The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The company was renamed years ago.
Bbb2007 (
talk) 23:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Note: this category is eligible for speedy renaming under criterion C2D. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 00:44, 9 February 2013 (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:Military equipment of the Royal Air Force
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.
Delete the fact that a military bought some of a mass produced product is not defining for the mass produced product.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply. There will be many cases where it is daft to categorise by user (e.g.
AK-47,
MiG-21), but in some cases the user clearly is a defining characteristic of the equipment. This category present several examples. Category:Military equipment of the Royal Air Force contains 9 articles. Five of them (
Cormorant Network,
Turbinlite,
NIVO,
British Power Boat Company Type Two 63 ft HSL,
RAPTOR) are about equipment developed solely for United Kingdom (UK) forces and used solely by them. One other page (
Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod) is about a piece of equipment developed for British forces and used only by them and one other country. So the presumption that this a set of stock equipment in use by many forces is not true with most of these pages. This is basically a set of equipment custom-made for the UK. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
However AK-47s are just as easy to put in these categories as anything else. The user of the equitment is not a characteristic of the equitment itself. It may be worth including in the article, but categorizing by it will just lead to category clutter.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The catch is that those are some items - but not all, and "Equipment of the RAF" implies all. "Equipment developed for the RAF" might work - but "Equipment built in the United Kingdom" is probably best. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 03:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - This category doesn't state what it's inclusion criteria are, but judging by the articles that are in it (and the articles that are not in it - e.g. Spitfire,
Blue Steel) it's not a category for all articles about equipment used by the RAF, only for those that don't (for various reasons) fit neatly elsewhere in the category structure. For example the HSL article, being about a boat type, rather than about a ship can't go in
Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom and the
Cormorant Network article doesn't tell us enough to categorize it by country of origin. Having what is, in effect, a miscellaneous category isn't a good way to categorize things. Before deleting this category we should check that all the articles in it are in whatever more suitable categories can be found - as a minimum they should all be in a by-period category.
DexDor (
talk) 23:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. It has unclear inclusion criteria, but is a "equipment by user" type category that I understand we are supposed to be moving away from.
Peacemaker67 (
send... over) 06:26, 14 February 2013 (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:Puerto Rican nuns
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. –
FayenaticLondon 20:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep and upmerge the much longer named sub-cat. In common speech all these people are called nuns, and I think we should categorize that way.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. The nominator seems not to have done any checking before commenting, and the other editors also seem not to have checked before commenting. :( These are not overlapping categories; they are a category and its sub-category. There are two category trees here:
The convention of
Category:Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns by nationality was set at
CfD 2012 April 5. That was 10 months ago, so it would be quite fine to propose a renaming of those verbosely-named categories ... but it's very bad practice to delete one of its subcats because editors have an aversion to an established naming convention.
Ahh, thanks for clearing that up. I've had a pretty bad week IRL so my brain has been skipping the occasional cylinder... -
The BushrangerOne ping only 05:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- My support above is criticised on the basis that not all religious sisters are nuns. I am not a Catholic and this is too nice a distinction for me to be familiar with. Perhaps, the right answer is reverse merge.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I still don't see why you want to make this category an exception to the wider structure. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
This is the category that was nominated. I see no reason to let poorly named categories stand when they are brought up for discussion, but tagging a huge number of categories tends towards the tedious. All the claims to the contrary have never really been convincing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 23:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply. JPL, first a substantive point: you appear to be unconcerned about the fact that your proposed merge would remove Puerto Rican RC nuns from any wider category of RC nuns. Why do you want to do that? Next, the procedural issue. You may think the category is poorly named, but you have offered no reason to suggest that it is any more or less poorly-named than any of the other similarly-named subcats of
Category:Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns by nationality. The category system would be unmanageable unless we had naming conventions, and you are proposing to break a naming convention without any reason offered for doing so. If you want to change the convention, then do a group nomination of all the categories involved. And there's no need to complain that it is tedious to tag them: if you find that too much hassle, and don't want to use
WP:AWB, then make a request at
WP:BOTREQ. That way, we both maintain consistency and ensure that all interested editors are notified, which will not be the case if one category is nominated as a stalking horse. If you want an example of why it is disruptive to try to rename only part of a set without nominating all the rest, please see the recent example of
Category:Tipperary hurlers. It was renamed at
CFD January 3 in a cherry-picked one-category nomination, but followup group nominations at
CFD Jan 17 and
CFD Jan 26 met strong opposition, leading to an ANI thread, a
further discussion at the WikiProject, and finally a
new CFD on Feb 9 to overturn the original. Much better to simply do a group nomination in the first place. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 12:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose per BHG. One, not all religious sisters are nuns. Two, not all nuns are Catholic.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 14:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a general, not religion specific cat, the other category is a religion specific category. I still think it should be renamed but I see why we need both.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:28, 11 March 2013 (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:Mosques in North Africa
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.
delldot∇. 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category just adds another category level, without adding any real benefit. Sufficient to have an overarching category for Africa, with all of the individual nations directly contained in it. Note that all subcategories are also still in the main Africa category.
Dawynn (
talk) 20:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete we generally avoid "North Africa" categories. For one thing, do we include
Sudan? My person opinion would be that now that
South Sudan is its own country, we probably should.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This is an unnecessary level of categorisation. No need to merge, as all subcats are already in "Africa" parent.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete unnecessary level divisions of Africa.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:05, 15 February 2013 (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:Computer wargames
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 without merge.
delldot∇. 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Aren't these the same? Or are there some text-based computer games with no video component?
Goustien (
talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "Computer wargames" are, well,
wargames played on a computer, like Harpoon. "War video games" are "video games set in a war environment", like Company of Heroes. Basically the former is a simulation, while the later is a "game". -
The BushrangerOne ping only 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
People from London boroughs
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 all to the "People from Foo (London borough)" format. This may be a bit of a
WP:BOLD close but I see no clear dissent to this option, so
to boldly go and all that.
The BushrangerOne ping only 04:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose as speedy. In the cases I have checked, none of the sibling categories follow the proposed format, so that is not a convention. The naming of these categories is a bit of a mess, and the proposal here may be a good idea ... but there are several conflicting conventions here, and it needs a full discussion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Moved from speedy due to an objection.
Tim! (
talk) 19:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now, pending further discussion. There are 3 different naming conventions at play here:
I can see no case for changing these categories to match the format of the borough categories, unless the siblings within each borough are also changed. At least there is a certain consistency in the current arrangement, because all the subcats of
Category:People by district in England have the same format, and all the subcats of each London Borough (part from the people) have the same format. This proposal introduces a third variation, which is not a Good Idea.
There is a 4th possibility. At
CFD in June 2012 I proposed standardising all the subcats of
Category:London Borough of Sutton on "X of Sutton (district)", but the preference there was "X of Sutton (London Borough)". I can see the merit of that outcome, but by using a parenthesised disambigiuator it is inapplicable to the boroughs such as
Barking and Dagenham which need no disambiguation.
I don't think that there is any neat solution here, tho we may find some improvement on the current mishmash. I will notify
WT:LONDON. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 20:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The current names are ambiguous because many boroughs have a district with the same name as the borough: eg
Lewisham and
London Borough of Lewisham,
Greenwich and
Royal Borough of Greenwich. The sibling categories also share the ambiguity problem and will also need renaming but objecting just to maintain consistency with an ambiguous naming convention is what is actually "not a Good Idea".
Tim! (
talk) 07:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
My concern is simply that any change should increase consistency, rather than reduce it ... or at least maintain a level of consistency.
So if we are going to move to a new format for London Borough categories, let's choose one that will work for all such categories, rather than just one subset of them. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 14:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
It is not a new format as it used by the parent categories, carrying on a long tradition of matching category names with article names.
Tim! (
talk) 07:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually, it is a new format. We have no other categories named "Foo in the London Borough of Bar". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
REname but to the form
Category:People from Wandsworth (London Borough). I chose this third one as my example, as "City of Westminster" will be better than alternatives; likewise for Royal Boroughs. "Barking and Dagenham" (with its dual name) could perhaps be left without a disambiguator, the fact that it relates to that London Borough being explained in a headnote; likewise Hammersmith and Flhma with its double name. Elsewhere a disambiguator is needed, becasue the name applies both to the London Borough and the district of it from which it takes its name.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Greenwich, London still does not clear up the ambiguity between Greenwich and Royal Borough of Greenwich.
Tim! (
talk) 07:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I see Sutton has already been amended. Shall we follow that for the others, i.e. "Category:People from Foo (London borough)".
MRSC (
talk) 10:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I think the consensus includes all of them. If we were to treat certain boroughs differently for being unambiguous we would also have to do it for Brent, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, and then there are some less clear cases such as Camden vs. Camden Town or Haringey vs. Harringay.
MRSC (
talk) 16:55, 12 March 2013 (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.
WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary categories
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: All speedily deleted as subpages of a project deleted under
G5.
Yunshui雲
水 12:54, 8 February 2013 (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:University book publishers of the United States / Canada
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.
Note I took the liberty of combining what had been two separate discussions regarding university book publishers in the U.S. and Canada as there seems to be no difference in naming conventions between the two nations. Split them again if there is any reason to do so and have them addressed separately.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Support renamesUniversity press redirects to
List of university presses, which seems to be the most relevant parent of these articles. Using "University presses" (rather than "University book publishers") also finesses the issue that books are not the only material that these entities publish.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
rename per nom.
Mangoe (
talk) 16:24, 8 February 2013 (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:Military equipment of the Iraq War
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.
delldot∇. 21:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Another 'performer by performance' type category that is not defining for virtually all of its content - essentially being a 'if it was used in Iraq between 2003 and here, stick it here' catchall.
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:24, 8 February 2013 (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:Military equipment of the Second Sino-Japanese War
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. –
FayenaticLondon 14:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Once again, for the reasons detailed below in the other noms for categories of this type. Proposing upmerge as these list articles would fit well in the parent cat.
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge since the entire content is list aricles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge -- we have been discouraging categories on military equipment of foo war. This may be slightly different sicne it is all lists of Japanese equipment, but is still better merged with its parent, as it would always be a small category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:46, 11 February 2013 (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:Artillery of the Spanish Civil War
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons as detailed in the Korean War and Kosovo War categories below. Service in Spain was not defining for any of the weapons categorised here.
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge and delete per nom. Service in this war is not a defining characteristic of this equipment.
Peacemaker67 (
send... over) 06:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge and delete per nom and precedent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:06, 15 February 2013 (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:Kosovo War guided missiles
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. I added the 3 current members to the list within the main article. –
FayenaticLondon 14:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons as listed for the Korean War category below; in addition, the conflict is not at all defining for any of the weapons listed here.
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per JPL. No objection to listifying since we normally do with performacne by performer categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:47, 11 February 2013 (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:Songs from Billy Elliot the Musical
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. One song, why a separate category? Merge.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 06:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge there is no reason to have a one article category of this type.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:20, 9 February 2013 (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:Military equipment of the Korean War
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:listify and delete. –
FayenaticLondon 14:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete as not a defining characteristic of the weapons involved. If these were articles on specific aircraft and mortars it might be a different issue, but the articles are makes of those things that were mass produced.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify possibly to only a single list. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk) 05:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all - This is a borderline case, as it could be argued that the Korean War was significant enough to be defining for some of its equipment...but the key word is "some". The
MiG-15, sure. The
F-94 Starfire? Hmm. The
F6F-5K Hellcat? Its Korean War service was so miniscule as to be a footnote in some histories of the type but completely left out of many. This is best handled as lists in the appropriate articles. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 03:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all but listify first, perhaps selectively. For example, I doubt Colombia's equipment was not mostly American (or British), and the Austrialian equipment likewise: I have not investigated in detail.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:51, 11 February 2013 (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:ACE Coaster Landmarks
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC#AWARD. Note: "Template:ACE Coaster Landmarks" and "Template:ACE Coaster Classics" should be upmerged.
DexDor (
talk) 06:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete as discoraged award categories. Personally I think we should delete all award categories. However, these clearly do not even come close to meeting any proposed inclusion rules.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes I do. I think that works just fine with lists and just adds category clutter to evryone involved. Anyway, there are way to many super long category names that have resulted from award categories for the current system to really work. I think it is best to get rid of all the award categories. I doubt it will ever happen, but I think it would be better then the huge number we have now.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete bothWP:OC#AWARD. No need to listify as they are listed in the main article.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:55, 11 February 2013 (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:Military operations post-1945
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is unnecessary. It contains two types of sub-categories - by-date categories and by-country(/organisation) categories (for 3 post-1945 organisations). The by-date categories should be upmerged to
Category:Military operations by period. The country/organisation categories can be removed from this category - they're still categorized in the more relevant
Category:Military operations by country. This is a step towards fixing the partial overlap between
"post-1945" categories and
"20th-century" categories (an operation in 1977 would be eligable for both these cats, but neither of these cats can be a subcat of the other). Note: This is an alternative to
merging the "post-1945 period" category - if that category is merged then this category should be kept.
DexDor (
talk) 06:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge as an unneeded level of categorization.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment shouldn't this be divided into the Cold War period and post-Cold War period ? --
65.92.180.137 (
talk) 05:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
do nothing The nomination makes no sense. It is to upmerge a specific period category into a container category of periods. The articles are not periods, they certainly cannot be directly placed in this container category which is only for period subcats.
Hmains (
talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The "post-1945" cat (currently) contains only subcats - I've added a "container category" tag to it.
DexDor (
talk) 06:22, 15 February 2013 (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:Vampire: The Dark Ages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Vampire: The Dark Ages is a sub-gameline of sorts to Masquerade, or - if you want - Masquerade transplanted into a new setting. As the category mentions, many of the articles will be shared... as it turns out, all of them are shared. There are no articles unique to The Dark Ages. That being the case, it's only natural to upmerge the category into Masquerade. – Bellum (
talk) 00:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. I have no view on how to categorise these pages, but I looked at all the articles in this category, and most of them simply shouldn't exist. They rely almost entirely on sources from the game's publisher, and show no evidence of notability. If I had the time I'd take them all to
WP:AFD. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Given the firestorm that erupts any time D&D monster articles, referenced only to the game's manuals which somehow get trumpeted as third-party sources establishing wide coverage, get nominated at AfD, better stock up on
Pepto before doing that... -
The BushrangerOne ping only 18:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree with BrownHairedGirl, somebody should nuke'm all... Fanspamcruft... --
Randykitty (
talk) 18:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge considering that the heading says that most of the content will be shared with our merge target, I see no reason to keep this category. Not every category a person can think up needs to exist.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The company was renamed years ago.
Bbb2007 (
talk) 23:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Note: this category is eligible for speedy renaming under criterion C2D. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 00:44, 9 February 2013 (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:Military equipment of the Royal Air Force
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.
Delete the fact that a military bought some of a mass produced product is not defining for the mass produced product.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply. There will be many cases where it is daft to categorise by user (e.g.
AK-47,
MiG-21), but in some cases the user clearly is a defining characteristic of the equipment. This category present several examples. Category:Military equipment of the Royal Air Force contains 9 articles. Five of them (
Cormorant Network,
Turbinlite,
NIVO,
British Power Boat Company Type Two 63 ft HSL,
RAPTOR) are about equipment developed solely for United Kingdom (UK) forces and used solely by them. One other page (
Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod) is about a piece of equipment developed for British forces and used only by them and one other country. So the presumption that this a set of stock equipment in use by many forces is not true with most of these pages. This is basically a set of equipment custom-made for the UK. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
However AK-47s are just as easy to put in these categories as anything else. The user of the equitment is not a characteristic of the equitment itself. It may be worth including in the article, but categorizing by it will just lead to category clutter.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The catch is that those are some items - but not all, and "Equipment of the RAF" implies all. "Equipment developed for the RAF" might work - but "Equipment built in the United Kingdom" is probably best. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 03:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - This category doesn't state what it's inclusion criteria are, but judging by the articles that are in it (and the articles that are not in it - e.g. Spitfire,
Blue Steel) it's not a category for all articles about equipment used by the RAF, only for those that don't (for various reasons) fit neatly elsewhere in the category structure. For example the HSL article, being about a boat type, rather than about a ship can't go in
Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom and the
Cormorant Network article doesn't tell us enough to categorize it by country of origin. Having what is, in effect, a miscellaneous category isn't a good way to categorize things. Before deleting this category we should check that all the articles in it are in whatever more suitable categories can be found - as a minimum they should all be in a by-period category.
DexDor (
talk) 23:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. It has unclear inclusion criteria, but is a "equipment by user" type category that I understand we are supposed to be moving away from.
Peacemaker67 (
send... over) 06:26, 14 February 2013 (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:Puerto Rican nuns
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. –
FayenaticLondon 20:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep and upmerge the much longer named sub-cat. In common speech all these people are called nuns, and I think we should categorize that way.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. The nominator seems not to have done any checking before commenting, and the other editors also seem not to have checked before commenting. :( These are not overlapping categories; they are a category and its sub-category. There are two category trees here:
The convention of
Category:Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns by nationality was set at
CfD 2012 April 5. That was 10 months ago, so it would be quite fine to propose a renaming of those verbosely-named categories ... but it's very bad practice to delete one of its subcats because editors have an aversion to an established naming convention.
Ahh, thanks for clearing that up. I've had a pretty bad week IRL so my brain has been skipping the occasional cylinder... -
The BushrangerOne ping only 05:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- My support above is criticised on the basis that not all religious sisters are nuns. I am not a Catholic and this is too nice a distinction for me to be familiar with. Perhaps, the right answer is reverse merge.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I still don't see why you want to make this category an exception to the wider structure. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
This is the category that was nominated. I see no reason to let poorly named categories stand when they are brought up for discussion, but tagging a huge number of categories tends towards the tedious. All the claims to the contrary have never really been convincing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 23:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply. JPL, first a substantive point: you appear to be unconcerned about the fact that your proposed merge would remove Puerto Rican RC nuns from any wider category of RC nuns. Why do you want to do that? Next, the procedural issue. You may think the category is poorly named, but you have offered no reason to suggest that it is any more or less poorly-named than any of the other similarly-named subcats of
Category:Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns by nationality. The category system would be unmanageable unless we had naming conventions, and you are proposing to break a naming convention without any reason offered for doing so. If you want to change the convention, then do a group nomination of all the categories involved. And there's no need to complain that it is tedious to tag them: if you find that too much hassle, and don't want to use
WP:AWB, then make a request at
WP:BOTREQ. That way, we both maintain consistency and ensure that all interested editors are notified, which will not be the case if one category is nominated as a stalking horse. If you want an example of why it is disruptive to try to rename only part of a set without nominating all the rest, please see the recent example of
Category:Tipperary hurlers. It was renamed at
CFD January 3 in a cherry-picked one-category nomination, but followup group nominations at
CFD Jan 17 and
CFD Jan 26 met strong opposition, leading to an ANI thread, a
further discussion at the WikiProject, and finally a
new CFD on Feb 9 to overturn the original. Much better to simply do a group nomination in the first place. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 12:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose per BHG. One, not all religious sisters are nuns. Two, not all nuns are Catholic.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 14:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a general, not religion specific cat, the other category is a religion specific category. I still think it should be renamed but I see why we need both.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:28, 11 March 2013 (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:Mosques in North Africa
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.
delldot∇. 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category just adds another category level, without adding any real benefit. Sufficient to have an overarching category for Africa, with all of the individual nations directly contained in it. Note that all subcategories are also still in the main Africa category.
Dawynn (
talk) 20:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete we generally avoid "North Africa" categories. For one thing, do we include
Sudan? My person opinion would be that now that
South Sudan is its own country, we probably should.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This is an unnecessary level of categorisation. No need to merge, as all subcats are already in "Africa" parent.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete unnecessary level divisions of Africa.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:05, 15 February 2013 (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:Computer wargames
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 without merge.
delldot∇. 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Aren't these the same? Or are there some text-based computer games with no video component?
Goustien (
talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "Computer wargames" are, well,
wargames played on a computer, like Harpoon. "War video games" are "video games set in a war environment", like Company of Heroes. Basically the former is a simulation, while the later is a "game". -
The BushrangerOne ping only 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
People from London boroughs
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 all to the "People from Foo (London borough)" format. This may be a bit of a
WP:BOLD close but I see no clear dissent to this option, so
to boldly go and all that.
The BushrangerOne ping only 04:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose as speedy. In the cases I have checked, none of the sibling categories follow the proposed format, so that is not a convention. The naming of these categories is a bit of a mess, and the proposal here may be a good idea ... but there are several conflicting conventions here, and it needs a full discussion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Moved from speedy due to an objection.
Tim! (
talk) 19:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now, pending further discussion. There are 3 different naming conventions at play here:
I can see no case for changing these categories to match the format of the borough categories, unless the siblings within each borough are also changed. At least there is a certain consistency in the current arrangement, because all the subcats of
Category:People by district in England have the same format, and all the subcats of each London Borough (part from the people) have the same format. This proposal introduces a third variation, which is not a Good Idea.
There is a 4th possibility. At
CFD in June 2012 I proposed standardising all the subcats of
Category:London Borough of Sutton on "X of Sutton (district)", but the preference there was "X of Sutton (London Borough)". I can see the merit of that outcome, but by using a parenthesised disambigiuator it is inapplicable to the boroughs such as
Barking and Dagenham which need no disambiguation.
I don't think that there is any neat solution here, tho we may find some improvement on the current mishmash. I will notify
WT:LONDON. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 20:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The current names are ambiguous because many boroughs have a district with the same name as the borough: eg
Lewisham and
London Borough of Lewisham,
Greenwich and
Royal Borough of Greenwich. The sibling categories also share the ambiguity problem and will also need renaming but objecting just to maintain consistency with an ambiguous naming convention is what is actually "not a Good Idea".
Tim! (
talk) 07:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
My concern is simply that any change should increase consistency, rather than reduce it ... or at least maintain a level of consistency.
So if we are going to move to a new format for London Borough categories, let's choose one that will work for all such categories, rather than just one subset of them. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 14:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
It is not a new format as it used by the parent categories, carrying on a long tradition of matching category names with article names.
Tim! (
talk) 07:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually, it is a new format. We have no other categories named "Foo in the London Borough of Bar". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
REname but to the form
Category:People from Wandsworth (London Borough). I chose this third one as my example, as "City of Westminster" will be better than alternatives; likewise for Royal Boroughs. "Barking and Dagenham" (with its dual name) could perhaps be left without a disambiguator, the fact that it relates to that London Borough being explained in a headnote; likewise Hammersmith and Flhma with its double name. Elsewhere a disambiguator is needed, becasue the name applies both to the London Borough and the district of it from which it takes its name.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Greenwich, London still does not clear up the ambiguity between Greenwich and Royal Borough of Greenwich.
Tim! (
talk) 07:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I see Sutton has already been amended. Shall we follow that for the others, i.e. "Category:People from Foo (London borough)".
MRSC (
talk) 10:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I think the consensus includes all of them. If we were to treat certain boroughs differently for being unambiguous we would also have to do it for Brent, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, and then there are some less clear cases such as Camden vs. Camden Town or Haringey vs. Harringay.
MRSC (
talk) 16:55, 12 March 2013 (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.
WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary categories
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: All speedily deleted as subpages of a project deleted under
G5.
Yunshui雲
水 12:54, 8 February 2013 (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:University book publishers of the United States / Canada
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.
Note I took the liberty of combining what had been two separate discussions regarding university book publishers in the U.S. and Canada as there seems to be no difference in naming conventions between the two nations. Split them again if there is any reason to do so and have them addressed separately.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Support renamesUniversity press redirects to
List of university presses, which seems to be the most relevant parent of these articles. Using "University presses" (rather than "University book publishers") also finesses the issue that books are not the only material that these entities publish.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
rename per nom.
Mangoe (
talk) 16:24, 8 February 2013 (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:Military equipment of the Iraq War
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.
delldot∇. 21:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Another 'performer by performance' type category that is not defining for virtually all of its content - essentially being a 'if it was used in Iraq between 2003 and here, stick it here' catchall.
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:24, 8 February 2013 (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:Military equipment of the Second Sino-Japanese War
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. –
FayenaticLondon 14:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Once again, for the reasons detailed below in the other noms for categories of this type. Proposing upmerge as these list articles would fit well in the parent cat.
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge since the entire content is list aricles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge -- we have been discouraging categories on military equipment of foo war. This may be slightly different sicne it is all lists of Japanese equipment, but is still better merged with its parent, as it would always be a small category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:46, 11 February 2013 (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:Artillery of the Spanish Civil War
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons as detailed in the Korean War and Kosovo War categories below. Service in Spain was not defining for any of the weapons categorised here.
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge and delete per nom. Service in this war is not a defining characteristic of this equipment.
Peacemaker67 (
send... over) 06:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge and delete per nom and precedent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:06, 15 February 2013 (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:Kosovo War guided missiles
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. I added the 3 current members to the list within the main article. –
FayenaticLondon 14:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons as listed for the Korean War category below; in addition, the conflict is not at all defining for any of the weapons listed here.
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per JPL. No objection to listifying since we normally do with performacne by performer categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:47, 11 February 2013 (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:Songs from Billy Elliot the Musical
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. One song, why a separate category? Merge.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 06:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge there is no reason to have a one article category of this type.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:20, 9 February 2013 (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:Military equipment of the Korean War
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:listify and delete. –
FayenaticLondon 14:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete as not a defining characteristic of the weapons involved. If these were articles on specific aircraft and mortars it might be a different issue, but the articles are makes of those things that were mass produced.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify possibly to only a single list. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk) 05:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all - This is a borderline case, as it could be argued that the Korean War was significant enough to be defining for some of its equipment...but the key word is "some". The
MiG-15, sure. The
F-94 Starfire? Hmm. The
F6F-5K Hellcat? Its Korean War service was so miniscule as to be a footnote in some histories of the type but completely left out of many. This is best handled as lists in the appropriate articles. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 03:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all but listify first, perhaps selectively. For example, I doubt Colombia's equipment was not mostly American (or British), and the Austrialian equipment likewise: I have not investigated in detail.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:51, 11 February 2013 (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:ACE Coaster Landmarks
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC#AWARD. Note: "Template:ACE Coaster Landmarks" and "Template:ACE Coaster Classics" should be upmerged.
DexDor (
talk) 06:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete as discoraged award categories. Personally I think we should delete all award categories. However, these clearly do not even come close to meeting any proposed inclusion rules.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes I do. I think that works just fine with lists and just adds category clutter to evryone involved. Anyway, there are way to many super long category names that have resulted from award categories for the current system to really work. I think it is best to get rid of all the award categories. I doubt it will ever happen, but I think it would be better then the huge number we have now.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete bothWP:OC#AWARD. No need to listify as they are listed in the main article.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:55, 11 February 2013 (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:Military operations post-1945
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is unnecessary. It contains two types of sub-categories - by-date categories and by-country(/organisation) categories (for 3 post-1945 organisations). The by-date categories should be upmerged to
Category:Military operations by period. The country/organisation categories can be removed from this category - they're still categorized in the more relevant
Category:Military operations by country. This is a step towards fixing the partial overlap between
"post-1945" categories and
"20th-century" categories (an operation in 1977 would be eligable for both these cats, but neither of these cats can be a subcat of the other). Note: This is an alternative to
merging the "post-1945 period" category - if that category is merged then this category should be kept.
DexDor (
talk) 06:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge as an unneeded level of categorization.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment shouldn't this be divided into the Cold War period and post-Cold War period ? --
65.92.180.137 (
talk) 05:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
do nothing The nomination makes no sense. It is to upmerge a specific period category into a container category of periods. The articles are not periods, they certainly cannot be directly placed in this container category which is only for period subcats.
Hmains (
talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The "post-1945" cat (currently) contains only subcats - I've added a "container category" tag to it.
DexDor (
talk) 06:22, 15 February 2013 (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:Vampire: The Dark Ages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Vampire: The Dark Ages is a sub-gameline of sorts to Masquerade, or - if you want - Masquerade transplanted into a new setting. As the category mentions, many of the articles will be shared... as it turns out, all of them are shared. There are no articles unique to The Dark Ages. That being the case, it's only natural to upmerge the category into Masquerade. – Bellum (
talk) 00:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. I have no view on how to categorise these pages, but I looked at all the articles in this category, and most of them simply shouldn't exist. They rely almost entirely on sources from the game's publisher, and show no evidence of notability. If I had the time I'd take them all to
WP:AFD. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Given the firestorm that erupts any time D&D monster articles, referenced only to the game's manuals which somehow get trumpeted as third-party sources establishing wide coverage, get nominated at AfD, better stock up on
Pepto before doing that... -
The BushrangerOne ping only 18:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree with BrownHairedGirl, somebody should nuke'm all... Fanspamcruft... --
Randykitty (
talk) 18:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge considering that the heading says that most of the content will be shared with our merge target, I see no reason to keep this category. Not every category a person can think up needs to exist.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:14, 9 February 2013 (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.