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: The scope of this category is "architects who designed structures in Ponce, Puerto Rico". Although this characteristic is interesting in the context of local studies, it is not defining for the people being categorized—i.e., it constitues overcategorization of the performer by performance venue variety. I propose converting the category into one for architects who contributed to the Ponce Creole architectural style and relocating it to Category:Architects by style. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:55, 26 July 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.
Comment the meaning of the two categories is different though. "Selective-fire" is a subcategorization of "machine shotgun". Selective fire meaning you can choose manual, semi-auto, burst, auto (or some subset thereof) of firing mode. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on nominating the articletarget category for renaming following the merger. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should go ahead and nominate the article for renaming, so we can consider the best location for it as well, and so perhaps determine the result for these three categories here -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having two different nominations at once can be confusing. Best to let this one close, then C2D the result. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what you want to call the article, it may not be a C2D matter. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to do it before even opening the categories to discussion. But since it is open, then opening a discussion on the article naming would be needed. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: As no consensus was reached during the standard 7-day discussion window, I recommend proceeding with any proposals that affect the main article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:40, 26 July 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: I do not think that it is necessary, at this time, or useful to split Category:Retail markets by continent. It is not necessary because Category:Retail markets by country, which contains 44 members, does the job rather well, and it is not useful because there is no particular connection between retail markets and continents (unlike, say, association football and continents, where the structure of the sport is, to a large degree, organized by continent). If this is kept, it should be renamed for clarity to Category:Retail markets by continent, since 'region' has too many diverse meanings. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It may be useful to navigate the culture and history of markets by continent, and there is no reason to assume that the current number of country categories for markets will not increase, so I would not upmerge this. Although at present this only contains just one sub-cat which is for a continent (as opposed to sub- or trans-continental regions), the parent for Category:Economy of Africa etc is Category:Economies by region rather than "by continent", so I would not rename it either. – FayenaticLondon 18:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an odd one out. Category:Economy of South Tyrol could be nominated for upmerging to South Tyrol as it's not part of a set; if it were, they should be down in Category:Economies by country subdivision. A lot of the "by region" categories could be renamed as "by continent" or "by location", but as long as the other Economy categories are "by region" I'd leave this one. If you want to propose a wider rename of Economies, Currencies, Energy, Mining and Retail markets from "by region" to "by continent", I'd support that; "economies by location" would be also needed to hold "by city", "by country" and "by country subdivision". Ah, but we'd need to keep "region" for Arab League, so it might as well also hold EU, Carib & Central America. Category:Coal mining regions could go in it too. – FayenaticLondon 21:07, 26 July 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.
Category:Foreign language psychology journals[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: Psychology journals should be categorized according to field. For languages, we have a separate category tree (e.g., "Russian-language journals"). In addition, English is a foreign languege, too (for me, that is :-), so this is something of a misnomer. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Journals not in english. Otherwise I don't know where to put them. And do we want all the journals of the world here? Why not a pointer to wiki.de wiki.japan etc...? Tim bates (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, this is not the "English WP" or the "American WP". en:WP covers everything, as long as it is notable, regardless of the language it was published in and regardless of the language that the sources are published in. And science is very much an international endeavour, so there are good reasons to include academic journals that are not in English. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Psychology journals as three out of four are not yet in a subfield-specific category. If a journal (in English or any other language) is notable enough in its field to have an article, it should be categorised by its field. – FayenaticLondon 19:13, 26 July 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 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:Canadian Baronets recommended by the British government[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.
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:Formula Three Euro Series Champions[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.
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:Transportation in Parry Sound, Ontario[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:WP:SMALLCAT. There were previously seven articles in this category, however six of them were mis-categorised (in Parry Sound District vis-a-vis Parry Sound itself). Once those were removed there was only one article left, which is already in the appropriate PSD category as well, so there remains no need for this category. The BushrangerOne ping only 21:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, transportation categories are not limited solely to the precise geographic location of the topic — rather, topics can also be categorized by function as well. For example, even though its physical location is in Seguin instead of Parry Sound proper, Parry Sound Area Municipal Airport's primary transportation purpose is to serve the town — and therefore it's a perfectly legitimate entry in the town-specific category on the basis of its function, regardless of whether it's actually inside the town boundaries or not. Pearson International Airport isn't physically in Toronto, either (it's actually in Mississauga), but it's still categorized as Category:Transport in Toronto on the basis of serving the city. Put everything back where it was and keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have duplication? How does this constitute an exception to perfectly normal category diffusion rules, by which the town-specific category would replace the district-level one rather than both needing to sit on the same articles simultaneously? Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings us right back to the point I made in my first comment, I guess. Bearcat (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: If the category remains, either due to a consensus to keep or a lack of consensus to delete, it should be renamed under speedy renaming criterion C2.C to Category:Transport in Parry Sound, Ontario. At present, however, more discussion is needed to reach a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Faye. Good job cleaning out the category, Bushranger! Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 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.
Facepalm - I screwed up above. I said I would nominate the article for renaming, when I meant the target category. Gah. Anyway, here's my proposal: merge to to Category:Selective-fire shotguns, and rename Category:Selective-fire shotguns to Category:Automatic shotguns per its main article. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)