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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another TMC1982 Creation that serves no encyclopedic purpose The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:27, 28 September 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:result. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 6 October 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 to "Foo men's basketball templates", remove from overall championship category. Dana boomer (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete all. It's overcategorization. There already exists Category:NCAA Men's Basketball Championship templates that contains all of the championship teams' seasons' templates, why is there any need to further break it apart? I actually find it very inconvenient, also, when trying to enact mass-edits for consistency. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename each by removing "championship" from the title, remove each from Category:NCAA Men's Basketball Championship templates, and add to each other templates used for the respective team's men's basketball teams. I agree that it's over-categorization to have special subcategories for just the NCAA championships, but it would make it easier for fans of the team to review and maintain the templates if they were in their own "Templates by team" category. I would anticipate Kentucky, UCLA, and UNC, being three of the most-successful programs in men's basketball, could have several other templates that would fit in a template category. –Grondemar 23:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are these categories subcategories under something like school basketball or school athletic department categories? If so, I might see a reason for them. If they just subdivide the championship templates then get rid of them. Rikster2 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? No offense but that explanation was very convoluted. I think Category:NCAA Men's Basketball Championship templatesshould be kept. I'm saying that these three teams' subcats is overcategorization and should be deleted. All championship templates need to remain in one spot for consistency. Whether they are also added to newly created "Category:Team X men's basketball templates" is a whole other issue not pertinent in this CfD. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there's really no difference between deleting these categories and creating new "Category:Team X men's basketball templates", and renaming these categories as "Category:Team X men's basketball templates" and removing them from Category:NCAA Men's Basketball Championship templates, except that the bot that closes CfDs will automate most of the work associated with moving the articles to the renamed categories if we close this debate as rename instead of delete. I favor letting the bot do the work if at all practical. Let me know if this still isn't clear. –Grondemar 02:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All clear. Rename or delete, either way is fine with me so long as they no longer screw up consistency within Category:NCAA Men's Basketball Championship templates. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Delete My only point was that if the categories exist as useful subcategories to some other category (not the championship template cat) then there might be a use for them. That does not appear to be the case here. I agree that the macro-category isn't so big it needs subs. I also agree that these three sub-cats make project maintenence more difficult than it needs to be. Rikster2 (talk) 12:16, 29 September 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:Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan[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.
Manually split After appropriate replacemtn categories have been added to all articles, this can be deleted, but you cannot expect a closing Admin to do the work for you. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree to split , but agree to add categories . Cultural religious heritage often overlap ,why would you like to split this ??.It would needlessly fractionate ,dissipate an important consumate resource of pre islamic Afghan heritage.Intothefire (talk) 17:16, 7 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I didn't know about that one... In light of the naming of the "short names" category, "long names" definitely seems to be the best option in this case. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:14, 1 October 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:Keep as named. Dana boomer (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom This is a legitimate category structure. This category needs to be more fully populated with subcats. I started on this. Hmains (talk) 22:36, 3 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is ambiguous and the new name is in line with other genre categories. May Cause Dizziness (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. That "graphic" means "comics" is only known to comics collectors, it confuses everyone else. Also calling it "non-fiction comics" keeps in line with its supercategories. JIP | Talk 14:53, 28 September 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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the article Bishop of Portsmouth (Anglican) and to reduce the possibility of confusion with the Catholic Bishops. DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom -- Sicne there are both Anglican and Catholic bishops, a disambiguator is necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 30 September 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:Keep. Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The distinction is soldiers as members of the army, contrasted with sailors as members of the navy, etc. Finnish generals and Finnish admirals should probably be removed from Finnish military personnel, as they're in their respective subcategories. --Bsherr (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the category should be populated. I'm fairly sure some of the people in the category Category:Finnish military personnel are soldiers. JIP | Talk 07:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep for above reasons, even if there is not much of a current population. Hmains (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no longer SMALLCAT.--Lenticel(talk) 03:25, 1 October 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:Shared IP addresses from the military of the United States[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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The result at TfD was to merge the template for shared IP addresses of the US military into the template for shares IP addresses of government agencies and facilities. The remaining question is whether this category has any remaining utility. I would advance the proposal that it does not have any remaining utility, that for purposes of the shared IP templates, US military shared IP addresses are treated the same as all government shared IP addresses, regardless of country. I therefore propose the deletion of the category, and that the merge be completed by redirect. Bsherr (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One thing to note is that there is no indication in the current name or proposed name that this is a category meant for user pages. Someone seeing this category might think there's some sort of set of articles on military IP addresses; there's no indication that this is a project category. I'd try something like Category:Wikipedia user pages of shared IP addresses from government agencies or facilities. VegaDark (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be supportive of renaming too. --Bsherr (talk) 16:02, 29 September 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.
