< January 23	January 25 >

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: split. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Article Rescue Squadron to Category:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron and Category:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron participants

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions, point three, non-article categories like this should have a distinguishing term like "WikiProject" to distinguish them from content. Also, Wikipedia:User_categories#Naming_conventions and Wikipedia:Categorization#User_namespace indicate that WikiProject membership and WikiProject pages are best split out. Since there are several hundred pages of both types in this category, this renaming is a good opportunity to split it out and make it more manageable. MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Support,~~ but with a modification: there is already Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron, so user pages of ARS members/participants should be moved there (it can, of course, later be nominated for renaming). Most of the user pages in this category appear to be there because they transclude Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20090901, which did not initially surround the category with <noinclude> tags (it does now). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That change appears to have removed almost all of the user pages, so rename per nom to Category:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom. Diego (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is a leftover from previous categorization schemes that have been obsoleted by the creation of 'NA-Class' and portal categories. It contains only one member, which is already appropriately categorized within Category:Engineering portal and Category:File-Class Engineering articles. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kärpät players to Category:Oulun Kärpät players

Nominator's rationale: Per main article--probably speedy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to match parent cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: If I as a U.S. citizen travel to Puerto Rico, I am not technically leaving the United States, therefore, Americans are not technically expatriates in Puerto Rico. I doubt that any of these players played in Puerto Rico during the Spanish occupation, either. TM 14:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep for several reasons: 1. There is a Puerto Rico men's national basketball team, which is entirely different and therefore cannot be under the same "Puerto Rico is a territory and so it's technically American" argument (last time I checked, Carlos Arroyo wasn't lobbing alley-oops to Dwight Howard for Team USA); 2. It is consistent naming with all other categories in Category:American expatriate basketball people, which as a sidenote is probably the most extensive expatriate sportspeople category in existence; and 3. I don't know a single person in this country (the United States) who, if asked, would say that someone who is a native Puerto Rican is an American. Further along those lines, I don't know a single American who would say "Oh, no, I'm not leaving the country - I'm just going to Puerto Rico. No passport required." Jrcla2 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Puerto Rico is completely in the United States. You would NOT be expatriate if you moved there. From the Peurto Rico article "Puerto Ricans became U.S. citizens in 1917." Jeancey (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Puerto Rican basketball player categories go directly under Category:Basketball players by nationality without passing through the United States category tree first. We treat them as if they were a nationality. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- We also place them as a subcategory of Category:American basketball players. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per nom--Puerto Ricans are Americans. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, especially because Category:American expatriates in Puerto Rico was deleted by consensus. If the parent category was deleted, there's little sense having a potential subcategory. Puerto Rico is part of United States territory. We don't talk about "French expatriates in Guadelooupe" for the same reason. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete since Puerto Rico is part of the United States Americans there are not expatriates. An expatriate is someone outside of their country, you can not be an expatriate in your own country. What next Category:English expatriate footballers in Wales?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 1. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:India national cricket team selectors to Category:Indian national cricket selectors

Nominator's rationale: Merge It's clear that the two categories have the same intended scope. Either name would be fine but the main article is Indian national cricket selectors and for what it's worth Google seems to indicate that "Indian national cricket selectors" is a more common phrase than "India national cricket team selectors". Pichpich (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Category:Indian national cricket selectors. The correct title is India national cricket team selectors (and the article ought to be moved here). These are selectors for India national cricket team and this follows the standard naming structure for all national team selectors. See the other cats at Category:Cricket selectors, the structure was arrived at after discussion at WT:CRIC, I can't seem to find the link now, but I'll post there to see if someone else can find it. Also, the newly created cat is wrong on a couple of fronts "Indian" (at least as far as sports team naming for WP purposes) does not define the "team" (everything is "India national", "Australia national", "West Indies.." -- no national here of course) and there's nothing to merge as it's a subset. —SpacemanSpiff 05:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with above India is the correct term, not Indian. They are India Test cricketers, not Indian. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reverse merge as I said above, I feel both names are viable and if people prefer Category:India national cricket team selectors then let's go for that. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish denominations to Category:Jewish religious movements

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Alternately, rename article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename Parent yeah, kinda weird IMO but a majority of its sister cats and their parent articles are of the "x denomination" format.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment these look like different things to me, and if so should be categorised separately. Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Rename, denomination is never the right word to describe anything in Judaism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Images of ceiling fans to Category:Technology images

Nominator's rationale: This is an underpopulated category which is not likely to be populated as almost all of our images of ceiling fans are at Commons, where they are properly categorized (see commons:Category:Ceiling fans). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty to Commons, delete Why would we need a non-free image of a ceiling fan? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per nom, we can let WP:FFD deal with the lone category member if that needs deleting. VegaDark (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed merger Category:Place names of Cambridgeshire origin in the United States to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States

Proposed merger Category:Place names of Northamptonshire origin in the United States to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States

Category:Place names of Nottinghamshire origin in the United States to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States

Category:Place names of Oxfordshire origin in the United States to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States

Nominator's rationale. Each of these categories has only one entry. I am unconvinced the segregation by county makes sense at all in this category (and am also unconvinced that this category rises above categorizing things by characteristics of their name), however I really do not see the point in having these four single entry categories. If we upmerge them it will just get rid of an unneccesary layer of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge per nom. An example of overcategorization. I also supported deletion of the target category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all four. While the proposed merge would be a step in the right direction, I would go further. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all four. If we really mean what we say in WP:OCAT about shared names, these must go. If we keep these, let's make the written policy match our current predilections and proliferate these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge all as nominated, and I also would support deletion of the target category and its other subcategories. These categories are a clear instance of categorizing by a characteristic of the subject's name rather than the subject itself (WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I would support deletion, but since the recent proposal to do so ended in no consensus (in part because most people focused on the very different Spanish origin names cat), I decided to try a different tactic here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Italian Fascist concentration camps to Category:Italian concentration camps

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't think that "Fascist" is necessary here. The articles are List of Italian concentration camps and Italian concentration camps in Libya. The camps themselves were not "Fascist", the government of Italy was. If we need to use the word "Fascist" for some reason, it would make more sense to write "Fascist Italy concentration camps", or, at the very least, "Italian fascist concentration camps". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom, unless someone can show them from non-fascist eras of Italy. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Geography of Pennsylvania by city to Category:Geography of the United States by city

Nominator's rationale: Merge and also to the correct Category:Geography of Pennsylvania by county. Another Target creation. Not needed at this time for only 2 cities. Maybe when there are a bunch more. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. (Geography of Gettysburg category is itself up for deletion, so this category may very well be reduced to a single category.) Wild Wolf (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I just added two more items to the category. Much of Category:Geography of the United States by city is broken down by state, and it would probably be worth completing the process. - Eureka Lott 17:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep given above population of category. It would be nice if the creator of these categories had gone to the trouble of looking for content outside of Gettysburg. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete One problem is that this is de facto redundant with Category:Mortal Kombat films. More fundamentally, I don't think that this is a meaningful way to categorize video game adaptations. Surely a film based on Ms. Pac-Man would have very little to do with Mortal Kombat: Annihilation and would in fact most resemble Pac-Man (TV series) despite the fact that the latter is based on a Namco game. Pichpich (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, little room for expansion, especially since Midway is now being liquidated. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Defunct places of the Gettysburg Battlefield to Category:Gettysburg Battlefield

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Again from Target. The contents here are a mess including a few reunions. How can a reunion be classified as defunct? The same goes for a ruin, it still exists and if that is what the article is about, it is not defunct. So upmege and allow this stuff to be sorted out over time. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield was merged at CfD to the same target. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Category:Burials of Swiss–American bishops of Ohio at the Gettysburg Battlefield Merge per nom.- choster (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Will buildings such as Round Top Station go into the subcategory Category:Gettysburg Battlefield buildings and structures, even though they are defunct or ruins?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just updated that article since the category you mentioned seems more appropriate and better then the current or proposed names. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 without merging. I verified that neither Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District nor McKnightstown, Pennsylvania mention U.S. Route 30, nor does U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania mention either of the two locations. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania to Category:U.S. Route 30

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm not convinced that this creation by Target as the only state category and with only 2 entries is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – neither article mentions Route 30. Oculi (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I have no objection to deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Oculi. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete bad category and the articles don't even fit. 01:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevelationDirect (talk • contribs)
Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The problem is that "Black Forest" isn't that well defined. Administratively, it currently corresponds to a specific set of districts in Baden-Württemberg but that hasn't always been the case. The result is that membership in the category is hard to determine and of somewhat limited significance. Moreover, this category would be redundant with the detailed scheme of Category:People from Baden-Württemberg. Pichpich (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:DEFINING and nom, except that Black Forest is a landscape that doesn't exactly correspond to a specific set of districts. For most of the persons that the creator intended to list there, this is a non-defining characteristic. --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete we don't categorize people by ill-defined areas: Category:People from Appalachia anyone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well, I have lived there for many years myself and it really is a well defined and culturally significant region within Baden-Württemberg and landscape even though there is no Regierungsbezirk (district) of that name, therefore i suggest to keep the category--Paul.Niemegk (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.

January 24

Category:Article Rescue Squadron

Category:Non-article WikiProject Engineering pages

Category:Kärpät players

Category:American expatriate basketball people in Puerto Rico

Category:India national cricket team selectors

Category:Jewish denominations

Category:Images of ceiling fans

Category:Place names of Cambridgeshire origin in the United Statesand related categories

Category:Italian Fascist concentration camps

Category:Geography of Pennsylvania by city

Category:Midway Games in film and television

Category:Defunct places of the Gettysburg Battlefield

Category:U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania

Category:People from Black Forest