- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
22:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Naval battles of the Ancient era to Category:Naval battles of Antiquity
- Category:Civil wars of the Ancient era to Category:Civil wars of Antiquity
- Category:Warfare of the Ancient era to Category:Warfare of Antiquity
- Category:Battles of the Ancient era to Category:Battles of Antiquity
- Category:Military equipment of the Ancient era to Category:Military equipment of Antiquity
- Category:Military personnel of the Ancient era to Category:Military personnel of Antiquity
- Category:Military units and formations of the Ancient era to Category:Military units and formations of Antiquity
- Nominator's rationale: "of the Ancient era" is rather odd, "of/in Antiquity" is simpler and more often used. Constantine ✍ 19:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support in principle -- However some categories may need purging, if the cut off is to be 500 AD. I would suggest a slightly later cut off, so that the late antique period - the equivalent of the Dark Age in Britain is included. This is sometimes called the migration period, due to the invasions of the Roman Empire by the Huns, Goths and Vandals. A slightly fuzzy cut-off may be better, refering to kingdoms subsisting until about 500-800 AD. This would mean that the Sassanid Empire would fall wholly within the category. However, there may still be a problem over the Byzantine Empire, which subsisted until the 15th century. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with including Late Antiquity (obviously), but the cutting-off point doesn't really have to be strictly defined. For Britain it would include Sub-Roman Britain until ca. the 6th century, for Byzantium and Persia the point of rupture is clearly with the Islamic conquests in the 630s/640s, for Spain it could be as late as 711. Constantine ✍ 19:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)----
- 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. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to what is now simply a container category, to improve navigation. Too much overlap here, from what I can see. If consensus is to retain, some serious pruning would be needed imo. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both; they both suffer the same "films about" problems. How much about an "aviation accident or incident" must the film be to be included and what reliable source(s) tell us it's at least that much. And here we are way into subjectivityland... was 9-11 such? was Pearl Harbor? was any war or sci-fi flick where some flying machine is involved in an accident or an "on purpose"? snakes on planes? World War Z had a plane crash after zombies came up from the cargo hold, is it in or out? Let the subjectivity continue or stop it now in its tracks.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking of 9/11 there is a subcat of Category:Films about aviation accidents or incidents called Category:Documentary films about aviation accidents or incidents which has a subcat called Category:Documentary films about the September 11 attacks which contains 39 pages. — dain omite 07:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- merge Needlessly specific category and all the films in it can go in the currently empty parent cat of Category:Films about aviation accidents or incidents. — dain omite 07:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to
Category:Git (software).
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
22:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:GIT Tools to Category:Git
- Nominator's rationale: ... or "Git tools". Git is not an acronym, and this category is about tools for Git, not anything with the proper name Git Tools. While we're at it, we can broaden the scope of this microcategory so that Git (software) can be made its main article. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- rename to Category:Git (software) since Git is a dab page.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as proposed use Category:Git (software) instead per OWK. "git" is ambiguous and should not be used as a category name. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 06:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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;
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES explains the applicable policy. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
07:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Indian committees to Category:Government agencies of India
- Nominator's rationale: The criteria not defined. It seems the government agencies ending with the word "Committee" have been dumped here. No similar category for any other country. Shyamsunder ( talk) 07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It is the committees formed by the Govt. of India. Should I add this as criteria or anything more is needed. And I strongly oppose this proposal for deletion as this category indeed gives a quick list of similar committees. Also, please cite the wiki policy that a category is violating when you nominate it for deletion. Aravind V R ( talk) 14:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- REname to soemthing clearer, perhaps Category:Indian Government committees. "Agencies" is probably an Americanism and should not be imposed where the term is not used. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- if kept rename to Category:Government committees in India as the current formulation is used in several formal names for committees about American Indians in the US and Canada. So to be clear use "India", and since this is a category, categories should not be ambiguous. Though merging would also solve the problem of the current name. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 06:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Government committees in India per above argument -- Drowninginlimbo ( talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- delete, merge contents to Category:Government agencies of India. These are simply being grouped together because they contain the word "Committee" in their name, which amounts to a variation on WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The articles should simply be grouped with the other government agencies of India in the appropriate category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The category 'Indian committees' is already nested under Category:Government agencies of India. So deleting and category and merging contents to a vast category like 'Govt agencies of India' doesn't make sense. A committee by Indian govt is categorised under 'Indian committees' just like a school in NY will get categorised under 'Schools in NY'. What is wrong in that? It easily forms a sub-category under the broader term 'Agencies'. Aravind V R ( talk) 18:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Government agencies of India; WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES explains the applicable policy. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There is no defined criteria for this category.It seems the pages ending with Council are categorised here without any common theme. Also there is no such category for any other country. Shyamsunder ( talk) 07:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It is the councils formed by the Govt. of India. Should I add this as criteria or anything more is needed? And I strongly oppose this proposal for deletion as this category indeed gives a quick list of similar councils under the govt. Also, please cite the wiki policy that a category is violating when you nominate it for deletion. Aravind V R ( talk) 14:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- delete per overcat based on shared name. Governments form councils, committees, task forces, and so on, but we don't need to group all of these entities together. They would be better grouped thematically under the topical categories for areas of government that created them.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep most (but not quite all of these are statutory bodies created by Indian legislation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rename if kept since "Indian councils" are found in Indian bands of North American Indians, to Category:Councils of India. It also avoid confusion with the Indian diaspora. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 05:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Councils of India per above argument -- Drowninginlimbo ( talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- delete, merge contents to Category:Government agencies of India. These are simply being grouped together because they contain the word "Agency" in their name, which amounts to a variation on WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The articles should simply be grouped with the other government agencies of India in the appropriate category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The category 'Indian councils' is already nested under Category:Government agencies of India. So deleting and category and merging contents to a vast category like 'Govt agencies of India' doesn't make sense. A council is a consultative body. Like a think-tank. It easily forms a sub-category under the broader term 'Agencies'. Aravind V R ( talk) 18:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Vague category, possibly WP:OC. What exactly constitutes a manufactured group? Snap Snap 00:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment A manufactured group is something put together by the record industry based on looks over talent. Pretty much all boy/girl pop groups are setup this way. I'd say it is defining though. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems kinda subjective. Also potential WP:BLP issues. -- œ ™ 06:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Publicly manufactured pop groups, since I intended groups that had been formed through programmes such as the X Factor.--
Laun
chba
ller
07:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- In that case maybe Category:Reality television participants would be a more accurate fit. -- œ ™ 08:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Seems too common a practice in the industry to call it defining. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 09:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)----
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
22:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Naval battles of the Ancient era to Category:Naval battles of Antiquity
- Category:Civil wars of the Ancient era to Category:Civil wars of Antiquity
- Category:Warfare of the Ancient era to Category:Warfare of Antiquity
- Category:Battles of the Ancient era to Category:Battles of Antiquity
- Category:Military equipment of the Ancient era to Category:Military equipment of Antiquity
- Category:Military personnel of the Ancient era to Category:Military personnel of Antiquity
- Category:Military units and formations of the Ancient era to Category:Military units and formations of Antiquity
- Nominator's rationale: "of the Ancient era" is rather odd, "of/in Antiquity" is simpler and more often used. Constantine ✍ 19:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support in principle -- However some categories may need purging, if the cut off is to be 500 AD. I would suggest a slightly later cut off, so that the late antique period - the equivalent of the Dark Age in Britain is included. This is sometimes called the migration period, due to the invasions of the Roman Empire by the Huns, Goths and Vandals. A slightly fuzzy cut-off may be better, refering to kingdoms subsisting until about 500-800 AD. This would mean that the Sassanid Empire would fall wholly within the category. However, there may still be a problem over the Byzantine Empire, which subsisted until the 15th century. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with including Late Antiquity (obviously), but the cutting-off point doesn't really have to be strictly defined. For Britain it would include Sub-Roman Britain until ca. the 6th century, for Byzantium and Persia the point of rupture is clearly with the Islamic conquests in the 630s/640s, for Spain it could be as late as 711. Constantine ✍ 19:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)----
- 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. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to what is now simply a container category, to improve navigation. Too much overlap here, from what I can see. If consensus is to retain, some serious pruning would be needed imo. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both; they both suffer the same "films about" problems. How much about an "aviation accident or incident" must the film be to be included and what reliable source(s) tell us it's at least that much. And here we are way into subjectivityland... was 9-11 such? was Pearl Harbor? was any war or sci-fi flick where some flying machine is involved in an accident or an "on purpose"? snakes on planes? World War Z had a plane crash after zombies came up from the cargo hold, is it in or out? Let the subjectivity continue or stop it now in its tracks.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking of 9/11 there is a subcat of Category:Films about aviation accidents or incidents called Category:Documentary films about aviation accidents or incidents which has a subcat called Category:Documentary films about the September 11 attacks which contains 39 pages. — dain omite 07:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- merge Needlessly specific category and all the films in it can go in the currently empty parent cat of Category:Films about aviation accidents or incidents. — dain omite 07:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to
Category:Git (software).
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
22:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:GIT Tools to Category:Git
- Nominator's rationale: ... or "Git tools". Git is not an acronym, and this category is about tools for Git, not anything with the proper name Git Tools. While we're at it, we can broaden the scope of this microcategory so that Git (software) can be made its main article. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- rename to Category:Git (software) since Git is a dab page.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as proposed use Category:Git (software) instead per OWK. "git" is ambiguous and should not be used as a category name. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 06:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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;
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES explains the applicable policy. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
07:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Indian committees to Category:Government agencies of India
- Nominator's rationale: The criteria not defined. It seems the government agencies ending with the word "Committee" have been dumped here. No similar category for any other country. Shyamsunder ( talk) 07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It is the committees formed by the Govt. of India. Should I add this as criteria or anything more is needed. And I strongly oppose this proposal for deletion as this category indeed gives a quick list of similar committees. Also, please cite the wiki policy that a category is violating when you nominate it for deletion. Aravind V R ( talk) 14:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- REname to soemthing clearer, perhaps Category:Indian Government committees. "Agencies" is probably an Americanism and should not be imposed where the term is not used. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- if kept rename to Category:Government committees in India as the current formulation is used in several formal names for committees about American Indians in the US and Canada. So to be clear use "India", and since this is a category, categories should not be ambiguous. Though merging would also solve the problem of the current name. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 06:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Government committees in India per above argument -- Drowninginlimbo ( talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- delete, merge contents to Category:Government agencies of India. These are simply being grouped together because they contain the word "Committee" in their name, which amounts to a variation on WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The articles should simply be grouped with the other government agencies of India in the appropriate category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The category 'Indian committees' is already nested under Category:Government agencies of India. So deleting and category and merging contents to a vast category like 'Govt agencies of India' doesn't make sense. A committee by Indian govt is categorised under 'Indian committees' just like a school in NY will get categorised under 'Schools in NY'. What is wrong in that? It easily forms a sub-category under the broader term 'Agencies'. Aravind V R ( talk) 18:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Government agencies of India; WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES explains the applicable policy. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There is no defined criteria for this category.It seems the pages ending with Council are categorised here without any common theme. Also there is no such category for any other country. Shyamsunder ( talk) 07:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It is the councils formed by the Govt. of India. Should I add this as criteria or anything more is needed? And I strongly oppose this proposal for deletion as this category indeed gives a quick list of similar councils under the govt. Also, please cite the wiki policy that a category is violating when you nominate it for deletion. Aravind V R ( talk) 14:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- delete per overcat based on shared name. Governments form councils, committees, task forces, and so on, but we don't need to group all of these entities together. They would be better grouped thematically under the topical categories for areas of government that created them.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep most (but not quite all of these are statutory bodies created by Indian legislation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rename if kept since "Indian councils" are found in Indian bands of North American Indians, to Category:Councils of India. It also avoid confusion with the Indian diaspora. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 05:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Councils of India per above argument -- Drowninginlimbo ( talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- delete, merge contents to Category:Government agencies of India. These are simply being grouped together because they contain the word "Agency" in their name, which amounts to a variation on WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The articles should simply be grouped with the other government agencies of India in the appropriate category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The category 'Indian councils' is already nested under Category:Government agencies of India. So deleting and category and merging contents to a vast category like 'Govt agencies of India' doesn't make sense. A council is a consultative body. Like a think-tank. It easily forms a sub-category under the broader term 'Agencies'. Aravind V R ( talk) 18:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Vague category, possibly WP:OC. What exactly constitutes a manufactured group? Snap Snap 00:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment A manufactured group is something put together by the record industry based on looks over talent. Pretty much all boy/girl pop groups are setup this way. I'd say it is defining though. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems kinda subjective. Also potential WP:BLP issues. -- œ ™ 06:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Publicly manufactured pop groups, since I intended groups that had been formed through programmes such as the X Factor.--
Laun
chba
ller
07:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- In that case maybe Category:Reality television participants would be a more accurate fit. -- œ ™ 08:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Seems too common a practice in the industry to call it defining. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 09:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)----
- 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.