Category:Aircraft without proper specifications[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:Rename. As currently named, this is ambiguous as if this category is intended for aircraft that were built with improper specifications or if it is a project category saying an aircraft's infobox parameters are improper. As it turns out, it's the latter, but we need a rename to clarify this. Category:Aircraft articles with improper specifications is one option but I'm open to suggestions as I'm not sure what the usual convention is for this type of category. VegaDark (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above suggestions of that category name sound good to me. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 15 November 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.
Category:National Basketball Association websites[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:Delete The category's sole content isn't an NBA-run website. It's just a site about basketball. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't all or even mainly for league-owned sites, but at least there are some in there. But yes those should probably be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, alternatively, renamed as Websites about the Fooian Fighting League - but this one needs to go. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:22, 15 November 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:Delete Already What is the difference between Serer royalty Category:Serer royalty? Serer is a serious minority and does not merit double categories. At best merge--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, obviously one category is for kings and the other is for members of the royal family who weren't actually rulers. Perfectly acceptable categorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 21 November 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:do not delete; no consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete There's no need to subdivide Category:French football clubs by department or region. The Corsican clubs don't play a particular style of football and they don't play in a separate league. Pichpich (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added it to Category:Corsica which seems to make sense. I'm surprised it wasn't there already. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address the issue. Why is this level of categorization necessary? Pichpich (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look out of place to me within Category:Corsica. Maybe there's a wider discussion to be had about categories of themes concerning smallish places though. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. For example, quarterbacks' careers are not defined by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state).
This seems particularly relevant. Pichpich (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this makes no sense and the "insular are" criterion is arbitrary. There's no Corsican characteristic for football clubs and the fact that they happen to be on an island does not make them distinct. Not that it's likely but what if France builds a bridge to Corsica? Do we delete the category since the area becomes connected? The only possible motivation for keeping this category is to classify all french clubs according to region. The problem is that this isolates articles in small categories where readers can't find them because they don't know that Bastia is in Corsica. Pichpich (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that Corsica is, and will always remain (barring geological upheaval of a sort that wouldn't leave us here to debate about it!) a geographically distinct area that has a disctinct legal status as opposed to other French provinces - it is classified as a "collectivité territoriale", as opposed to a Region. It is not as dictinct as Guadeloupe or the other "overseas regions" - all of which, at the risk of making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, have their own categories in this tree, even Mayotte; with Category:Hawaii soccer clubs perhaps being even more closely comparable - but it is, I believe, distinct enough to merit a subcategorisation vs. being lumped with the rest of France, at which point somebody looking for football clubs in Corsica will be left having to sort through instead of making a single click. - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:49, 21 November 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:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural notes Nominator created said parent, I created the category that is proposed to be merged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No need to merge. It's the categorization by city/country that needs to be thought out. What's defining is that an album was recorded at a notable venue (The Fillmore, for example), not that the Fillmore is located in San Francisco. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:41, 23 November 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:merge for now; further work may be needed to fully sort these out. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the ambiguity of country of publication needs to be dealt with, but I find the suggested name confusing. The topic is (e.g.) 'English history' so the category should be 'Books about/on English History'. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not my creation, but "History books about ..." is an existing (if recent) creation. Seems fairly unambiguous. Hugo999 (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is beyond the scope of this CfR, but of 1). Fooish history books, 2). History books about Foo, 3). Books about Fooish history, 4). Books about the history of Foo I waver between 3 and 4. Option 2 implies for me that "history books" is a type of book, like "textbooks" or "paperback books," rather than books on the topic of history. Option 4 gets messy because Foo has no doubt shifted over history; "India" of 1000 years ago would not be quite the same as that of 100 years ago or of today. But option 3 gets tricky where Fooish history is not the same as History of Foo, and most were undone, thus Category:Books about legal history and so on. Category:Books by topic is a hodgepodge, with Foo books being somewhat more prevalent. Sorry for the ramble.- choster (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all I agree - they need to be merged regardless - the actual format for the individual categories can be discussed later. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:34, 21 November 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:Speedy delete - Upon checking this category's history, it's deletion was previously endorsed at deletion review, so it is WP:CSD#G4-able. VegaDark (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete User categories are supposed to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users. Something like Category:Wikipedians interested in monarchy might do that but Category:Monarchist Wikipedians just defines a political group that we can't really expect to be coherent in terms of editing interests. Pichpich (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That renaming completely changes the scope though. German Wikipedians are not necessarily interested in Germany as an object of study. Pichpich (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty (CSD C1) - The only thing in the category is a template which is improperly categorized in this category, so in theory the category would be empty if this was properly categorized, so I believe C1 can apply here so long as we wait 4 days. Thus, we need not visit the merits of this category at this time, although at first glance I would tend to agree with the nominator. VegaDark (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit bureaucratic. It's clear to me that the creator Lumastan (talk·contribs) intended to place himself in the category. Pichpich (talk) 23:01, 14 November 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 insignia are known as badges by the RN, not crests. (And Crests shouldn't be capitalised regardless.) Not quite speedyable so, posted here. The first one might be better named Category:Royal Naval Air Squadron badges, since they are Naval Air Squadrons, but I'm not sure. The BushrangerOne ping only 02:03, 14 November 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.
