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. Contain almost identical articles or have the potential to do so. Started to populate it myself but then said, "what's the point?". The overlap is almost perfect. Only regnant queens seperates the two categories and so the more general of the two cats should remain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge?? The two categories certainly seem to cover the same ground but I am unhappy with the name. There is no such thing in recent times as a King of Britain. It is King of England (and also King of Scotland etc). The articles appear to be covering pre-1066 kingdoms when there were King of the Britons. A rename needed?? Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – there have undoubtedly been 'monarchs in the British Isles', most of them kings. (What, no objection to 'British Isles' in 2 days? Must be a record.) Occuli (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The target is better because it includes queens regnant. The kings of England were Lord of Ireland from John to Henry VIII and then Kings of Ireland until the Act of Union, when they became kings of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I therefore think the name is appropriate. I appreciate that the issue of Ireland being part of "Britain" is a sensitive one, but this solution avoids the difficulty, as well as including the monarchs of the Isle of Man, which is part of British Isles, but not of Great Britain or Ireland. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge using in. The British Isles is not a kingdom. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: Spell out abbreviation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom. I created the category based upon how the main category was then named. Renaming seems appropriate given current naming of main category. OccamzRazor (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- abbreviations need expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Merge to Category:2010 in Italy. Yes, I now that the single article is already in both categs, but merger is always preferable in cases like this, because other articles may be added to the Lombardy categ before this nom is closed, and if the categ is simply deleted then they will not be moved to Category:2010 in Italy. OTOH, merger will do no harm at all if the categs are already dual-categorised. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We've had this discussion before of not categorizing people on the basis of caste here on the Wikiproject India board. The problems are manifold as for most of these there's no sourcing and more importantly it's really just overcategorization. The BLP issues are also problematic as many entries tend to be "claims" and aren't reliably sourced and can not be policed. The list articles are also problematic, but not as much as the categories. We've had a few of these come up here and get deleted, this is one example. —SpacemanSpiff 04:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My understanding is that the consensus has been not to categorize people by Indian caste. This seems like a reasonable decision and I support it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Caste claims are mostly unsourced and lead to edit wars.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: the previous cfd on Nair people is convincing. Occuli (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: There are duplicate nominations for this cat. Can they be merged? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. I closed the duplicate discussion, which was here. I suppose the opinions expressed there should be considered when closing this discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I also thought that the policy was not to categorise Indian people by caste. However I note that Category:Indian castes has no less than 22 subcategories, of which a few are actually "clans", rather than castes. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "not categorizing by caste" applies only to people, not to topics. e.g. Category:Brahmins and sub categories are used to categorize the different topics related to Brahmins ranging from caste specific diet to specific subsects, all reasonable uses of the category. While people occasionally creep in to most of these categories, we do try to remove them regularly. —SpacemanSpiff 04:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Revised offer I've just realised that my proferred solution already exists. So the solution should now be to merge Category:Omaha into :People from Omaha, Nebraska. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Offers withdrawn. The way the rationale was worded, I took it that the main article was indeed "Omaha, Nebraska". Apologies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to match main article and to match other categories for Native American peoples. Hmains (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Rename. The article is at Rolling Stone. Now, if disambiguation is wanted, that's fine, but then the "magazine" part should be in parentheses, since it's not part of the proper name of the publication. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom with preference for the simpler name. "Rolling Stone" and "The Rolling Stones" are different enough. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to Category:Rolling Stone to match title of parent article and reduce confusion of having the article and category titles not matching each other. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Rolling Stone to match main article. Article does not seem to need a dab, the same should be true for the category. jonkerz♠ 17:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename .--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and Occuli. Even though I'm from the UK, the first Berkeley I thought of was the one in California. Lugnuts (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- categories often need a disambiguator when the article does not to prevent the category for the original place in England collecting articles for places elsewhere. For Example, the article is Birmingham but the categories are at Birmingham, England, because Birmingham, AL is also a large city. Support re-creation as a dab category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article; Phoenix is ambiguous. Tassedethe (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and convert Category:Phoenix into a disambiguation category for this and the categories for the cities. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename One of the articles most likely to be confused that I've seen. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename -- The plant should not even be the primary subject - that should be the legendary bird. However, re-create as a dab category for the present one and the items listed at the top. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
