June 22
Category:Supernatural revelation
- 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. There are no non-supernatural revelation contents here. There are plenty of categories about scientific and rational discovery, but none of them are about anything called "revelation." That term is best reserved for the supernatural.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Supernatural revelation to Category:Revelation
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article "
Supernatural revelation" was merged to "
Revelation." Hence there is no main article for
Category:Supernatural revelation. Also,
Category:Revelation is not being used for anything else, hence there is no ambiguity with other possible categorical usage of "revelation." Note: The main argument against both the article and category is that the "supernatural" in "supernatural revelation" is 1) unnecessary, 2) a misnomer and 3) a bit of an oxymoron: The things we sometimes think of as "above" ("super") nature, are actually just a part of nature. The core concept in "supernatural" is indeed "nature" and "nature" (in this usage) simply means 'all things within reality.' The term "physical" is similar: If its "real" then it must also be "physical" in some way, even if its not yet well explained. Real things conform to physical laws, either known or yet unknown. If its "real" its also "natural" in some way, so terming something "supernatural" is thus an unnecessary misnomer. Regards -
Stevertigo (
t |
c) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Revelation can be both supernatural (special revelation), and General (revealed through the use of reason). These are distinct concepts. General revelation concerns the physical universe, human conscience and providence. Ergo, this category should remain separate from revelation in general. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 17:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Would you be interested in making that pointed distinction at the revelation article, and suggest a split into general revelation and supernatural revelation? We just merged the latter article into revelation, because we felt the distinction was undernecessary. Could you make a quick case at Talk:revelation? If we can't create a supernatural revelation article, it will be untenable to keep supernatural revelation as a category. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 06:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge because in general when people speak of "revelation" they are often thinking along the lines of "supernatural revelation". If there is a more specific name needed, it would be a sub-category that includes things termed "revelation" that are not climed to involve the direct manifestation of God or Angels. That would be the less common use of the term. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- I note that the target is currently empty and tagged for speedy deletion. I consider the present category is sufficiently precise. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean "tagged for speedy deletion?" Is that to mean that we are forbidden from using Category:Revelation even if we choose to use it here? That is what we are discussing after all. On your actual point, isn't "revelation" itself sufficiently precise? What other different kinds of revelation are there, for which we have articles? Note, it has been clearly decided that "supernatural revelation" was unnecessarily "precise" as an article, hence why should it be regarded as "precise" for a category? - Stevertigo ( t | c) 05:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom to match article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2012 (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.
FC Brussels
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:F.C. Molenbeek Brussels Strombeek players to Category:FC Brussels players
- Propose renaming Category:F.C. Molenbeek Brussels Strombeek managers to Category:FC Brussels managers
- Nominator's rationale: team is more commonly known as FC Brussels. See also the main article at FC Brussels. Pelotas talk| contribs 12:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy rename C2D - The Bushranger One ping only 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:48, 23 June 2012 (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.
Category:Myth (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: no consensus.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming
Category:Myth (series) to
Category:Myth video gamesCategory:Myth (series) video games - Propose renaming
Category:Nights (series) to
Category:Nights video gamesCategory:Nights (series) video games
- Propose renaming
Category:Myth (series) to
- Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. These are primarily subcategories of Category:Fantasy video games, for which the standard naming format - which is also the clear and logical one - is "Foo video games"; this change would bring them in line with the other categories there, but was objected to as changing from topic to set categories. The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Not about videogames with nocturnal settings, or lengendary settings.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Er...you did check the rest of the subcategories of
Category:Fantasy video games, yes? -
The Bushranger
One ping only 05:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did you look at your proposed titles?
Myth is not
Myth (game),
Nights is not
Nights (game) ; Your proposed titles encompass much more than just the "Myth"-series or the "Nights"-series, thus are overly broad names.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is that's the convention for the cateory tree: Fooseriesname video games. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 04:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Dark fantasy" is not a series, it is a genre. "Mana (series) video games" and "Bone (comics) video games" shows that the convention is only for unambiguous names. That about 1/3 of the entries in the category don't use "video games" shows that it's not really a convention, otherwise it would be more like 90%.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 03:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- What about
Category:Myth (series) video games and
Category:Nights (series) video games, then? -
The Bushranger
One ping only 05:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- That works much better. I would support the modified proposal. (but not the original proposal)
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Amended the proposal up top to reflect that. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- That works much better. I would support the modified proposal. (but not the original proposal)
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- What about
Category:Myth (series) video games and
Category:Nights (series) video games, then? -
The Bushranger
One ping only 05:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Dark fantasy" is not a series, it is a genre. "Mana (series) video games" and "Bone (comics) video games" shows that the convention is only for unambiguous names. That about 1/3 of the entries in the category don't use "video games" shows that it's not really a convention, otherwise it would be more like 90%.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 03:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is that's the convention for the cateory tree: Fooseriesname video games. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 04:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did you look at your proposed titles?
Myth is not
Myth (game),
Nights is not
Nights (game) ; Your proposed titles encompass much more than just the "Myth"-series or the "Nights"-series, thus are overly broad names.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Er...you did check the rest of the subcategories of
Category:Fantasy video games, yes? -
The Bushranger
One ping only 05:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete One has three and the other four articles--these can all be easily interlinked. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is part of an established category tree per
WP:SMALLCAT's exemption. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 06:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Response
WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply to eponymous categories, or else there could literally be a category for every article. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 07:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Except it's not Myth- (and Nights-)the-game that the category is named after. It's Myth-the-game series. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Response
WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply to eponymous categories, or else there could literally be a category for every article. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 07:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is part of an established category tree per
WP:SMALLCAT's exemption. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 06:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - These also are subcategories of Category:Video game franchises, which overwhelmingly does not use the Foo video games format, instead preferring Foo or Foo (series). The convention of Category:Fantasy video games works well in cases such as Category:Dragon Quest video games (a set category), which exists separately from Category:Dragon Quest (a topic category), but not in the two cases under consideration. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:01, 18 July 2012 (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.
Category:Tajik culture
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
The Bushranger
One ping only 03:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Tajik culture to Category:Ethnic Tajik culture
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. As an adjective, "Tajik" can refer to the ethnic Tajik people, the country of Tajikistan, or the Tajik language, and the three are not always co-extensive in topics. We now have Category:Tajikistani culture for the culture of Tajikistan. I suggest that this category name be changed to clarify that is is for the culture of the ethnic Tajik people, since "Tajik" is often used as a simple synonym for "Tajikistani". The nominated category could be a disambiguation page in the same way that Category:Tajik people is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom. 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom, and kudos to the nom on the fine job of clarifying this distinction within the category structure. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:36, 22 June 2012 (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.
Category:Kyrgyz culture
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
The Bushranger
One ping only 03:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kyrgyz culture to Category:Ethnic Kyrgyz culture
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. As an adjective, "Kyrgyz" can refer to the ethnic Kyrgyz people, the country of Kyrgyzstan, or the Kyrgyz language, and the three are not always co-extensive in topics. We now have Category:Kyrgyzstani culture for the culture of Kyrgyzstan. I suggest that this category name be changed to clarify that is is for the culture of the ethnic Kyrgyz people, since "Kyrgyz" is often used as a simple synonym for "Kyrgyzstani". The nominated category could be a disambiguation page in the same way that Category:Kyrgyz people is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom. 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom, and kudos to the nom on the fine job of clarifying this distinction within the category structure. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:36, 22 June 2012 (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.
Category:BBC staff
- 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.
The Bushranger
One ping only 03:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:BBC staff to Category:BBC people
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. These seem to me to be duplicates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2012 (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.
June 22
Category:Supernatural revelation
- 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. There are no non-supernatural revelation contents here. There are plenty of categories about scientific and rational discovery, but none of them are about anything called "revelation." That term is best reserved for the supernatural.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Supernatural revelation to Category:Revelation
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article "
Supernatural revelation" was merged to "
Revelation." Hence there is no main article for
Category:Supernatural revelation. Also,
Category:Revelation is not being used for anything else, hence there is no ambiguity with other possible categorical usage of "revelation." Note: The main argument against both the article and category is that the "supernatural" in "supernatural revelation" is 1) unnecessary, 2) a misnomer and 3) a bit of an oxymoron: The things we sometimes think of as "above" ("super") nature, are actually just a part of nature. The core concept in "supernatural" is indeed "nature" and "nature" (in this usage) simply means 'all things within reality.' The term "physical" is similar: If its "real" then it must also be "physical" in some way, even if its not yet well explained. Real things conform to physical laws, either known or yet unknown. If its "real" its also "natural" in some way, so terming something "supernatural" is thus an unnecessary misnomer. Regards -
Stevertigo (
t |
c) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Revelation can be both supernatural (special revelation), and General (revealed through the use of reason). These are distinct concepts. General revelation concerns the physical universe, human conscience and providence. Ergo, this category should remain separate from revelation in general. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 17:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Would you be interested in making that pointed distinction at the revelation article, and suggest a split into general revelation and supernatural revelation? We just merged the latter article into revelation, because we felt the distinction was undernecessary. Could you make a quick case at Talk:revelation? If we can't create a supernatural revelation article, it will be untenable to keep supernatural revelation as a category. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 06:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merge because in general when people speak of "revelation" they are often thinking along the lines of "supernatural revelation". If there is a more specific name needed, it would be a sub-category that includes things termed "revelation" that are not climed to involve the direct manifestation of God or Angels. That would be the less common use of the term. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- I note that the target is currently empty and tagged for speedy deletion. I consider the present category is sufficiently precise. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean "tagged for speedy deletion?" Is that to mean that we are forbidden from using Category:Revelation even if we choose to use it here? That is what we are discussing after all. On your actual point, isn't "revelation" itself sufficiently precise? What other different kinds of revelation are there, for which we have articles? Note, it has been clearly decided that "supernatural revelation" was unnecessarily "precise" as an article, hence why should it be regarded as "precise" for a category? - Stevertigo ( t | c) 05:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom to match article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2012 (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.
FC Brussels
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:F.C. Molenbeek Brussels Strombeek players to Category:FC Brussels players
- Propose renaming Category:F.C. Molenbeek Brussels Strombeek managers to Category:FC Brussels managers
- Nominator's rationale: team is more commonly known as FC Brussels. See also the main article at FC Brussels. Pelotas talk| contribs 12:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy rename C2D - The Bushranger One ping only 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:48, 23 June 2012 (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.
Category:Myth (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: no consensus.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming
Category:Myth (series) to
Category:Myth video gamesCategory:Myth (series) video games - Propose renaming
Category:Nights (series) to
Category:Nights video gamesCategory:Nights (series) video games
- Propose renaming
Category:Myth (series) to
- Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. These are primarily subcategories of Category:Fantasy video games, for which the standard naming format - which is also the clear and logical one - is "Foo video games"; this change would bring them in line with the other categories there, but was objected to as changing from topic to set categories. The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Not about videogames with nocturnal settings, or lengendary settings.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Er...you did check the rest of the subcategories of
Category:Fantasy video games, yes? -
The Bushranger
One ping only 05:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did you look at your proposed titles?
Myth is not
Myth (game),
Nights is not
Nights (game) ; Your proposed titles encompass much more than just the "Myth"-series or the "Nights"-series, thus are overly broad names.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is that's the convention for the cateory tree: Fooseriesname video games. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 04:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Dark fantasy" is not a series, it is a genre. "Mana (series) video games" and "Bone (comics) video games" shows that the convention is only for unambiguous names. That about 1/3 of the entries in the category don't use "video games" shows that it's not really a convention, otherwise it would be more like 90%.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 03:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- What about
Category:Myth (series) video games and
Category:Nights (series) video games, then? -
The Bushranger
One ping only 05:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- That works much better. I would support the modified proposal. (but not the original proposal)
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Amended the proposal up top to reflect that. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- That works much better. I would support the modified proposal. (but not the original proposal)
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- What about
Category:Myth (series) video games and
Category:Nights (series) video games, then? -
The Bushranger
One ping only 05:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Dark fantasy" is not a series, it is a genre. "Mana (series) video games" and "Bone (comics) video games" shows that the convention is only for unambiguous names. That about 1/3 of the entries in the category don't use "video games" shows that it's not really a convention, otherwise it would be more like 90%.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 03:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is that's the convention for the cateory tree: Fooseriesname video games. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 04:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did you look at your proposed titles?
Myth is not
Myth (game),
Nights is not
Nights (game) ; Your proposed titles encompass much more than just the "Myth"-series or the "Nights"-series, thus are overly broad names.
70.49.127.65 (
talk) 04:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Er...you did check the rest of the subcategories of
Category:Fantasy video games, yes? -
The Bushranger
One ping only 05:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete One has three and the other four articles--these can all be easily interlinked. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is part of an established category tree per
WP:SMALLCAT's exemption. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 06:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Response
WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply to eponymous categories, or else there could literally be a category for every article. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 07:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Except it's not Myth- (and Nights-)the-game that the category is named after. It's Myth-the-game series. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Response
WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply to eponymous categories, or else there could literally be a category for every article. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 07:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is part of an established category tree per
WP:SMALLCAT's exemption. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 06:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - These also are subcategories of Category:Video game franchises, which overwhelmingly does not use the Foo video games format, instead preferring Foo or Foo (series). The convention of Category:Fantasy video games works well in cases such as Category:Dragon Quest video games (a set category), which exists separately from Category:Dragon Quest (a topic category), but not in the two cases under consideration. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:01, 18 July 2012 (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.
Category:Tajik culture
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
The Bushranger
One ping only 03:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Tajik culture to Category:Ethnic Tajik culture
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. As an adjective, "Tajik" can refer to the ethnic Tajik people, the country of Tajikistan, or the Tajik language, and the three are not always co-extensive in topics. We now have Category:Tajikistani culture for the culture of Tajikistan. I suggest that this category name be changed to clarify that is is for the culture of the ethnic Tajik people, since "Tajik" is often used as a simple synonym for "Tajikistani". The nominated category could be a disambiguation page in the same way that Category:Tajik people is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom. 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom, and kudos to the nom on the fine job of clarifying this distinction within the category structure. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:36, 22 June 2012 (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.
Category:Kyrgyz culture
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
The Bushranger
One ping only 03:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kyrgyz culture to Category:Ethnic Kyrgyz culture
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. As an adjective, "Kyrgyz" can refer to the ethnic Kyrgyz people, the country of Kyrgyzstan, or the Kyrgyz language, and the three are not always co-extensive in topics. We now have Category:Kyrgyzstani culture for the culture of Kyrgyzstan. I suggest that this category name be changed to clarify that is is for the culture of the ethnic Kyrgyz people, since "Kyrgyz" is often used as a simple synonym for "Kyrgyzstani". The nominated category could be a disambiguation page in the same way that Category:Kyrgyz people is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom. 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom, and kudos to the nom on the fine job of clarifying this distinction within the category structure. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:36, 22 June 2012 (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.
Category:BBC staff
- 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.
The Bushranger
One ping only 03:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:BBC staff to Category:BBC people
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. These seem to me to be duplicates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2012 (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.