The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus and the discussion at Category talk:Albums by producer relates to the content, not the existence, of such categories. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums produced by Rick Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – in what sense is it redundant? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems a perfect subcat of Category:Albums by producer - unless the nom can expand on his rationale for listing this? Lugnuts (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Category:Albums produced by Bryan Adams was deleted for a very similar nomination. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 00:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That was deleted (mistakenly in my view) on the grounds that the albums he produced were mostly to be found in Category:Bryan Adams albums. I haven't looked through all these but in many Rock is one of 5 or 6 co-producers, rather than the producer. I don't have strong views on whether this matters. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - based on roundhouse's comments about multiple producers and selecting an article more or less at random, Man vs. Machine (album) lists six different people as producers and has two "produced by" categories currently. This points out quite a large problem with this entire category scheme, the same problem that arose in the Bryan Adams CFD. How much of an album needs to be produced by a particular person for it to be considered for encyclopedic purposes to be "produced by" that person? I would like to see a wider discussion of the category concept before it proliferates out of control, but in the meantime the issues with this category lead me to support its deletion. If this is notable, make a list article (which I'm thinking is the best way to handle these sorts of categories overall). Otto4711 (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh shit, 615 subcategories? It's already out of control. Otto4711 (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at these diffs, these are two category of the same style being added to articles: [1], [2], [3]. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have posted a proposal on how to handle this category structure in general at Category talk:Albums by producer. Regardless of the outcome of any of the various CFDs running on these categories, please contribute your thoughts. Otto4711 (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Flowerparty^☀ 14:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blockbuster novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The term blockbuster is not clearly-defined, and whether a film or novel is a blockbuster is largely a factor of external circumstances, such as the size of the market being considered. (A bestseller in Lesotho may not even register on the bestseller charts in the United States.) Also, although the phrase 'blockbuster novel' does have some use, I believe that successful books are more commonly termed bestsellers rather than blockbusters. A list, such as List of best-selling books, seems more appropriate than a category in this case. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even if the term "Blockbuster novels" wasn't problematic, I don't think it's wise to categorize books by their sales rankings. As far as I know, we don't do this for music albums either. Cgingold (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, an untenable category. Otto4711 (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fatally ambiguous. Specific categories for books that reach #1 on specific bestseller lists might possibly be useful, but even that would be pushing it. -Sean Curtin (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big Fish Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Big Fish Studios is a redirect to Big Fish Games, and every article in this category is already in Category:Big Fish Games. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be redundant to parent cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 24 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arts Boarding School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This doesn't fit into the current scheme of Category:Boarding schools, and I'm not certain whether "boarding schools by specialisation" is a viable system for categorisation. If kept, rename to Category:Arts boarding schools. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Small category with unclear growth potential, vague inclusion criteria, boarding schools by specialty seems a bad tree to plant, no indication in the lone article that the school is an "arts" boarding school. Otto4711 (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The School is an arts boarding school and the article did mention that, however, the changes have not been incoporated for some reason. Arts Boarding school is viable and most sites that talk about boarding schools (such as boarding school review) have this as a category themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbertin (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete per precedent and absence of growth. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ashanti (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for an individual. The category currently contains only the article about singer herself; the subcategories for albums and songs produced by her are already otherwise categories. All the material is adequately interlinked through the main article and Template:Ashanti. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator, I will rename and add more pages to the category. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are 2 sizeable subcats, about 10 related images, a template and no doubt other articles yet to be added. I have not grasped the objection to 'Eponymous categories'; it seems to be an article of faith passed down from the earliest wikipedians. (Category:Stuff related to Ashanti (singer) would do but seems less elegant.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The objection to eponymous categories, which used to be more fully explained at WP:OC before someone took a hacksaw to it, is that in most instances they are unnecessary to serve as navigational hubs for the material about the person, band, etc. In most instances the article about the person, perhaps with associated templates (for instance, for albums and singles for Ashanti) serves to link the material together and anyone looking for information related to Ashanti is going to start with her article, not go searching for a category. Eponymous articles also tend to attract inappropriate articles, for instance categorizing films in which the actor appeared under the actor's category, which we don't do. If the material relating to the person is so complex that navigation would be hindered relying on the article, then a category may be appropriate. A good example of that is Category:Rudy Giuliani, which was at one point deleted as unnecessary but during his 2008 presidential bid was recreated without objection. Image galleries shouldn't be included in categories regardless. Given the volume of material here and the ease of linkage through article text and template, delete this category per nom and WP:OC. Otto4711 (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not advocating image galleries, rather the addition of each image (using __NOGALLERY__, cf Category:Mariah Carey). As I have observed before, the 2 related subcats need to be gathered together in a parent cat, their union, so that the navigator in category space, obstinately declining to deviate into article or template space, can move readily from the one to the other. (Your prodigious output is clearly and consistently argued, by the way. Respect.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And with all due respect in return, I find it impossible to believe that someone is simply going to look to see whether there is a category for Ashanti songs for the sake of knowing that such a category exists. Presumably he's looking for an Ashanti songs category because he is interested in reading about Ashanti songs, which requires that he venture across the void into article space, which will link him to the main article and bring him into contact with the templates as well. Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was undecided, probably leaning toward delete. But if this category is in fact likely to grow as suggested, it should be kept. Cgingold (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been three days since that suggestion was made and nothing's been added to the category. Otto4711 (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Ashanti albums to Category:Ashanti (singer) albums

Rename Category:Ashanti songs to Category:Ashanti (singer) songs

Nominator's rationale: To match the main article (Ashanti (singer)) and avoid confusion with other major uses of Ashanti, such as the Ashanti people and the Ashanti Region in Ghana. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely - Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. We don't categorise albums by singer's ethnicity or region of origin, so this isn't really ambiguous. I'd understand if there was an Ashanti language, but there isn't. This move seems too pedantic to me. Flowerparty^☀ 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Categories in most instances should match their lead articles and while the confusion here is unlikely it's not impossible. I note that we do in some instances sub-categorize musical material by nation of origin (c.f. Category:Songs by Canadian artists) so a structure for Ashanti-region performers may develop. Otto4711 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't help but think this 'potential for confusion' argument is being vastly overstated. I'm sure most people access the categories, if at all, through the links at the bottom of the articles, or if not then through the tree - either way the meaning of any otherwise ambiguous word should be patently obvious. Given that there currently is no second category (for albums from the ashanti region? - I find that highly unlikely, btw) with which this one could be confused this seems like disambiguation by clairvoyance. I find this piecemeal introduction of a standard for categories inheriting their disambiguator from the article title rather thoughtless and inhuman. When did our editors become robots? Flowerparty^☀ 10:56, 5 June 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Australian cinema lists to Category:List-Class Australian cinema articles

Nominator's rationale: The scope of the two categories is identical, but the latter better matches the convention of Category:Australian cinema articles by quality and Category:List-Class articles. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:List-Class Australian cinema articles per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:20, 24 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Activewear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The sole article in the category is already in Category:Sportswear brands and the category itself seems to be redundant to Category:Sports clothing. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Cricketgirl (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Players who have played for Boca Juniors and River Plate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization for football rivalry and per CFD on 2007 February 1. Matthew_hk tc 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - overcategorisation, per nom. Terraxos (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom BanRay 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I have nothing against categories for players for both teams in major football rivalries, but I understand the definition of major could be manipulated to allow stuff like Players who have played for Bristol City & Bristol Rovers, so I understand the reason for deletion. All I ask is that someone checks that all of the players in this category are listed in the appropriate section of the Superclasico article before the category is deleted EP 19:20, 5 June 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: result. No need for these categories Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by User:Kallemax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Photographs by User:Petri Krohn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per precedent set here and here, personal image categories are not needed. If allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need to make categories. VegaDark (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think these images are better off in a user subpage.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Keeping track of one's image uploads is certainly legitimate, but a user subpage would be more appropriate. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missing Children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category was created as a redirect to an article, which in turn is the only article using this category. Appears unlikely to be useful. Russ (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article is included in better cats and this category might be redundant to Category:Disappeared people--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Theoretically, there could be a rationale for this category. But in reality, the overwhelming majority of missing children are actually child abduction cases, and that subject is already well covered through Category:Child abduction and Category:Kidnapped children, and their sub-cats. We don't even have a separate article on the subject -- Missing children is merely a redirect to Child abduction. If at some point there are articles on missing children (as distinct from abducted children), this category can always be re-created. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per R'n'B and Cgingold. -Sean Curtin (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete all. Flowerparty^☀ 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Cities named after saints in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Cities named after religious figures in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Nominator's rationale:: These seem a poor basis for categorization. Would work better as a list, if at all. older ≠ wiser 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if so, where is the list? Hmains (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never said there was one. I'm not even sure there should actually be one. I certainly have no interest in such a list. But if such a thing as is collected in this category is worth having in an encyclopedia, it would be better as a list than as a category, IMO. older ≠ wiser 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While I'm leaning in the direction of listifying, I would like to hear from the categories' creator and any other supporters. I also would note that there could potentially be a larger category tree for such cities in other parts of the world. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - I would not be against an article on the names of US cities, but for categorization this characteristic is far too trivial. gidonb (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is categorization by shared name, clear WP:OCAT. Otto4711 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably listify, definitely delete. -Sean Curtin (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Flowerparty^☀ 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities named Apamea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Isn't this what disambiguation pages are for? older ≠ wiser 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's already a dab page in place so this category is redundant.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is categorization by shared name, clear WP:OCAT. Otto4711 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Flowerparty^☀ 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities named after London, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems an entirely superfluous category, something better served by a list, if at all. older ≠ wiser 13:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No real need for a category, there's an extensive list of cities and other places named after London at London (disambiguation). Cgingold (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant to the dab page.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is categorization by shared name, clear WP:OCAT. Otto4711 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Keep, (also withdrawn by nominator). Woody (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Propose renaming Category:Military facilities to Category:Military real estate

Nominator's rationale: There is no main article for military facilities. Instead the article Military bases used, however it is badly written, and due to lack of sources is based on the assumption that a facility is necessarily representative of all types of military property, which is the name for all types of property used by the militaries, and is similar to Category:Real Estate. mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as is. In the military environment, the term in use is 'military facilities' for all real estate, buildings and other structures in use by the military. The contents of this category and its subcats show that much more is involved here than simply 'real estate'. Hmains (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is. I believe the discussion down below shows that people are happier with either 'bases' or 'facilities', though we are going to have to decide on one or the other. Buckshot06(prof) 00:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No main article in and of itself is not a reason to delete. The current name is accurate and not ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Additionally, the term "real estate" is primarily a U.S. term; I believe "property" is more common in Commonwealth countries, but that term has other ambiguity problems.-choster (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem. The term property on its own has a wider application then just land. In the military, in fact all 170 World's militaries Buckshot006 mentions in his proposal, all military land and structures on them are part of property management, however that is not the only function in the use of military land historically or in specific terms. The term Real Estate is a general English term that sufficiently applies to both the land and the structures on it without being ambiguous or specific on only one facet of their utility. In fact this is the problem in the article Military base, naming

A military base may go by any of a number of names such as

• Airbase
• yard or shipyard
• garrison
• station
• post
• dock [[Naval dockyard|dock]]
• depot [[distribution center|depot]]
• activity
• magazine [[Magazine (artillery)|magazine]]
• arsenal
• proving ground
• armory
• fort
• camp
• barracks
• caserne
• facility
• field [[Airbase|field]]
• reservation
• installation (in the generic)

As can be seen these are in some cases undefined although in the article it is acknowledged that names reflect utility. That they should not be all grouped under one name "military base" is clear from the very list. A naval dockyard can, and these days usually is a non-military commercial manufacturing or repair enterprise used as much by civilian as military vessels, and this was also the case going back to the 17th century. Caserne is just a German word for barracks. A garrison need not be permanent as is implied by the word base, and a fort can be a temporary field construction and not necessarily Fort Hood. The Kremlin Arsenal is clearly not a base, but a museum although Kremlin itself has a garrison, which does not live in barracks. A magazine, a word hardly used today, is what depots are, although a depot need not be making a permanent use of military land use property or have any permanent military structures such as a fuel-cell dump, while linking airbase to a "field" is of dubious value, and an obvious confusion with the US usage of airfield that used to be the Aerodrome. The only common term that combines both military land and military structures is Military real estate--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Editors who wish to comment on the radical restructuring of World War II categories by User:mrg3105 may do so at the talk page for WikiProject Military history. Cgingold (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "Military facilities" indicates with clarity what the category is used for; "real estate" would be confusing for many readers. Cgingold (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename, kept as a redirect. Bots will move the names over in due course. Bencherlite^Talk 10:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1. FC Nürnberg players to Category:1. FC Nuremberg players

Nominator's rationale: Rename: The main article is named 1. FC Nuremberg and also the city Nuremberg. Jaellee (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, but keep present version as a redirect, since it uses the correct German spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, keep present version as redirect.--Wulf Isebrand (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Economic simulation games to Category:Business simulation games

Nominator's rationale: I found a reference for the previously unreferenced article, and this is the most notable, reliable, verifiable name for the category of games. See business simulation game for more information, and examine the reference if at all possible. Randomran (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tower series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-notable, over-categorization, unverifiable... small list that will never grow very large. Randomran (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - since the main article seems to have been deleted, leaving an empty category (except headnote). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it seems that Tower series has never existed (empty deletion log); an HTML comment on the headnote suggests the creator actually wanted it to link to SimTower but couldn't figure out how to do so (note he's using ((catmore)), which automatically puts that note in). Yoot Tower would also lie in this category if cleaned up, as would The Tower DS once it pops out of the crystal ball. Still a very small category though. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:48, 28 May 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of former countries to Category:People by former country, nation or state

Nominator's rationale: less of a suggested rename then a call for suggestions to rename this, the equivalent of Category:People by nationality for no longer existent nationalities(taken here to mean 'citizenship'). Category:People by former nationality or 'prior nationality' likely yields a list of people who have changed nationality (ie. citizenship) by their previous citizenship. The phrases 'extinct nationality' or 'defunct nationality' seems incorrect. And the point to the phraseology 'country, nation or state' is to try to be all-inclusive, to include any form of entity whether it be imperial, city-state, monarchial, tribal, or other form of state/nation, modern or pre-modern. I doubt very much that this is the best renaming - like I say, an open call for suggestions Mayumashu (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Pass. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I m thinking now Category:People by no longer existent nationality may be the best bet Mayumashu (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest for this parent category Category:People of countries no longer existing, or perhaps Category:People of states no longer existing, which would cover polities of various kinds. I would steer away from modern concepts such as nationality and citizenship, since many of the categories relate to ancient realms from a period before these concepts arose. Please also bear in mind that the Roman slave Spartacus was certainly Roman, but not a citizen or even a peregrinus (free man without citizenship. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Defunct" is used in a lot of these sorts of cats so what about Category:People by defunct nationality? It reads a little odd but avoids the whole "former" confusion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to merge. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Military bases to Category:Military facilities

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates more general category and thus has some countries' facilities/bases under 'bases' and other countries' under 'facilities'. Everything should be in one place, permitting a full perusal of entries easily. (Possibly, to avoid the category being recreated again by an unknowing editor, it should be converted into a redirect). Buckshot06(prof) 04:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think I agree with the concept but may oppose since the proposed merge is not correct. Many of these categories and articles belong in sub categories of Category:Military facilities. I guess my question is should they be moved to the proper category as a result of this nomination or depend on someone to cleanup behind a bot if this merge is approved. I would think doing the manual intelligent merge is best and leave any leftovers for a bot. Some may only need to have this cat removed so another option would be to make sure that have a good sub cat and then simply delete this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cgingold (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a military base and a military facility are two very different entities.Balloonman (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain further? How do you see them as different? Surely there are both areas of land with buildings on them, occupied by people who work for the military. Buckshot06(prof) 09:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A military facility could be a single building. A military base can be what you just described.Balloonman (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Balloonman. But, surely, one building, would, under the definition I just wrote up up higher, be on an area of land, and be occupied by people who work for the military. Why would that not be a 'military base.'? I'm not trying to criticise you or anything, I'm just trying to understand what you see as the difference and why. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A person in the military would never consider a single building, EVEN the Pentagon or Walter Reid Hospital, to be a base. Nor would they consider a military prison to a base. Nor would they consider some research locations, armories, hospitals, weapons ranges, some training grounds, military school, or military housing units (which may be located OFF of a base.) The later has been an issue of discussion because the housing of military members "off base" has been taxed differently than the housing of military members who live "on base" despite the fact that both live in military housing units/facilities.Balloonman (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the examples you're giving, I assume you're talking about a U.S. military definition. However we have to think over over 170 militaries all over the world. Do you believe your definitions as above should hold given we need to think of a set of categories and conventions that will be appropriate for all the world's armed forces? Interested in you thoughts - and potential solutions, given the category tree involved is so messed up. Buckshot06(prof) 00:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would hold true for other militaries around the world as well. A military facility can be a military base, but isn't necessarily so. If you open the definition up, then you might be introducing facilities such as embassies/consulates, which aren't military bases, but have military presences... and in some countries the division isn't as distinct as it is in the US.Balloonman (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge - the category main article for Military bases is badly written and completely unsourced, and this is causing confusion. Category:Military facilities doesn't have a main article that explains what the term means and how it is applied. In fact the entire category needs to be renamed [[Category:Military real estate]]--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• do not merge military bases are a proper subset of miltiary facilities and not the other other way around. Therefore, they are not equivalent and not mergeable. Hmains (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, would be interested to hear you write why. What exactly, in your definition is a 'military base,' and why is it not a 'military facility'? Buckshot06(prof) 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should reread and accept the correct information provided by Balloonman above Hmains (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Hmains, but I find that a little rude. You seem to be saying that every military in the world would be happy to accept Balloonman's characterisation of its bases/facilities/whatever? Not only that, but someone has to define the terms. If we're to come to a final agreement on this category question, we would have to get a definition for 'base' that would go beyond the list of examples Balloonman cited, which would be clear which was in and out of scope on what were bases versus facilities, and that would be applicable to places such as Moscow Metro 2 or Burnham, New Zealand, not just simple cases like, for example, Langley Air Force Base. You have not advanced evidence as to why we should apply current US military naming conventions to the entire world - and no-one seems to have any comprehensive definitions to determine what would be in or out of scope. Buckshot06(prof) 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are going to suggest that there are military's out there that would classify their military hospitals, schools, recruitment centers, isloated radar stations, etc as bases? Sorry, they aren't.Balloonman (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It seems to me that the real question here is not so much what WE might define as a "military base", but rather what the military defines as a "military base". Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That creates the difficulty, whose military? We've got around 170ish of them in the world. Buckshot06(prof) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to explain why the current arrangement is wrong. You have exposed some inconsistencies in some areas that can be corrected without a survey here. Those inconsistencies are not a justification to merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well pointed out. Maybe a merger isn't the correct course of action. Thoughts on what is? Buckshot06(prof) 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'd just cleanup any weird groupings. I'd leave all of the Military bases under Category:Military facilities since military base opens with 'A military base is a facility'. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually already started doing that, moving everything into Category:Military facilities. If anyone has a problem with that, please sing out. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as bases are staying in an appropriate subcategory of Category:Military bases. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, especially since it seems that Buckshot's desire to merge these two categories is the lone voice for that position.Balloonman (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to follow Vegaswikian's advice and merge the bases into facilities (while keeping the subcat military bases; if anyone has any queries on particular category decisions, please do raise it with me. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I said 'appropriate subcategory of Category:Military bases' so the subcategories should be retained and have dual parents as needed. The subcategories should not be emptied. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge - As others have pointed out, not all facilities are bases. Cgingold (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As anyone looking at my edits will see, I've been moving some of the subcategories around, as per the discussion above. If people feel some of the changes are inappropriate, please appeal hear or on my talk. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion You could simple combine both into Category:Military installations. I think the term "installation" would adequetely encompass both "base" and "facility". Then the definitions could be further defined between single buildings and larger bases if necessary. bahamut0013♠♣ 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do others think of this suggestion? 'Military installations' sounds like a good all-embracing term to me, incorporating the meanings expressed both by 'bases' and 'facilities', and I'm happy to regroup all the categories should there be general agreement. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 23:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion A further survey of English speaking military organisations suggests the common term for all of the land used by the militaries is Military Property, and Military Property Management. Given that military property, in the literal sense, can mean any object or equipment owned by the armed forces, I would suggest Military property (land) and Military property management (land).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:54, 1 June 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hemostatic agents to Category:Antihemorrhagics

Nominator's rationale: Antihemorrhagics is a more widely-used name to refer to drugs that stop bleeding. The main article on the topic, hemostatic agent has just been moved to antihemorrhagic, and the category should be renamed to match. Scott Alter 00:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. As a non-medical person, I understand the new name, but I had no idea on the current name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 23 May 2008 (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.