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 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:Thunderbirds locations, objects and vehicles[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. Too wide; both this and the head category only contain a few pages. The pages are already categorised within fictional vehicles, locations etc. – FayenaticLondon 20:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is little prospect of any new articles being categorised here (and none of the articles present in this category are really about objects, only locations and vehicles). Up-merging seems reasonable enough to me. SuperMarioMan 20:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The parent category is tiny and could easily absorb what is a rather heterogeneous collection of articles. Mangoe (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2012 (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 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) 22:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would it be useful to have a head category for such categories of articles about generic subjects? Note that they are different from and generally excluded from Category:Categories by type, which hold sub-categories of individual things by type, as opposed to the generic articles here. – FayenaticLondon 19:49, 13 August 2012 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough material about the video game Red Dead Redemption to justify an eponymoustopic category. I created Category:Red Dead as a topic category for the entire Red Dead series and still found only a dozen pages. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no problem with the second change if the article is renamed first, though I'm not sure that it should be. Is the undisambiguated title ambiguous? -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the lede of Red Dead says "Red Dead is a Western action-adventure third-person shooter video game series" (emphasis mine), and there is no game called "Red Dead" itself, it needs to be either "Red Dead series" or "Red Dead (series)", IMHO. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:25, 16 August 2012 (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 deleted CSD G7 as ZSpeed agrees it should be deleted and there are no keep votes. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: when I made this category I was still pretty new and I just wanted to do something to occupy my time. ZSpeed (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion given the above comment. Pichpich (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irregular creation out of line with regular schemes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2012 (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 all these. The categories "SportX competitions in Foo" are already used in the sense "hosted by" and it's not like there exist rogue sports competitions that are held in France against French will. I think the intent is to separate certain kinds of international competitions that aren't always held in the same country and where one country is considered a host but there's no formal definition of this and by trying to separate these, we're probably making it harder for our readers to find what they're looking for. Pichpich (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2012 (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 noncontroversial speedy as duplicate with author's consent. The BushrangerOne ping only 23:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Appear to cover the same topic, and the older category has a less ambiguous name. "Rally" could mean any gathering of people for one purpose, while "rallying" used as a noun is almost always in reference to the motor sport. Pyrope 13:36, 13 August 2012 (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:Roman Catholic chuches completed in 1905[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: Empty category created with spelling error Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 09:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- an obvious error. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2012 (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: Single entry category for a private company with little chance of expansion, too easily confused with legitimate category Category:Internet broadcasting. Dravecky (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This is unlikely to be a large enough company to need its own category, but the article should presumably be in Category:Internet broadcasting. That article may need to be renamed, or possibly a "not to be copnfused with" hatnote on the articles would do the trick. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2012 (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 (opposing the reverse merge). I believe there is a superhero task force which this could be confused with. - jc37 23:48, 21 August 2012 (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. There was agreement to rename to something, but none of the proposals for a new name has gained consensus. The suggested "buildings of law" has some support, but discussion stalled a month ago. Feel free to make a fresh nomination without delay. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge This category corresponds to one on Commons but I'm not sure it makes sense here. Note first that there is no "legal buildings" categorization subtree anywhere else on Wikipedia which means that readers are unlikely to go looking for Category:Legal buildings in London and that this category is missing one logical parent. Moreover, we already have London subcategories for Courts, Inns of Chancery and Prisons so the merge won't create a big mess upstream. Pichpich (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tim! correctly points out that my original proposal for a merge doesn't work. However, I would favor deletion because there's no "legal buildings" categorization subtree and because, as Peterkingiron explains below, the link between some of these buildings is rather tenuous. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose something like Lincoln's Inn is not a national government building. Tim! (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That pretty much kills my original merge proposal, sorry about that. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but rename somehow -- This category has a unity, relating to the administration of justice, but the name is not ideal. As Tim! has said they are not all governmental. The converse of "legal buildings" would be illegal buildings, so that the present name will not do. Another possibility would be a plain delete, on the basis that prisons, courts and Inns of Court [not Inns of Chancery - which are long defunct] are disparate and should not be in a single category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine. I imagine that there will be a need for an entire category tree though, since London isn't the only place to have "buildings of law". --Lquilter (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2012 (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:Archaeological sites in Europe by country[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. Redundant as per category scope. Zoupan 01:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The tag on the parent should be implemented and the country articles moved down to the by country category. This will leave this as a parent for "by period", "by region" (which is probably unnecessary) and "by country". Strictly Corsica is not a country and arguably the Channel Islands are not, but we should not be pedantic about this. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The corresponding categories for other continents do not have an intermediate "by country" category level. This one does have some use, as Category:Archaeological sites in Europe by region contains a sub-cat for the Balkans, and the countries within that should not normally also be in the supercategory Category:Archaeological sites in Europe because of the WP:SUBCAT principle. However, in this case I think it is better to upmerge both the nominated category and the "by region" category. The countries in the Balkans need not feel slighted at being down in an intermediate level category (Balkans below Europe), because they will still be in the worldwide Category:Archaeological sites by country. – FayenaticLondon 12:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there is nothing gained by having a specific "by country" category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2012 (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.
