here naturally: the role and presence of the crocodile in the 2010 Filair crash is unconfirmed and classifying an airline bombing as a baggage violation is like classifying a suicide car bombings as a traffic violation—technically correct, perhaps, but irrelevant. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • OK, good points; delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think that ValuJet Flight 592 would have been the category's obvious entry. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is really too specialized a possible cause to be worth tracking. The bombings is a totally different section. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Female racing drivers by series

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These are trivial triple-intersections of gender, occupation and series. Although the parent category is justified by the fact that female racing drivers appears to be a topic of cultural interest, the same cannot be said of these categories as gender has no specific relation to any racing series. Category:Female racing drivers is not so large (~100 articles) as to urgently need subdivision; if or when such subdivision takes place, nationality would be a much more natural and useful (in terms of our category structure) line of division than series. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 16:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Alumni of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Newly created category is redundant, and probably misnamed (according to fraternity's WP article and common practice, initiates are considered members for life). Fat&Happy ( talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

People by categorization, pre-1XX0 birth stubs

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. Every article of this type should have a year category. Since there is no agreement on what that category should be, and no consensus to delete, these stay for now.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I propose upmerging the following categories:

Rationalles:

  1. The question of which decades have enough stubs for their own categories is, in my opinion, too fluid to keep renaming these categories all the time.
  2. Frequently, these categories end up being too small and being upmerged anyway; I see no reason to keep a few of these arouind.
  3. Decades in the middle, or even recent decades, may end up requiring upmerging; I see no reason why being "old enough" is a justification for havin g a category.
  4. Some times there are cases where the year of birth is definitely earlier than the specified year, but is unknown; such people would end up in the parent category, not here.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Australian rules biography, pre-1880 birth stubs - I'm not going to comment on the other sports, but the Australian rules stub cat is very nicely balanced, with 125 articles in the pre-1880 cat, which matches the size of most of the other pre-1970s cats, so your point 2 doesn't apply. There are no "middle decades" missed, so point 3 is moot too. The advantage of NOT upmerging is that the Category:Australian rules biography stubs is left with only people that we DON'T know the DOB of. It's a very useful distinction (I've just noticed a bunch of umpires in the parent stub cat, checked a recent season guide book, and their DOBs are all there). The-Pope ( talk) 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Actually, in the Australian rules category, 104 have the 1870s tag, which leaves 18 stubs for the pre-1870 - an excelent example of point 2. And Dave Boyd, an active player in 1870, would need to be in a pre-1870 category, if we had one, as he was an active player in 1870 - an example for #3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Actually, Dave Boyd played in the 1940's and 1950's, so was probably born in the 1920's. But your point stands in that AFL stubs are lacking a tag which directly adds to the pre-18X0 category. The reason I like having the category is first to keep unknown birth year separate, and secondly because it does refer to the era of the sport's development (1859-1880 or so). -- Qetuth ( talk) 06:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply
I still think that having by all articles with known birth dates in by decade or pre-decade stub cats, and only unknown birthdates in the parent stub cat is useful, and unlike AFDs, it's useful should count here. If you want to extend it by one decade to pre-1870s that's about the limit of most known football history. We are unlikely to bring the numbers down dramatically in the near future, as we still have over 6000 known notable players left to create. The-Pope ( talk) 16:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Having looked around other categories to see why this isn't more widespread, I noticed that most other decade of birth stub categories have a parent category on century to be upmerged into, keeping them seperate fom unsorted/unknown. It doesn't help for the American ones, but the other three could perhaps benefit from this? (Example: ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:American journalist, 20th century birth stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:American journalist, 19th century birth stubs). -- Qetuth ( talk) 13:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 13:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Not really sure what you mean by "heavily discoraged tendancy to seperate out things in the present" but again, for Australian rules football only, the game was only invented in the last 1850s, with leagues not established until the 1880s, so there aren't that many notable people born prior to 1880. It is a stub cat that works for us. The-Pope ( talk) 11:58, 13 August 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.

Women's history stubs

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. No prejudice against a WP:BOLD renaming. The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Unproposed and badly formed template, and with the estimation of capturing 4,000 articles. I'm not particularly opposed to splitting along the line of women's history, but a category which holds 4,000 articles isn't useful. A request was filed at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot for Women.27s History project stubs to tag all articles within ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Stub-Class Women's History articles - perhaps a misunderstanding of the different uses of the two systems. What to do is not obvious. If there can be appropriate splits found, then I'd be happy with keeping this template and category as a parent with cub categories below. If we are to keep this template, then at least it needs to be renamed to {{ womens-hist-stub}}. If there are no apparent splits, then I don't think this type is useful beyond the already existing splits by nationality and profession. Severo T C 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply

As the person who created this stub template, I don't have a problem with whatever you do to correct this. All aspects of this, including my bot request, have been a misunderstanding. But I want you to know, I didn't just wake up one day and decide to go off and create all these things. I was pointed that direction by some very well-meaning editors who thought they were helping.
My original intent was to set up a Tedder bot to daily generate a list of new articles created for WikiProject Women's History. That's how this began, but it was difficult to get any information on how to do this. Tedder can't set up a bot without search terms, etc. etc. And so I began searching for someone to get this done, mostly not finding answers or even replies.
I had been advised by an experienced editor to create such a stub, as a way to find new articles for a Tedder bot for WikiProject Women's History. I was completely unaware that stub templates needed to be proposed and approved. I had also been advised to run an AWB after the template was created. I don't deal with AWB, so I input a bot request.
The creation of the category was proposed by another editor who said this could correct it. Two different editors telling me two different things that both felt would have been correct. Finger pointing after the horse ran out of the barn isn't the answer. All I wanted - really - was somebody to set up an automated daily Tedder bot so that project could see a daily list of new articles created. My intent, like theirs, was to do something good for that project. This has taken on a life of its own, but we need to get all this corrected, as cleanly and quickly as possible. Maile66 ( talk) 11:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply


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

Category:Rajasthan (Indian Premier League) cricketers

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:Rajasthan Royals cricketers. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Rajasthan Royals. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Punjab (Indian Premier League) cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Kings XI Punjab. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Pune cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Pune Warriors India. Since many players are not native to Pune, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Mumbai (Indian Premier League) cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Mumbai Indians. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Kolkata cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Kolkata Knight Riders. Since many players are not native to Kolkata, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Delhi (Indian Premier League) cricketers

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:Delhi Daredevils cricketers. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Delhi Daredevils. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Chennai cricketers

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:Chennai Super Kings cricketers. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Chennai Super Kings. Since many players are not native to Chennai, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Bangalore cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore. Since many players are not native to Bangalore, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Kochi cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Kochi Tuskers Kerala. Since many players are not native to Kochi, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Objects by status

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I think all these categories can simply be placed in Category:Objects, status would also include physical objects presumably, so why is there a split at this juncture? Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Objects by topic

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:Objects by type. The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Topic seems more vague. its parent cat, Categories by topic, holds categories with many different naming structures. Some of these are, or may also, belong in Category:Physical objects (I added some categories before writing this suggestion, but i dont think i removed any categories, which is not kosher) Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Film redirects

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: do not delete for now. This is so close to the other category that confusion will arise, but Mirokado seems to have a plan, so that can be put into place. If this is empty after that, it can be speedily deleted.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: How is this different from Category:Redirects from films? — Justin (koavf)TCM 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • oppose merging, support tidy up and delete, details follow:
    Redirects from films is populated by {{ R from film}} and has a clear definition of scope: title of film to a more general article. Film redirects is populated by adding [[Category:Film redirects]]. It has (currently) no documentation but is clearly being used to indicate redirects to an article about the same film-related subject (film, festival etc) under a different title, which can be, for example:
    and various combinations of the above (to different language with disambiguator etc)
    We can probably find suitable generic R from/to templates for each of these cases and should add them anyway (they are missing on the redirects I have checked). That will I think need to be done by hand, preferably before the category is zapped. I am happy to help.
    It is of course desirable for WikiProject Film to be able to identify all "its" redirects which fulfil these purposes. The way do that is probably to add {{ WikiProject Film|class=redirect}} to each redirect talk page so we can do multi-category searches (roll on a better user interface for those...). A bot can do that while dealing with the category. We probably don't want too great a proliferation of specialised administrative categories per-project so as long as we can retain the distinction as I suggest or otherwise I would support deleting this category.
    I think it would blur the contents of Redirects from films to add these redirects to it, so I would not support that. -- Mirokado ( talk) 07:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    update I have now added an R-* template to each member of this category, along with a few other improvements, so the way is clear for the purely mechanical changes. -- Mirokado ( talk) 19:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • oppose merging ín agreement with MirokadoRobert Greer ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete instead of merging, it should be handled by {{ film|class=redirect}} instead -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 03:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Brethren denominations

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:Schwarzenau Brethren denominations.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 10:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per Brethren, the Plymouth Brethren are completely unrelated to the Church of the Brethren. I suppose renaming to something like Category:Schwarzenau Brethren denominations might do the trick as well. — Justin (koavf)TCM 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I think this needs to be split so that each of the groups in Brethren has a separate category. These might have the present category, as an ultiamte parent, despite being unrelated. The problem is more with the North American sub-cat, which is getting in the way of creating a rational tree, based on theological views. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there are also Methodist and other groups that use brethren in their name. There is no clear group that can be easily designated as "brethren denominations" and the current name will tend to link unlike things. There are better names for everything involved, so we should just delete this category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply


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

July 22

Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups by genre

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. These two categories appears to constitute a redundant intermediate level which would have made some sense if they were part of a global scheme, but that seems not to be the case. It looks to me as there would be no negative consequences of simply removing these category and allow all their members to go directly into their one parent, Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups/ Category:Swedish heavy metal musical groups. __ meco ( talk) 15:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. I have just learned about the existence of another three categories,
I am now unsure how to proceed with this nomination, especially so as this added level is also present one level up, i.e.,
My principal contention remains, however, that this level seems unneeded and that removing it would not cause the categories which would be the upmerge targets to become crowded or difficult to assess or otherwise deal with. __ meco ( talk) 19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Expanding nomination:


  • I have no objection to this expansion, leaving out America (United States). It would be feasible to also include this category as there exists an adequate solution for that particular situation where there exists two axes of sub-categorization: by genre and by state. That alternative solution would entail giving all state-categorized sub-categories a sort key of the state name preceded by an asterisk (e.g. |*Nevada). That would not be awkward in my opinion. __ meco ( talk) 08:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Chemistry prefixes

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 09:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Improvement to grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 13:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: See related discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply


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

Category:Chemistry suffixes

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. No prejudice against immediate renomination for a rename. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Improvement to grammar. Brad7777 ( talk) 13:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: See related discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply


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

Category:Cthulhoid

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "Cthulhoid" is not a word, its meaning is not apparent, and the category offers no definition. A Google search shows no useful results; the fact that the category itself is one of the first of them demonstrates just how esoteric and unhelpful the term is. Judging by its contents, which range from Zoidberg to Davy Jones (Pirates of the Caribbean), "Cthulhoid" seems to mean "things with tentacles on their faces", which is hardly a classification of any encyclopedic value. — Flax5 17:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by illegal baggage

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only 1 entry and its a unreferenced one. No where in the media reports does it say carrying a crocodile in your baggage is illegal. ...William 16:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I am in agreement with the nom. "Illegal baggage" is never a cause of any accident or incident; the cause is always something else: overloading, an explosive stored in baggage, greed (smuggling) mixed with stupidity (an improperly secured crocodile in a duffel bag (seriously?) in an enclosed space thousands of feet above the ground). The fact is that nothing fits here naturally: the role and presence of the crocodile in the 2010 Filair crash is unconfirmed and classifying an airline bombing as a baggage violation is like classifying a suicide car bombings as a traffic violation—technically correct, perhaps, but irrelevant. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • OK, good points; delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think that ValuJet Flight 592 would have been the category's obvious entry. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is really too specialized a possible cause to be worth tracking. The bombings is a totally different section. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Female racing drivers by series

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These are trivial triple-intersections of gender, occupation and series. Although the parent category is justified by the fact that female racing drivers appears to be a topic of cultural interest, the same cannot be said of these categories as gender has no specific relation to any racing series. Category:Female racing drivers is not so large (~100 articles) as to urgently need subdivision; if or when such subdivision takes place, nationality would be a much more natural and useful (in terms of our category structure) line of division than series. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 16:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Alumni of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Newly created category is redundant, and probably misnamed (according to fraternity's WP article and common practice, initiates are considered members for life). Fat&Happy ( talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

People by categorization, pre-1XX0 birth stubs

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. Every article of this type should have a year category. Since there is no agreement on what that category should be, and no consensus to delete, these stay for now.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I propose upmerging the following categories:

Rationalles:

  1. The question of which decades have enough stubs for their own categories is, in my opinion, too fluid to keep renaming these categories all the time.
  2. Frequently, these categories end up being too small and being upmerged anyway; I see no reason to keep a few of these arouind.
  3. Decades in the middle, or even recent decades, may end up requiring upmerging; I see no reason why being "old enough" is a justification for havin g a category.
  4. Some times there are cases where the year of birth is definitely earlier than the specified year, but is unknown; such people would end up in the parent category, not here.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Australian rules biography, pre-1880 birth stubs - I'm not going to comment on the other sports, but the Australian rules stub cat is very nicely balanced, with 125 articles in the pre-1880 cat, which matches the size of most of the other pre-1970s cats, so your point 2 doesn't apply. There are no "middle decades" missed, so point 3 is moot too. The advantage of NOT upmerging is that the Category:Australian rules biography stubs is left with only people that we DON'T know the DOB of. It's a very useful distinction (I've just noticed a bunch of umpires in the parent stub cat, checked a recent season guide book, and their DOBs are all there). The-Pope ( talk) 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Actually, in the Australian rules category, 104 have the 1870s tag, which leaves 18 stubs for the pre-1870 - an excelent example of point 2. And Dave Boyd, an active player in 1870, would need to be in a pre-1870 category, if we had one, as he was an active player in 1870 - an example for #3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Actually, Dave Boyd played in the 1940's and 1950's, so was probably born in the 1920's. But your point stands in that AFL stubs are lacking a tag which directly adds to the pre-18X0 category. The reason I like having the category is first to keep unknown birth year separate, and secondly because it does refer to the era of the sport's development (1859-1880 or so). -- Qetuth ( talk) 06:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply
I still think that having by all articles with known birth dates in by decade or pre-decade stub cats, and only unknown birthdates in the parent stub cat is useful, and unlike AFDs, it's useful should count here. If you want to extend it by one decade to pre-1870s that's about the limit of most known football history. We are unlikely to bring the numbers down dramatically in the near future, as we still have over 6000 known notable players left to create. The-Pope ( talk) 16:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Having looked around other categories to see why this isn't more widespread, I noticed that most other decade of birth stub categories have a parent category on century to be upmerged into, keeping them seperate fom unsorted/unknown. It doesn't help for the American ones, but the other three could perhaps benefit from this? (Example: ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:American journalist, 20th century birth stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:American journalist, 19th century birth stubs). -- Qetuth ( talk) 13:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 13:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Not really sure what you mean by "heavily discoraged tendancy to seperate out things in the present" but again, for Australian rules football only, the game was only invented in the last 1850s, with leagues not established until the 1880s, so there aren't that many notable people born prior to 1880. It is a stub cat that works for us. The-Pope ( talk) 11:58, 13 August 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.

Women's history stubs

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. No prejudice against a WP:BOLD renaming. The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Unproposed and badly formed template, and with the estimation of capturing 4,000 articles. I'm not particularly opposed to splitting along the line of women's history, but a category which holds 4,000 articles isn't useful. A request was filed at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot for Women.27s History project stubs to tag all articles within ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Stub-Class Women's History articles - perhaps a misunderstanding of the different uses of the two systems. What to do is not obvious. If there can be appropriate splits found, then I'd be happy with keeping this template and category as a parent with cub categories below. If we are to keep this template, then at least it needs to be renamed to {{ womens-hist-stub}}. If there are no apparent splits, then I don't think this type is useful beyond the already existing splits by nationality and profession. Severo T C 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply

As the person who created this stub template, I don't have a problem with whatever you do to correct this. All aspects of this, including my bot request, have been a misunderstanding. But I want you to know, I didn't just wake up one day and decide to go off and create all these things. I was pointed that direction by some very well-meaning editors who thought they were helping.
My original intent was to set up a Tedder bot to daily generate a list of new articles created for WikiProject Women's History. That's how this began, but it was difficult to get any information on how to do this. Tedder can't set up a bot without search terms, etc. etc. And so I began searching for someone to get this done, mostly not finding answers or even replies.
I had been advised by an experienced editor to create such a stub, as a way to find new articles for a Tedder bot for WikiProject Women's History. I was completely unaware that stub templates needed to be proposed and approved. I had also been advised to run an AWB after the template was created. I don't deal with AWB, so I input a bot request.
The creation of the category was proposed by another editor who said this could correct it. Two different editors telling me two different things that both felt would have been correct. Finger pointing after the horse ran out of the barn isn't the answer. All I wanted - really - was somebody to set up an automated daily Tedder bot so that project could see a daily list of new articles created. My intent, like theirs, was to do something good for that project. This has taken on a life of its own, but we need to get all this corrected, as cleanly and quickly as possible. Maile66 ( talk) 11:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply


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

Category:Rajasthan (Indian Premier League) cricketers

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:Rajasthan Royals cricketers. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Rajasthan Royals. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Punjab (Indian Premier League) cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Kings XI Punjab. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Pune cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Pune Warriors India. Since many players are not native to Pune, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Mumbai (Indian Premier League) cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Mumbai Indians. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Kolkata cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Kolkata Knight Riders. Since many players are not native to Kolkata, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Delhi (Indian Premier League) cricketers

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:Delhi Daredevils cricketers. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Delhi Daredevils. The current name is a little confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Chennai cricketers

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:Chennai Super Kings cricketers. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Chennai Super Kings. Since many players are not native to Chennai, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Bangalore cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore. Since many players are not native to Bangalore, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Kochi cricketers

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. Non-controversial renames to clearly established scope and main-article name matching (C2D). WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category lists all the players who have played for IPL team Kochi Tuskers Kerala. Since many players are not native to Kochi, the current name is a little misleading and confusing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Objects by status

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I think all these categories can simply be placed in Category:Objects, status would also include physical objects presumably, so why is there a split at this juncture? Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Objects by topic

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:Objects by type. The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Topic seems more vague. its parent cat, Categories by topic, holds categories with many different naming structures. Some of these are, or may also, belong in Category:Physical objects (I added some categories before writing this suggestion, but i dont think i removed any categories, which is not kosher) Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Film redirects

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: do not delete for now. This is so close to the other category that confusion will arise, but Mirokado seems to have a plan, so that can be put into place. If this is empty after that, it can be speedily deleted.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: How is this different from Category:Redirects from films? — Justin (koavf)TCM 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • oppose merging, support tidy up and delete, details follow:
    Redirects from films is populated by {{ R from film}} and has a clear definition of scope: title of film to a more general article. Film redirects is populated by adding [[Category:Film redirects]]. It has (currently) no documentation but is clearly being used to indicate redirects to an article about the same film-related subject (film, festival etc) under a different title, which can be, for example:
    and various combinations of the above (to different language with disambiguator etc)
    We can probably find suitable generic R from/to templates for each of these cases and should add them anyway (they are missing on the redirects I have checked). That will I think need to be done by hand, preferably before the category is zapped. I am happy to help.
    It is of course desirable for WikiProject Film to be able to identify all "its" redirects which fulfil these purposes. The way do that is probably to add {{ WikiProject Film|class=redirect}} to each redirect talk page so we can do multi-category searches (roll on a better user interface for those...). A bot can do that while dealing with the category. We probably don't want too great a proliferation of specialised administrative categories per-project so as long as we can retain the distinction as I suggest or otherwise I would support deleting this category.
    I think it would blur the contents of Redirects from films to add these redirects to it, so I would not support that. -- Mirokado ( talk) 07:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    update I have now added an R-* template to each member of this category, along with a few other improvements, so the way is clear for the purely mechanical changes. -- Mirokado ( talk) 19:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • oppose merging ín agreement with MirokadoRobert Greer ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete instead of merging, it should be handled by {{ film|class=redirect}} instead -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 03:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Brethren denominations

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:Schwarzenau Brethren denominations.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 10:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per Brethren, the Plymouth Brethren are completely unrelated to the Church of the Brethren. I suppose renaming to something like Category:Schwarzenau Brethren denominations might do the trick as well. — Justin (koavf)TCM 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I think this needs to be split so that each of the groups in Brethren has a separate category. These might have the present category, as an ultiamte parent, despite being unrelated. The problem is more with the North American sub-cat, which is getting in the way of creating a rational tree, based on theological views. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there are also Methodist and other groups that use brethren in their name. There is no clear group that can be easily designated as "brethren denominations" and the current name will tend to link unlike things. There are better names for everything involved, so we should just delete this category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply


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

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook