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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Members of 56 Group Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Being a member of this group does not appear to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic (e.g. few, if any, of the articles mention it in the lead). We don't generally categorise people by what organisations they are a member of (unless that's what they're notable for). The articles are in categories like Category:21st-century Welsh painters. For info: There is a list at 56 Group Wales (in the infobox). DexDor (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This looks to me like a category for members of a club, who worked together to promote each others artistic works. An article and a list in an info box are OK, but not the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's justificaton: The 56 Group Wales has some similarities to a learned society: membership is by election, and indicates a level of prominence in the field. While this does not have the high profile of Category:Royal Academicians, it is not different in kind. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We generally try to avoid membership categories with only a few exceptions. I do not see this as meeting any exception rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2014 (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: split. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Environmental skepticism to Category:Environmental skepticism and Category:Climate change skeptics

Nominator's rationale: Apparently, Category:Climate change skeptics redirects here since the category was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet. However, while this account may have been a sock, I still think the idea of a separate category for global warming skeptics (as opposed to dumping them into a much broader category that includes books, movies, and all sorts of other stuff) has merit. It seems I'm not the only one who thinks the current category is too broadly defined either: [1] Jinkinson talk to me 20:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. One could be a skeptic regarding anthropogenic sources of global climate change without otherwise being an environmental skeptic... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm unconvinced because I don't see evidence that "environmental skepticism" is a topic distinct from climate change skepticism. The article Environmental skepticism is entirely about climate change skepticism and climate change denial. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, the book The Skeptical Environmentalist is in the category, and I just added its author (Bjørn Lomborg) to the category as well. The book is about several sorts of environmental skepticism besides global warming (see the book article). So there are at least two inclusions based on other criteria. (The book is also skeptical of certain aspects of global warming, but that is not its focus). Agyle (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Make Category:Climate change skeptics a member of Category:Environmental skepticism, and clarify on CCS what is meant by climate change skeptic (i.e., that it's shorthand for significant anthropogenic climate change), or even change it to Category:Anthropogenic climate change skeptics. I am not convinced there are enough articles to put in a separate ES category to justify its existence, but that won't be clear until it's split up and is given time for inclusions. CCS is specific, while ES is ambiguous about who/what belongs. In general I'd take "skeptic" in this context to mean someone who rejects mainstream scientific opinion, rather than someone who analyzes information skeptically. But many issues don't have a clear mainstream opinion: are genetically engineered produce supporters environmental skeptics, or are its opponents environmental skeptics? Landfill use, recycling glass, nuclear power safety, protecting endangered insects, organic foods and many issues are similar. A few do seem clear, like people who think there's a near infinite amount of oil to pump. Agyle (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose change as undue hair-splitting. Bjørn Lomborg aside (and I think he is better described as a "skeptical environmentalist" than as an environmental skeptic), the vast majority of the people in this category are climate-change skeptics (or deniers) or even out-and-out anti-environmentalists -- and climate-change skepticism is an important theme for Lomborg, too. The existing category is working fine; it would not be productive to start analyzing people's specific positions to determine a more precise classification. --Orlady (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Orlady: Even if the existing category is working fine, the fact that, by your own admission, "the vast majority of the people in this category are climate-change skeptics," why not, rather than splitting the category as I had originally proposed, move it to Category:Climate change skeptics (which already redirects here, as I noted above)? Jinkinson talk to me 22:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, may main objective is not to engage in excessive categorization. Since it does appear that the current categorization scheme treats "environmental skepticism" as essentially synonymous with "climate change skepticism", a name change could be appropriate. However, when dealing with controversial topics, I believe it is often a good idea to follow the principle "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I'm concerned that renaming this category possibly could create some sort of new controversy that the current scheme has avoided. Any thoughts on that? --Orlady (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in my opinion, it is "broke" and therefore should be fixed. For instance, the diff I linked to above shows that DHeyward argues that, contrary to what you seem to have stated above (and what I agree with), "environmental skepticism" is "Not [the] same as climate sceptic." In other words, it, in effect, means the same thing as "climate change skeptics", but the name is something more broad and confusing. In other words, since the name of this cat clearly doesn't match its purpose, to eliminate misunderstandings we should change the name to match the purpose. Even ignoring that, though, it would be immensely useful to have a category for climate skeptics, since there are so many. Jinkinson talk to me 00:16, 16 March 2014 (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. For the record, we still have Category:Fictional dolls and dummies. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dolls in fiction

Reason: Trivial categorization, most of the articles do not mention dolls. 108.216.20.135 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having a doll in a work is often trivial to the overall work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Outstanding Parliamentarian Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Having received this award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the recipients (unlike things such as being a BJP politician); I've looked at a sample of articles in this category - none mentioned this award prominently (e.g. in the lead) and several (e.g.) don't mention it at all. For info: There is a list at Outstanding Parliamentarian Award. See WP:OC#AWARD. DexDor (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom's reasons. A Nobel prize or an Oscar would be different. Agyle (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' The list at Outstanding Parliamentarian Award is fine. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another non-defining award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need to listify as the main article has a list. A typcial Awards category, where this is trhe normal outcome. If kept a disambiguator "India" should be added, as other countries may give similar awards. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2014 (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; no consensus to expand "Exif". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Redirects from EXIF information to Category:Redirects from Exif information

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Exif is the usual capitalisation, but this was contested at the Speedy page on the grounds that it should be spelled out in full. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Agree with Matthiaspaul that "Exif", rather than "EXIF", should be used in the category title. This is also to be consistent with the recent correction to the rcat that populates this category, ((R from Exif)). Category titles should be as concise as possible. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:10, 14 March 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:2011 Japanese nuclear incidents and accidents to Category:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Nominator's rationale: Rename. With the exception of a section in the article about the separate Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant (which only experienced an relatively minor incident) -- and a single paragraph in another article (Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, which barely even qualifies as an "incident") -- this category is entirely about the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Oh yeah, and the main article link -- which was formerly listed as "2011 Japanese nuclear incidents and accidents" -- is now merely a redirect to Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. (Notified Category creator using ((cfd-notify))) Cgingold (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nom. Makes sense... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2014 (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: speedy delete as empty (C1). – Fayenatic London 14:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Brisbane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Queensland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Created just over a month ago in error for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Brisbane, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Queensland and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Australia all of which already existed. Redrose64 (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2014 (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: speedy delete G3. – Fayenatic London 17:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hungarian airliners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Recently-created empty Cat, made empty by Speedy deletion of a hoax article about a purported Hungarian airline (Asert Airways). As far as I know there has never been a Hungarian-built airliner, and as far as I know none is in development. YSSYguy (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Projects involved in the Great Backlog Drive 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: In the long term this is not a defining characteristic of its contents. DexDor (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Since when do users count as a project? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2014 (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: for now at least, rename to Category:User Assembly Language-1, Category:User Assembly Language-2, Category:User Assembly Language-3, Category:User Assembly Language-4, Category:User Assembly Language-5, and Category:User Assembly Language. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Category:User asm-1 to Category:User ASM-1 for ((User Assembly Language-1)) + redirected ((User asm-1))
2. Category:User asm-2 to Category:User ASM-2 for ((User Assembly Language-2)) + redirected ((User asm-2))
3. Category:User asm-3 to Category:User ASM-3 for ((User Assembly Language-3)) + redirected ((User asm-3))
4. Category:User asm-4 to Category:User ASM-4 for ((User Assembly Language-4)) + redirected ((User asm-4))
5. Category:User asm-5 to Category:User ASM-5 for ((User Assembly Language-5)) + redirected ((User asm-5))
6. Category:User asm    to Category:User ASM    for ((User Assembly Language))     + redirected ((User asm))
7. Category:User Assembly language should be empty soon (cache issue for CyberXRef/Footer)

• Ditto ((User Assembly Language-N)) + moved ((User asm-N)) (ending up in language level 4)
• Ditto ((User Assembly Language-0)) + moved ((User asm-0)) (no category for these templates)

Background, ((#babel:…|asm-X|…)) doesn't work as expected, asm is the ISO code for the Assamese language. Somebody started to tackle this mess with User Assembly Language templates and a new Category:User Assembly language (lower case L here), but it wasn't ready. The old templates still existed (now redirected), e.g., ((User asm-4)) and ((User Assembly Language-4)) disagreed about an expert vs. a expert. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:User Assembly Language-1, etc, and delete those redirects; we should not intrude on the ISO namespace. Spelling this out is much better and avoids confusion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Obiwankenobi - Neither of the above options are intuitive category names. Someone unfamiliar with category names would have no idea that Category:User ASM-1 or Category:User Assembly Language-1 actually was trying to mean Category:Wikipedian assembly language programmers: Novice. I know that this is the current system, but I don't know why this was ever the precedent set for these types of categories. I would support an overhaul of the entire system, but that would be better for a group nom or discussion somewhere. In the mean time, however, I agree with Obiwankenobi above - If we are going to have this unhelpful naming convention system, we might as well have a different system for programming languages than we do for actual spoken languages in the ISO system. VegaDark (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2014 (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, without prejudice to a future nomination for renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Marvel Comics characters who have mental powers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete Mental powers is far to vague a term, if it covers telekinesis it would cover anything kinesis. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would assume that "mental powers" would include the more specific "mental powers". If there's too many we could have sub cats (telepathy vs telekinesis or whatever) but it's better to have a general category than no organization here at all. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There already is a telepath subcat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep CensoredScribe, I don't really get your example...what other kind of abilities involving kinesis do you mean? Like somebody using their brain to tell their hand to grab a donut? If that's it, that's grasping for ambiguity. Can you link/describe characters who you think it's ambiguous if they belong? Spot-checking a few characters in the category, all seemed clear-cut. Telepathy, mind control, telekinesis, predicting the future, or pyrokinesis are mental powers. Making an object burst into flames with their brain is a mental power, using laser beams from their eyes is not (the power has to come from the brain, at least to some extent other than the brain controls all other bodily actions). One that seems a bit ambiguous is the Hulk; his strength isn't a mental power, but his ability to transform may be. Can he transform by thoughts under his control (say, getting himself mad by thinking about politics), or only through uncontrolled anger, and what if it's cause by a more physiological response like an overactive pituitary gland – it's not clear how to consider these in this context. Agyle (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- If we are to keep this it needs to be renamed to better define its scope. We all have mental powers: we think! Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Marvel Comics characters who use psychic powers - consistent with Category:Psychic powers and Category:DC Comics characters who use magic. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also rename Category:Fictional characters who have mental powers and Category:Video game characters who have mental powers. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2014 (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. There's a consensus that the category should be deleted and the one article in it (Ormen Lange (longship)) placed elsewhere. The article is already in Category:Ships in Norwegian history. There was some discussion as to whether Category:Ships in Norse mythology is an appropriate category as well. I won't merge the article to that category right now, but the issue of how to exactly categorize the article can continue to evolve through edits and further discussion on the article talk page, if necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ships in Norse sagas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains only one article and that's about a real ship (for which being mentioned in the sagas is hardly a WP:DEFINING characteristic). DexDor (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created the categories Category:Ships in Norse sagas and Category:Ships in Norwegian history but argue against merging them. The former category would be for "legendary" ships, i.e. ships about legendary Vikings, or ships with non-historical legends attached to them. Some of the ships that would wind up in this category would not find comfortable home in "history".

True, only article currently populates the first category, I anticipate several which can eventually be added. For example, the ship Elliði (Ellidi, Ellide, Ellida) of Thorsteins saga Víkingssonar and Frithiof's Saga. And in Sörla tháttr, the protagonist Sorli obtains Halfdan's ship Hálfdanarnautr ("Halfdan's Loom" or "Halfdan's Gift"), which is compared to several legendary ships, the Gnoð, the Elliði and the Ormen Lange. Another This Hálfdanarnautr was obtained Odd, the hero of Örvar-Odds saga. There is also Vísundr (the "Bison"), mentioned in versions of the Olafs saga Helga.

The list could go on from my own notes, and I'm sure others can pitch in. I anticipate that articles on these ships are eventually forthcoming. I could write up stub articles, but prefer to wait to see if others are willing to draft more developed articles and be able to credit themselves as creator.--Kiyoweap (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We generally avoid categorizing real things by their connection to fiction and literature. There is even less reason to do so when we only have one entry to classify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or find a merge target. I think the Sagas are about all we have for the history of the Viking period. The question is really whether there is ever going to be scope for articles (other than stubs) on particular ships that will say much other than to tell part of the story of the saga. The one article that we have is a short (but substantive) article. Accordingly the question is how that articel is best categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: would Category:Ships in Norse mythology be a suitable merge target? – Fayenatic London 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Ships in Norse mythology. According to Saga and Norse mythology, sagas are sources of Norse mythology, so it seems to me that this is an appropriate target. The only member article, Ormen Lange (longship), is also in Category:Ships in Norwegian history which is in the parent category:Legendary ships, so the effect of the merge would only be to take the page out of the Category:Sagas hierarchy, which is an acceptable result. – Fayenatic London 12:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A real ship shouldn't be in Category:Ships in Norse mythology (and hence in Category:Fictional objects). We try not to categorize real objects by mentions in fiction/mythology. DexDor (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge per above. Ormurin Langi is not at all a "Norse Saga" (nor categorized as one) but a ballad song written about 1830. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: Never mind the song – that is not the page in the category, but is named for the ship Ormen Lange (longship), which is recorded in the saga Heimskringla. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the ship article doesn't actually mention that, but no doubt you are right. Anyway, it's not enough, per several above. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that target -- The target relates to the ships of Norse gods. In contrast the Icelandic sagas I have read in translation purport to be recounting historic events, though ho9w far they are fact and how far fiction is perhaps debatable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2014 (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: Renamed DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Society by nationality to Category:Society by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Societies don't have nationalities, people do. And all of the subcats are for countries, not "nationalities". So it's puzzling that this category was given the wrong name when it was created. Very odd. The Commons Category, thankfully, got it right. :) (Category creator unknown - renamed in 2005) Cgingold (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Original creator of Category:Societies by nationality was User:Mic, but user hasn't edited in almost 10 years. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is part of the guideline Wikipedia:CATNAME#Socio-cultural topics. I think the case is strong for culture and language to use "nationality" rather than "country", as they go outside the borders with the people (diasporas), but I see the argument for changing the Society categories. – Fayenatic London 17:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Some of the cultural categories should stay "by nationality", but the Society category should be renamed as "by country". However, I believe this should be re-listed along with all the national sub-cats, renaming e.g. Category:Afghan society‎ to Category:Society in Afghanistan. – Fayenatic London 21:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hmains: re this old edit, should not each Culture cat be a sub-cat of the corresponding Society cat? – Fayenatic London 21:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, all the national culture categories are now within the national society categories. – Fayenatic London 15:44, 19 March 2014 (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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Arnhem to Category:Railway stations in Gelderland

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge back into Category:Railway stations in Gelderland. It's a WP:SMALLCAT - there are a total of four railway stations in Arnhem and very little chance of serious expanding of this number. Four involved articles will also need to categorized back into Category:Buildings and structures in Arnhem if the cat's deleted. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Part of a series and would also need a double upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2014 (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.