< October 6 October 8 >

October 7

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Barwell F.C players

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: Renamed per WP:C1. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Barwell F.C players to Category:Barwell F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The from category is missing the dot after the capital C. Boissière (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2011 (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:Eastern Orthodox Legislators

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eastern Orthodox Legislators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Eastern Orthodox Parliamentarians (Canada)
Category:Eastern Orthodox Members of Congress (U.S.)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A cross-categorization of legislators by religious denomination. Already being misused by putting living people in it without citation of self-identification. There are no other cross-categorization of legislators by denomination or even by major religions, why should this denomination be an exception? Yworo (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue is not the category; the issue is the individuals placed in it. I agree that self-identification should be fully documented. IMHO, it should be possible to do this for many of these names. (Legislators of Greek ancestry, for example, tend to identify themselves as Orthodox Christians, as it is politically beneficial in communities with strong Greek ethnic communities such as Astoria, New York and Melbourne, Victoria. Since the category is only twenty-four hours old, the solution is to keep the category and remove entries which are not appropriately documented. Paterakis (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2011 (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:Pulmonary function

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pulmonary function to Category:Pulmonary function testing
Nominator's rationale: Rename This is actually a textbook case of speedy renaming since the corresponding article is Pulmonary function testing. However, I'd like to have some input on the relevance of this category. I'm not convinced it's worth keeping. Pichpich (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I could agree with renaming, and you're probably right about its relevance. As a category, its relevant but it would only have at most, 20 articles in it; so it might be better to make this a sub-category of the Category:Respiratory therapy? Je.rrt (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Respiratory science and research as a replacement category would be good. Considering Respiratory Science is regarded as the term internationally as descriptive of the entire scope of pulmonary function testing and research, as a sub-category of respiratory therapy/respiratory care. Kastyn.rrt (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 19:25, 7 October 2011 (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:Modern aircraft of the Australian Army

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Modern aircraft of the Australian Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Another user based aircraft category, previous incarnation was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 9#Category:Aircraft of the Australian Army in active service. Due to the large numbers of users it is just not encyclopedic to have a category for every user which may involve over 70 categories on some aircraft types. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2011 (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:Vale class gunships

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename, C2D. The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Vale class gunships to Category:Vale class gunboats
Nominator's rationale: WP:ENGLISH. This seems to be a mistranslation of the Norwegian "Kanonbåten". A gunship is quite different from a gunboat. Shem (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2011 (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:Fleet Air Arm aircraft

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fleet Air Arm aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category based on users not really needed, similar categories have been deleted in the past. Use of user based categories for example on the Lockheed Hercules could require more than 70 user categories (The C-47 would need hundreds). MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2011 (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:UAS helicopters

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UAS helicopters to Category:Unmanned helicopters
Nominator's rationale: There are various names for this concept, one of which is UAS (Unmanned Aerial System). I don't think we need to be that specific. Another possibility is Category:Drone helicopters.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2011 (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:Spitfire Helicopters

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 renamed per C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 22:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Spitfire Helicopters to Category:Spitfire Helicopters aircraft
Nominator's rationale: Per all other Category:Aircraft by manufacturer subcategories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (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:Helicopter manufacturers

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 as is. Ruslik_Zero 17:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Helicopter manufacturers to Category:Helicopter manufacturers by country
or
Propose merging Category:Helicopter manufacturers by country to Category:Helicopter manufacturers
Nominator's rationale: This category has no reason to exist except to be a by-country category. Alternatively, we could go the other direction.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added another subcategory which properly belongs under Category:Helicopter manufacturers: Category:Defunct helicopter manufacturers Hmains (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2011 (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:Medieval physicians of Egypt

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Medieval physicians of Egypt to Category:Medieval Egyptian physicians
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Without knowing too much about practitioners of medicine in Medieval Egypt, is it possible that some in the former category were Medieval physicians that practised in Egypt, but were not Egyptian, and that some in the latter category were Medieval Egyptian physicians who did not practise in Egypt? Rashidun al-Suri would seem to be non-Egyptian, but practising in Egpyt. Perhaps a merger of Category:Medieval physicians of Egypt into Category:Medieval Arab physicians would be a better option, or the appropriate subcategory in Category:Medieval physicians (that whole category needs to be standardised as well). IgnorantArmies 06:00, 9 October 2011 (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.
More