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 (no opposition; I've looked over what the nominator has set out re: the articles in this category and what she says looks correct to me). Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:38, 5 January 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale: "Winners" is used over "titleholders" in other such categories (as well as parent categories), so this one should conform to that. Mbinebritalk ← 23:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Winning the Miss Chile competition is likely to be the single most-defining characteristic of the women who biographical articles populate this category, so this category should be kept. Support the proposed renaming to conform with other winners sub-categories of Category:Miss Universe by country. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Merge instead with Category:Miss Chile. Only 1 of the 10 categories in Category:Miss Universe by country has the word "winners" in it. Unless all of these were to be renamed, we should not disturb the accepted naming convention of a category. Debresser (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Only one out of the ten categories has "winners" in it because all the cats (or at least all that I looked in) house articles on the pageants grouped by year with no individual winners. Categories focused on listing winners already has a precedent for including "winners" in the name per the many cats in Category:Beauty pageant winners. And with that all in mind, I'll remove "Category:Miss Universe Canada winners" from "Category:Miss Universe by country", as it's clearly misplaced. Mbinebritalk ← 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete -- according to standard practice on minor award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2010 (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:Burials at Saint Vitus Cathedral, Prague[edit]
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.
reverse merge per BHG. There's at least two of these, so neither should be dominant in the categorization tree. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize there was a conflict for the name. The reverse merge is fine by me. --RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reverse merge is much the better solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Our article on this body is located at House of the People (Afghanistan), and the corresponding category should reflect that. Alternatively, we can call it Category:Members of Wolesi Jirga, but either way, the "Members of" phrasing should be there, since that's what the category is about. BiruitorulTalk 17:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with no real opinion on the disambiguation clause. We don't have the article at the exact title, but the Palace of the Parliament is- on the ground- called the "House of the People" in Bucharest. (So much so that the first thing Google pulls out for "House of the People" is about Romania.) But, since Romania has a building, there are clearly no "members of..." to sort. Either title can be justified. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per User:BrownHairedGirl. It should match the main article. I would be surprised if the term "House of the People" had not been used elsewhere at some time, so that a disambiguator is desirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge; as far as I can tell, these two categories cover the same types of scholarly disciplines. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 17:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not compared articles from these two categories, but my first impression is that one may be an academic of law without being a philosopher. Like a law-school teacher, e.g. Debresser (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJurisprudence is another name for philosophy of law, so I figure there should be one category for all academics who work in that field, regardless of whether they are jurists or philosophers by training. --Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 21:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not think they are quite the same thing. Certainly not all scholars of jurisprudnce are philosophers. The philosphers may be a subcategory of the academics, but some may be practising judges. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed Jurisprudence and the philosophy of law are similar, but distinct disciplines. They shouldn't be lumped together. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2010 (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.
Support If the root category has been changed then all branches should follow suit. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this sort of thing should be a speedy (unless contested at some point, in which case it should be taken to cfd). Occuli (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to it being speedied, but isn't covered by the existing set of criteria. Do you want to propose an amendment? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No amendments. I support the change because only during the british era were rugby players called "footballers" and in the last 30 odd years, it more commonly known as just plain rugby players. Maybe in the future they could do the same for the american version of the game (though the term footballer is still used for that sport to this day) as footballer should only be reserved for sport actually played by foot..hehe...--Warpath (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just checking the list again, I found that I had been entered a few categories incorrectly. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom noq (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Archaic term already depreciated, so this is entirely logical. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the sub-categories should be consistent with the main category.--Bcp67 (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2009 (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 to Category:Former pupils of Plymouth College. There is a strong consensus here that 'OPMs' is too obscure and ambiguous, and that 'Old Plymothians and Mannameadians' is not much better. On the other hand 'Alumni' is more American than British and used mainly for Universities. So, I think, a consensus view is that 'pupils' is better. Ruslik_Zero 12:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to avoid abbreviation and use a plain-English descriptive category name which will be understandable to the general audience for which wikipedia is written. The abbreviation "OPM" is a disambiguation page which lists numerous other meanings of the abbreviation, most notably the United States Office of Personnel Management. The category text says that the former pupils are known as "Old Plymothians and Mannameadians", although the full title is almost never used and the abbreviation "OPM" is used instead. However, the term "Old Plymothians and Mannameadians" will be completely obscure to anyone not already familiar with the traditions of Plymouth College, and the references in the article do not suggest that it is a particularly notable school. Related discussions: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 26#People_by_school_in_England. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question apart from those who already know the school and its jargon, how will anyone seeing a category of named "Old Plymothians and Mannameadians" in the category list at the bottom of an article have any idea at all what it's about? It's most unlikely that the term would be mentioned in the body of an article. And in what way is "Former pupils of Plymouth College" (or "Former students" if you prefer) inaccurate? In my experience, alumni is a term normally used for third-level education rather than secondary. The parent category currently has 16 subcats using "former pupils of foo", and 15 using "alumni of foo". Category:People by high school in the United States uses "foo alumni", but US and UK conventions often differ. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename exactly per nom. "Old Plymouthians and Mannameadians" is merely exchanging a ambiguous abbreviation for what (to anyone not familiar with the school) is nonsense. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Old Plymouthians and Mannameadians", if this is the term used, but take note of a wider discussion on names of categories for old members of UK schools. --Bduke(Discussion) 12:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. On what grounds do you advocate the use of an obscure piece of jargon, when a simple descriptive category name is concise, far more comprehensible to wikipedia's general readership, and makes no compromise on accuracy? (If you think that "Former pupils of Plymouth College" is not an accurate description of the category's contents, then please explain what the category is intended to contain other than former pupils of Plymouth College. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Check out Category:People by school in England. Almost all schools are represented by the actual names they give their former pupils. Why should this one school be different? I am an OPM and I would so describe myself, just as an Old Etonian would so describe himself. I am not an "Old Plymothian and Mannameadian", nor am I a "former pupil of Plymouth College" (an "old boy" of Plymouth College, possibly), and I'm certainly not an "alumnus" of Plymouth College (which is only used for universities in Britain). Don't impose titles on people without understanding the way things work in the institution(s) to which you're referring. Wikipedia is in the business of providing information and an explanation of what an OPM is is clearly provided in the Plymouth College article and in the category blurb itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It's a pity that you chose to suggest that other fail to "understand the way things work in the institution(s)" -- it is perfectly clear that this is the terminology used by the school's former students. Did you actually read the rationale in the nomination? This is nothing whatsoever to do with the right of you or any other former pupil of a particular school to describe yourselves as you see fit. It as about having a category name which is both unambiguous and clear to wikipedia's general readership, who do not share your insider's knowledge of the school's terminology, and we follow exactly the same approach in other category trees, e.g. by having Category:people from London rather than Category:Londoners (the later is just a redirect). Most readers will encounter the category at the bottom of an article, without explanation and without already having read the article on the school, and will at best be unable to guess which of the meanings of OPM is intended here. An explanation of the school's internal nomenclature can and should be provided in the articles on the school and in the text of the category, and already is. Anyway, thank you for ruling out "Old Plymothian and Mannameadian". That's one option out of the way. By the way — if, as you insist, you are not a "former pupil of Plymouth College", what were you doing there? Teaching? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, but use "alumni" instead of "former pupils". Debresser (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alumni can mean graduates or former students. So former pupils would seem to be clearer if the intent is to include those who graduated and those who attended but did not graduate. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of English schools is that people don't "graduate" from them in the way that Americans do from their High Schools. They go to school, do their A-levels, and leave. There may be a aprty of prize-giving at the end, but nothing akin to graduation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename. Too obscure and slangy. It would be good to standardise these. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. Lots of things are hard, it doesn't mean we automatically avoid it. For some cases we won't be able to use the most common form used in that particular place. I have no problem with that if it means we can standardise. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something. The abbreviation is too obscure. I am an Old Salopian; publications with a Shrewsbury School context will use the abbreviation OS, but no one else would know what it means. "Alumni" of schools is not widely used in UK, but has been adopted by WP where no better term exists, but if there is an accepted "Old school-ian" term, it is to be preferred, though with a headnote explaining it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but Old Salopians are usually known as Old Salopians, not as OSs. Old boys and girls of Plymouth College are known as OPMs. It isn't an obscure abbreviation only used in school publications; it's the name we always use. It is never, ever expanded, as the name it was originally an abbreviation for hasn't been appropriate for a century or more. I don't know what the names for old boys and girls of most British public schools are, but all I need to do is click on the article or follow the links to find out. If I'm writing a biographical article (and I write many) about someone who attended public school then I take the trouble to find out what the official name is so I can categorise properly. It isn't difficult (usually it just involves following a single link). That is what encyclopaedias are for. If one does not want to expand one's knowledge then why on earth is one referring to or writing for an encyclopaedia? May I suggest that we factor this CfR into the main CfR for these categories. This is as much an official name as and no more obscure than those others and we are no closer to finding an acceptable alternative name if one is needed (which, in my opinion, it is not). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, you mean that Old boys and girls of Plymouth College are known as OPMs to each other. Unless you have some highly persuasive evidence that this term is in widespread use, I refuse to believe the implausible claim that an obscure three-letter abbreviation is widely understood to refer to an obscure minor public school. It's simply too bizarre a proposition to be accepted without evidence. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
418 non-wikipedia ghits for "Old Plymothians and Mannameadians" ... so the name of the school is over 100 times more widely-used than the the jargon-term.
Since there is a clear consensus against retaining the obscure abbreviation, why not use a category name based on the term which is over 100 times more widely used? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at those links? The first page of your search for Plymouth College has 10 links, only 3 of which refer to this school. However, the real point is that we are not naming an article on the school, we are naming a category for its old members. --Bduke(Discussion) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if that pattern is repeated, the name of the school has 30 times the exposure of the jargon-name for past pupils, rather than 100 times as many. The same conclusions apply. True we are not naming an article on the school, we are naming a category for its former pupils ... but the point of doing so is to identify it as a category of former pupils of a particular school. The evidence is that the jargon-term is much less likely to convey to readers the purpose of the category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern will not be repeated as lower down we will get all the colleges that have something to do with all the other towns in the world called Plymouth. This discussion really should be wrapped into the one from 26 December on English Schools. Everything I said there applies here. We really do not want a closure of this one that is quite different from the closure of that one. --Bduke(Discussion) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't be joined to the other discussion. This is a unique case, because it's the only sub-cat of Category:People by school in England to use an acronym, let alone-the non-primary usage of an ambiguous acronym. The other category names are avoidably obscure, but this one is several times worse. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note2. In response to Bduke's concern about other towns called Plymouth, here are the same searches restricted to the UK:
Since we are nitpicking, [1] removing links to "Plymouth College of Art" and "Plymouth City College", which I think are different, gives 2920 ghits. OK, I agree that this case is different, but it would still be unfortunate if the outcome was vastly different from the other CfD. It would have been better to hold this nomination back until the other had been determined. I certainly urge all admins to hold off closing this nomination until the more general one has been closed. --Bduke(Discussion) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The other open discussions are of the old fooian type so this one is different and should be closeable on its own. I decided that my comment above expressed an opinion about the name so I am not able to do the close. I'll add that the current name can not be used since it is rather ambiguous so any rename at this point would be an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to anything that isn't so obscure. If I wasn't reading this CFD, I'd have no idea what the term meant. And I'm going to guess that the majority of wikipedia readers may not either. On the other hand, "alumni", "former pupils", hell, even "people who attended" + school name is clear. Is "Old Fooian" correct? Perhaps, but so is any of the other alternatives presented, and nobody has to guess the meaning. --Kbdank71 14:59, 20 January 2010 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Like the other categories in Category:Paintings by artist, this should be expanded to include the full name of the painter. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as usual the indiscriminate application of this, which is in fact not the style of all the categories of this type by any means. In Vermeer's case, there is the issue of what first name to use. This is the Latin form, which is certainly not what his family & friends called him - he was "Jan" to them, as he is to many modern scholars. The traditional way of disambiguating Vermeer is to call him "Vermeer of Delft", as there were other painters called Jan/Johannes Vermeer (I, II & III), but these were "of Haarlem" [2]. So the nomination is no use whichever way you look at it. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename. This should be a no-brainer, really, as in let's not think too hard about it. Johnbod makes some good points, but I think we simply need to match category names to article names in cases like this, and leave the naming debate to the article talk page. We shouldn't be trying to develop or maintain a "better" WP name by using the category system. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for not thinking hard about it, and I'm not suggesting there should be a naming debate, though personally I would prefer Jan. But there are good reasons - see the last debate - why not all artists use the full name in these categories. As there is no extra disambiguation, why change? Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is there any issue of ambiguity here? Have any other people with the surname Vermeer produced notable paintings? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - as I said above; see the link. There is Johannes/Jan Vermeer I, Johannes/Jan Vermeer II (4 years older than Vermeer of Delft), Johannes/Jan Vermeer III, Barent Vermeer, and Isaac Vermeer, all of Haarlem. Obviously none are by any means as famous as Vermeer of Delft, but we should at least have a family article on Vermeer of Haarlem. Since almost all old master paintings have ample published literature, few have ever failed a notability test afaik - the issue almost never arises (see WP:GLAM & the talk page). There is no real issue of anmbiguity here, especially if the category name is left as it is - everybody knows who "Vermeer" means, but introducing a first name only increases the possibility of confusion, and is clearly useless for disambiguation. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Vermeer of Delft paintings (for the best disambiguation), or alternatively to Category:Johannes Vermeer paintings (to conform with head article) — I prefer Delft, but would accept Johannes. Thanks to Johnbod for his detailed reply, and sorry for not reading the discussion properly before asking my question, but now that I have read it all I have to disagree with Johnbod's conclusion that no disambiguation is necessary. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The painter is widely known simply as Vermeer and there is no confusion with any other painter of that name, so the present category name does not need to be changed. Cjc13 (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) is very clear: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article" (italics added for emphasis). The article is called Johannes Vermeer, and I see no reason to treat this article as an exception to the general rule. 94.215.2.71 (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a direct correspondence as the article refers to the person whereas the category refers to the paintings, which are generally referred to as "Vermeers" rather than "Johannes Vermeers". Cjc13 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The situation would resolve itself if we could just agree to name all of these "Paintings by FIRSTNAME LASTNAME", like most other "works" categories are named. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons explained in the last debate that does not work for artists, many of whose names are not surnames. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The article is called Johannes Vermeer, so debating on which (first) name to use for the artist is unnecessary here. It would make no sense to reinvent the wheel and decide the same thing again every time the name is used in a new article or category. Instead, we pick a name for the article, and name any related categories and articles consistently (see, for example, List of paintings by Johannes Vermeer). Proposals about calling the guy just Vermeer (or something else) belong to Talk:Johannes Vermeer. Jafeluv (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, for reasons that have been explained before, the names in this category are not, and should not be, consistent. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale: No need for separate cats, IMO. The first is hardly populated. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; Isabel is already the only storm of the 2003 Atlantic season to have its own category- having two is not necessary. The main category is nearly empty, so separating the effects articles doesn't aid navigation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The merged category will have only 12 items, which is still small. No need to split category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Statements above do not look at the whole situation. The relevant parent category is Category:Tropical cyclone impact by region which could no longer be used if these contents were upmerged. Hmains (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains (changing my !vote). I had not spotted that Category:Hurricane Isabel effects by region was part of a wider categorisation scheme. As such it is clearly acceptable according to WP:OC#SMALL, which explicitly permits such categories where they are "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of overall structure categorizing such articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how is this only so named category part of the overall structure? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Clearly with only two articles, the main category is not overloaded. Arguments that Category:Tropical cyclone impact by region can not be used are specious since you could just as easily include the main category in there. One could argue that all of the included articles really qualify. Region is really and truly ambiguous and should be avoided. To say that Isabel Inlet is not a regional effect on the Outter Banks is beyond my comprehension. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Vegaswikian. The eponymous category has hardly any contents. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:31, 5 January 2010 (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.
