< December 6 December 8 >

December 7

Category:High Rock

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: By the time you read this, this category will probably be empty, but even now it is for two articles that are probably soon to be deleted, and even THEN, a two article category? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 of St. Thomas

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename Category:University of St. Thomas to Category:University of St. Thomas (Houston). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of St. Thomas to Category:University of St. Thomas (Houston)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are multiple schools name the University of St. Thomas and I believe that some disambiguation is needed. Eóin (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ancient Greeks by City-State and region

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Closing per compromise. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greeks by City-State and region to Category:Ancient Greeks by city-state
Nominator's rationale: No regions are listed within the category, only city-states. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thrace,Sicily are regions not just a city state Catalographer (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are categories you've recently created. Some of them should be renamed as well, such as Category:Ancient Thracian Greeks. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pergamum was a Kingdom, not just a City-State and existed before my edits Catalographer (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway if we let a category with only City-States then we should create a new category for regions

btw Aetolians had league not just a city-state Catalographer (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then let's create a Category:Ancient Greeks by region. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Television personalities by nationality

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep as is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Television personalities by nationality to Category:Television presenters by nationality
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We currently have two very similar "by country" categories, one for TV presenters and one for TV "personalities". The latter is somewhat subjective (although by "television personality" I guess we mean "celebrity", that's where the article is anyway). It's also broader, but arguably too broad as it could include anybody who appears on TV. The problem is somewhat compounded by some countries having subcategories in both (e.g. Australia) and some having only "TV personalities" (Canada).
Having a category for anybody who appears on TV seems too broad to me, and I'm not seeing any value in maintaining both these categories. Therefore my proposal is to merge the two and to rename all subcategories to "presenters". I appreciate however that this is another difficult one, and it could result in an amount of miscategorisation in shorter than the long term, so I'm keen to hear other opinions. kingboyk (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, not all "television personalities" are "television presenters." Merging the categories will result in people being miscategorized. Otto4711 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or we could switch all of these to the US usage which seems to be clearer about the various types of hosts. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

(Response after closing)

  • Again, not all "television personalities" are "television presenters." Merging the categories will result in people being miscategorized. Otto4711 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is already happening; that's my entire point! Switching to a standardised usage would be better, yes, Vegaswikian. Right now it's a mess because there's no clear definition of what goes where (not least due to a US-centric attitude); I'm surprised and disappointed that folks think that's not a problem. --kingboyk (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buffyverse

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep as is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Buffyverse, Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Category:Angel (TV series) to Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel
Nominator's rationale: I wrote the following on WT:CFD but got no response, so I am bringing my best idea for discussion here. If you have a better idea (or think the current category scheme is fine) please speak up :)
"The Buffyverse" is a slang term for the fictional universe of the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. These two shows have more in common than differences.
Currently, we have a Category:Buffyverse (slang, a mishmash of articles and subcategories); and below it we have a Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Category:Angel (TV series). I'm finding this messy and confusing; the overlap between the shows makes good categorisation difficult and what we have at the moment sure doesn't look good to me. --kingboyk (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if anyone can come up with a better scheme for this, and put it through CFD. The best I can think of is to merge and delete all 3 categories into a new Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. --kingboyk (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: Buffyverse is slang, albeit quite widely used slang. The official title of the series are (1) Buffy the Vampire Slayer and (2) Angel.--kingboyk (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thank you, I am aware of the origin of the term. The fact that it originated as slang does not mean that it can't now be used as a category title, especially in light of its extensive use in books and scholarship. I am also aware of the correct names of the two series. There is not, however, a series called Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel which is another argument against a truly awful suggestion. Otto4711 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:BattleTech characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BattleTech characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article. Better as a list. Pagrashtak 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award nominees

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: speedily deleted, per WP:CSD#G4. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award nominees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as repost of deleted content, we decided against doing nominee categories. -- Prove It (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4; has been tagged with ((db-g4)). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:28, 7 December 2007 (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:Fictional and Non-Fictional Heroines

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional and Non-Fictional Heroines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Inherently POV and nearly impossible to source, and way too broad in any case. Kolindigo (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe that it is not too broad in fact the heros category is more broad than the new one that was currently created. There are no other categories that give focused acknowledgement on women real or not that have or still influence people today.Mcelite (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

People have their own opinions on who's a hero and who isn't. However, alot of people do look up to her for the positive changes that she has done. It's not like she George Bush.Mcelite (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

Well what do you guys propose? I believe it's a valid category and nothing else really focuses on the subject as the one I created.Mcelite (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

Start Heroinesapedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that you stop this. I didn't notice this category discussion until after I spent half an hour cleaning up after you. I'm sorry ... Celine Dion a heroine? I nearly bust a gut. DeleteKww (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question about the process: Not piling on, but what happens next? Hult041956 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Casey Donovan

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Casey Donovan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Casey Donovan albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Casey Donovan Releases

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was split and merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Casey Donovan Releases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Divide into Category:Casey Donovan albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist, and Category:Casey Donovan songs. -- Prove It (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Light Middleweights

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Light Middleweights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Light-middleweights, convention of Category:Boxers by weight. -- Prove It (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Babbar Khalsa - Parmar faction

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge into Category:Sikh politics. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Babbar Khalsa - Parmar faction to Category:Sikh politics
Nominator's rationale: Merge, excessively narrow orphaned categ for one faction of the Babbar Khalsa which itself has no eponymous categ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Diverticulitis Sufferers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diverticulitis Sufferers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, orphaned category, non-defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: all articles placed in this category have been reverted. Multiple checks show no valid source for the categorization of each subject. -- Michael Devore (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Victoria

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Victoria to Category:Victoria (Australia)
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match main article Victoria (Australia). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Australia's Next Top Model

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australia's Next Top Model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, orphaned category, articles already interlinked by Template:Australia's Next Top Model. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Nordic Green Left

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename Category:Nordic Green Left to Category:Nordic Green Left Alliance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nordic Green Left to Category:Nordic Green Left Alliance
Nominator's rationale: Rename. NGL and NGLA are not the same. NGL is a sub-group within GUE/NGL in the European Parliament, and NGL has little existance of its own. NGLA is another structure, detached from GUE/NGL and EU institutions. Soman (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Oakland Raiders members with books by and about them

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oakland Raiders members with books by and about them (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation, possibly listify. Excessively narrow category for players who tend to be heavily categorised already. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did this, what does listify mean? Is their a way this can be done as their are other players and members. thank you for help in advance. Robert C Prenic (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:UK Donship 2007

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK Donship 2007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Orphaned category, no idea what it's about. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Road accident victims by location

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all to "Category:Road accident deaths in Foo" format. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming the daughters of Category:Road accident victims by location
Nominator's rationale: The following categories are all subcategories of Category:Road accident victims by location. As the title indicates, these categories sort the deceased by the location of the accident. But the current format, Fooian road accident victims, could give the impression that they are sorted by nationality of the victims. This could cause confusion. The Danish rapper and reggae singer Natasja Saad, for instance, is listed in Category:Jamaican road accident victims. So is she a Jamaican victim of a road accident, or is she the victim of a Jamaican road accident? The latter, but it doesn't become clear from the title. For this reason, I nominate the following categories for renaming:
  • Category:American road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in the United States
  • Category:Argentine road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Argentina
  • Category:Australian road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Australia
  • Category:Brazilian road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Brazil
  • Category:British road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in the United Kingdom
  • Category:Bulgarian road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Bulgaria
  • Category:Canadian road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Canada
  • Category:Cuban road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Cuba
  • Category:Czech road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in the Czech Republic
  • Category:Egyptian road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Egypt
  • Category:French road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in France
  • Category:German road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Germany
  • Category:Greek road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Greece
  • Category:Indian road accident deaths to Category:Victims of road accidents in India
  • Category:Iranian road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Iran
  • Category:Irish road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in the Republic of Ireland
  • Category:Italian road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Italy
  • Category:Jamaican road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Jamaica
  • Category:Kenyan road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Kenya
  • Category:Mexican road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Mexico
  • Category:Moroccan road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Morocco
  • Category:New Zealand road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in New Zealand
  • Category:Norwegian road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Norway
  • Category:Portuguese road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Portugal
  • Category:Polish road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Poland
  • Category:Puerto Rican road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Puerto Rico
  • Category:Romanian road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Romania
  • Category:Russian road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Russia
  • Category:Swedish road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Sweden
  • Category:South African road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in South Africa
  • Category:Spanish road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Spain
  • Category:Swiss road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Switzerland
  • Category:Turkish road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Turkey
  • Category:Ukrainian road accident victims‎ to Category:Victims of road accidents in Ukraine
Aecis·(away) talk 14:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Otto4711 (rename to Rename all to Category:Road accident deaths in Foo). Jaraalbe (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Steam trucks

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename Category:Steam trucks to Category:Steam road vehicles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Steam trucks to Category:Steam lorries
Nominator's rationale: While it is true that "lorry" and "truck" are often seen as interchangeable terms, that is not true of the "Steam lorry". The term "Steam truck" is relatively absent from usage. I simply named the category poorly when creating it, to reflect the minority, not the majority usage. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I did some 'research' on this back in February (see Talk:Truck#Steam_Lorry_Naming) which confirmed my suspicions that the term 'steam lorry' was more prevalent than 'steam truck' (11800 vs 757 g-hits). EdJogg (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Your research could be read to imply that the name of this category should become "Steam wagons" because this is the greatest number of Ghits (etc). I assume your comments about "overtype" etc mean that a wagon is substantially different from a lorry, and that the right categorisation is for steam lorries? While you make this clear in your response here there is scope for a non subject specialist to make the assumption that wagons are the most correct. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually I absolutely do not mean rename this to Steam wagon. I would oppose that. The proposal is to rename it to Steam lorries, and that I endorse. I simply asked EdJogg to show why his research genuinely does not indicate that it should become Steam Wagon. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not exactly a US/UK thing, that is it is not a linguistics thing. It appears that, with steam road transport, the USA created steam cars and the UK created steam lorries (a generalisation, but one that appears to hold good). A steam Wagon appears to be an altogether differently architected beast, with its heritage in Road Locomotives - steam traction engines. The difference is not as subtle as it first appears. The lorry tends to have a substantially "neater" motive power arrangement than the wagon (boiler and all the way to final drive). I'd see the category that you suggest as a parent category that then held two subcats, one for lorries and the other for wagons. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are only 4 articles, which is not enough for 2 cats. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QED? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, here's my input. I'm not an expert in steam road vehicles, but I have a definite interest in the subject, and there seem to be precious few of us editing WP!!
As stated in my research, 'steam wagon' was typically used for the 'overtype' vehicles, which were the earlier designs that borrowed technology and layout from traction engines. The 'undertype' vehicles arrived later and were much more akin to lorries as we know them today. The 'research' does indeed show that 'steam wagon' is the most common term, but this may be because Sentinel called their vehicles 'steam waggons' (two 'g's), even though they were undertype, and clearly 'lorries'.
I had not yet created a category for these vehicles as I had not really started adding much content (NB there is a little scope for Category:Steam lorry manufacturers, or similar...) It will be some time before there is adequate content to support both Category:Steam wagons and Category:Steam lorries, but either would be better than Category:Steam trucks. Personally I would prefer 'lorries', but if other reviewers feel that 'wagons' would be a more likely search term, then so be it.
Incidentally, there is not, as yet, a main article on the subject. There is small coverage under Truck, and a little more under Traction engine (from where it is intended to spawn a new article -- this is a long-term goal!) but no separate article. I have (my own) pictures of twenty-plus steam lorries and wagons, but my reference material is rather short on the subject.
EdJogg (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment merge all to steam wagon, as there are not enough articles to support three categories, and EdJogg indicates that steam wagons came first. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While appreciating that point all the current articles on WP are British, and so far no US manufacturers have such articles. Thus the "if North American based manufacturers..." is currently speculative rather than based upon what we have here. Were such to be found, added in the short term, etc, the discussion would alter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I have just had a look at my 'project' page on which I have been trying to lay out a hierarchy for all things steam-powered. Category:Steam road vehicles would be more than adequate at this stage of the proceedings, avoids complaints of UK/US bias, and usefully allows inclusion of a number of other pages. Indeed, its creation might actually make me get off my a**e and finish the project!! EdJogg (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Steam road vehicles. That seems go me to be an excellent modification of my original error, and I am happy to modify my proposal to this new category. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Royal Navy patrol boats

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Royal Navy patrol boats to Category:Patrol vessels of the United Kingdom - This is another "mergeto" template.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Food crops

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Food crops to Category:Crops - This is another "mergeto" template.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Street railways

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge Category:Street railways to Category:Streetcars in North America. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Street railways to Category:Tram transport - This is another "mergeto" template.
  • Perhaps I shouldn't go there, but what's the difference? Not all the US ones are cable cars. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Sequences and series

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge Category:Sequences to Category:Sequences and series. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Sequences and series to Category:Sequences - This is another "mergeto" template. One is under Category:Mathematics, and the other is under its subcat: Category:Mathematical analysis. - jc37 07:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:Sequences and series - for general articles coving both topics
    1. Category:Sequences - articles specifically about sequences
      1. Category:Integer sequences - articles on integer sequences
    2. Category:Mathematical series - articles on series
this seems the most logical structure. The Reverse merge is also acceptable. --Salix alba (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Living museums

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Living museums to Category:Open air museums - This is another "mergeto" template. Note that one is a subcat of the other. - jc37 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Geoffrey Paris albums

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, empty. Kbdank71 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geoffrey Paris albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is populated by 1 article which has been proposed for deletion for non-notability. Both that album page and this category were created by a user with COI issues. Dchall1 (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Warsaw Uprising Insurgents

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Warsaw Uprising insurgents. Kbdank71 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Warsaw Uprising Insurgents to Category:Category:Warsaw Uprising participants
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:November Uprising participants and Category:January Uprising participants. Alternatively, if CfD experts prefer, rename all of them to Category:People of ... Uprising (per Category:People of American Revolution).--User:Piotrus

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Copyright free use attribute required

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Copyright free use attribute required to Category:Free images with attribution requirements
Nominator's rationale: I think "copyright free use attribute required" is unclear. I first took it to mean "no copyright, but attribution is required", which would be a contradiction. It looks like it was meant to read "copyright; free to use with the condition of attribution", which makes sense, but I think the current name may be misleading. Suggest renaming to Category:Free images with attribution requirements or Category:Free images requiring attribution, or something of that nature. — xDanielx T/C\R 07:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Murdered kings

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge to Category:Murdered monarchs. Kbdank71 16:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Murdered kings to Category:Executed royalty - This had a Template:mergeto, which I presume shouldn't be used for categories.
It looks like Category:Executed royalty is part of the Category:Executions by occupation / Category:Executed royalty category scheme, while Category:Murdered kings seems to be part of Category:Murder victims by occupation / Category:Murdered royalty
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.