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. —SMALLJIM 08:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The items in the list have no links and are unverifiable. The references are all connected with just one item in the list. The content on the page is duplicated in another article World Miss University NigeriaSesamevoila (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wrong name (singular) and wrong place. A category page that is edited as an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:43, 30 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:rename. The Welsh-to-British concept might be better considered on a wider level, rather than just this category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It might be better to split the parent so that we had sibling English and Scottish categories or to rename the parent and purge out (into a new category such as "British people in merchant shipping" the few people listed who were not shipowners (or directors of shipping lines). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 29 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.
Strong keep: Those "user pages" are templates. If someone could make separate pages for the different versions of the Lamborghini Countach, they could be added, and this conversation would be moot (See Category:Ford Focus for an example). Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- All the user pages relate to single user, who apparently claims that each model is his favourite car. That is the sole content of the pages that I sampled. If we were dealing with articles in a user's sandbox that might be uploaded to WP when completed, I would take a different attitude. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PKI's reasoning. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If turned into a proper content category, this would likely be a one-article category. On the other hand, a category specifically for these userboxes seems like an overkill since Category:Vehicle user templates is still reasonably small. Pichpich (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, if the main article could be "broken down" into separate articles for each "type" of Countach (i.E, the Bertone concept, the LP400S, the LP500S, the 25th Anniversary Edition, the LP5000 Quattrovalvole, etc., then this category could actually survive. Yes, the Countach is my favorite car. That is why I started this category. Before they were deleted, I had added pictures of the different Countach types here, as well. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if there were more articles, it would not justify having a category just for this particular model of car. However there is absolutely no reason to have this as it currently stands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 4 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.
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:Upmerge. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:President of India. The category's main article is a redirect to "President of India". I would suggest that "acting president" does not constitute an independent office, but is merely a President who has not been elected and is acting as President, pending the election of a permanent one. In making lists of ambassadors, I have listed interim heads of mission in the main list article, but indented them. I would suggest that this is the appropriate course for a list of presinents. This cannot be done in a category, but that cannot be helped. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 29 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:Law firms based in San Jose, California[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.
Upmerge to companies in San Jose/lawfirms in California cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 4 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Although technically correct under its current name (each mission did, in fact, use a different Progress spacecraft), the purpose of this category is to categorise missions flown by Progress spacecraft. The proposed name would be consistent with Category:Manned Soyuz missions and Category:Space Shuttle missions as well, which categorise the same thing - articles on individual missions - for their respective spacecraft. The BushrangerOne ping only 06:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, the articles cover (or at least should cover) both the spacecraft and the mission, so the current title would be more inclusive of both. --W.D.Graham 08:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split The current mixture of flights and vehicle types is confusing. Therefore Category:Progress missions should be created under the current category to hold the mission articles, with the mission list as the parent article thereof. Mangoe (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C2D isn't required, though - and, in this case, would look extremely awkward as the only (dabbed) cat in the tree vs. plain English. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Progress is ambiguous, so it should be disambiguated, especially "Progress mission" considering the entries on the dab page, that could refer to many of them -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This name is OK but I would still insist that a split is necessary given that some of the articles aren't about particular missions. Mangoe (talk) 02:21, 4 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.
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: As a rule, Soviet aircraft are designated and classified by designer/design bureaux, not the central bureau and/or state factory that built them. In this case, the article is already correctly named - and categorised - leaving this spurious category for the Central Design Bureau (TsKB), which acted as a 'clearinghouse' for many designers (including Polikarpov, Ilyushin, and others). Therefore categorising aircraft as 'from TsKB' is erronious (and is, in fact, not done anywhere but here) and so this should be deleted as redundant. The BushrangerOne ping only 06:37, 29 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: This is a clear case of category duplication; 'missions to asteroids' is the preferred title format for this sort of thing (and avoids the ambiguity of possibly meaning "spacecraft that are asteroids"). The BushrangerOne ping only 06:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. While the spacecraft conducting the missions and the mission itself are conceptually distinct, there have been few missions (or spacecraft), not enough to warrant having two categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Mangoe (talk) 00:12, 30 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-file category. Unlikely to be expanded as all new images are likely to be Commons; only contents is in fact a file at Commons but with a Featured Picture tag here, so I'm not sure it should even be categorised at all on this project. If so an upmerge to Category:Images from satellites could work. The BushrangerOne ping only 06:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Category:Wikipedia Picture of the day files is ample. In fact, I don't see why we would need more categories that that one for any of these. They are kept local, I believe, since they were a picture of the day. No reason to add additional categories to these files. If this gets support, we probably need to modify the categorization guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the picture isn't kept local - it's on Commons. What's local is just the TFP tag and the categorisation - not the image itself. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to not categorize these images in multiple categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:39, 30 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.
Nominator's rationale: Overcat - there's not enough to warrant a subdivision of LGBT musicians for this genre. MSJapan (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to hip hop and LGBT musicians cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 4 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.
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. No page on WikiSkills, so cannot possibly foster collaboration. Extensive precedent to delete "Wikipedians by website" categories where the website is not notable enough for an article. The userbox that populates this category links to a website, so presumed to be a "Wikipedians by website" category. VegaDark (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I created this category for my own convenience, but have no strong opinion. Wikimedia Sweden is one of the partners involved in this project, in case that matters. Rotsee (talk) 14:11, 30 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.
