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: Renaming this to "Food science journals" will bring the name more in line with other categories of academic journals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At least two of the journals are on historical and cultural aspects of food, and would be badly mischaracterised as "Food science". Leave as it is, or rename to Category:Academic journals on food and cookery. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New voteleave as is, the food science cat could be made a subcat, if we got enough journals to need such a division.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I oppose renaming this to "Academic journals on food and cookery", as this would make it the only category in the "journals tree" to be named in this way (all other cats are named "Foo journals"). As for the fact that some journals are about historical/cultural aspects of food, point well taken, but that argues more for re-categorizing them somewhere else than leaving this cat with the strange "food and cookery" name. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree and that speaks for splitting up this cat. Have a look at all other categories on academic journals, they are all named after an academic discipline (e.g., "materials science journals", not "materials journals"). This one is the only exception. I'm absolutely not hung up on "Food science journals", but I don't think that "food and cookery" covers what this cat is about. When I hear the term "cookery journal" I think more of a magazine with recipes in it than an academic publication. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent proposal, that would solve all problems! As for the comment just below here, if some of the entries in this category are not academic journals, they should be moved to the appropriate "magazine" category (Category:Food and drink magazines). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since not all these journals are scientific, might one say Category:Food studies journals? But I'm just looking in because I'm the creator (long ago). I'm happy to leave this to those who can take a broader view of the category structure. Andrew Dalby 17:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I think they are all academic; just not all scientific. Neutrality's proposal would cover them all. I agree with it. Andrew Dalby 17:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with Category:Food studies journals, though I don't think splitting it up into subs is justified yet, with only 19 members so far. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Johnbod has a good point: Food studies journals covers all, no need to split it up at this point. And contrary to "Academic journals on food", it fits the nomenclature used for all others cats in this tree. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 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:Withdrawn - jc37 08:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. While sorting articles into the sub-category Category:Betty Boop cartoon stubs, I removed the Category:Betty Boop cartoons, because I felt it was redundant to have the same article in both categories. However, the parent category for the cartoons in general now has only 3 articles in it! Should these articles be moved to Category:Betty Boop and the middle category deleted, or should all the stub articles be re-added to the cartoons category? Fortdj33 (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes described above. How do I withdraw my merger nomination? Fortdj33 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 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:News-Press & Gazette Company brands[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: There is no real rationale for the articles to be listed in a category separate from Category:News-Press & Gazette Company. TVtonightOKC (talk) 15:00, 18 May 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:War and conflict navigational boxes by empire[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.
keep countries can be part of an empire but still remain countries in their own right.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Empires are countries. Country is an amorphous and hard to define term, so is empire. The current system leads either to needless duplication or arbitrary placement in one or the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Empires aren't countries. But a city (or a city-state, for that matter) is a political entity. I think territory might be a step in the right direction. But I'm still thinking about how it would be best phrased. - jc37 19:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The distinction between a country and an empire is not strong enough, and neither category is very large. If not merged, consider changing terminology from Country to State (polity). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per Black Falcon. There is no need to separate the two groups, since both are small and both are subcats only of the common parent Category:War and conflict navigational boxes. I can see that a more inclusive title might be better, and would support any more inclusive title. However, please remember that these categories are not for readers. They are project categories, which exist to organise some artefacts used in editing, so a rough-and-ready name will do. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the important thing is that they should be merged to something, and that title would be fine by me. I can see no organisational benefit in retaining two separate small categs with overlapping scope. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 3 June 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 as proposed. Magioladitis (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename. Not sure why this is controversial...Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why we need to subcategorize MPs by each individual parliament that they happen to have served in; it seems quite WP:OCAT to me, frankly, because it leads to extreme category bloat in the case of long-serving MPs who've served in multiple parliaments — if this type of categorization were applied in Canada, for instance, then Herb Gray would have to be in 13 of these categories simultaneously. Rather, categorization by political party and/or administrative division that they represented should be more than sufficient, with lists instead of categories for individual parliaments. Listify and delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the insistence on using categories to group legislators by session seems a wholly British and Irish phenomenon. Australian, Canadian, American, and South African practice is to use lists. For giggles, I would like to see it attempted for Italy during the DC era, .- choster (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, one reason for this in the US case is that categorizing congresspeople by state creates workable categories, while with the United Kingdom the England constituencies are just not a workable sub-cat. Also, with the US senate its about a third up for election every two years system means that you always have holdovers from session to session. If we did do a category for each congress on the house side, John Dingell would be in 25+ categories just from that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Just do it! Argos'Dad 22:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it might be time to consider another way with the sub-division of Parliamanet members. Just look at how many categories Winston Churchill is in. I actually have pruned several cats that were duplicate or tandengential, but the fact that he racks up so many different parliament cats leads me to think maybe we should consider a way to not have a new category after every election. Is it really useful to break MPs down by specific Parliament in which they served?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Churchill is in 81 categories, and 14 of these are based on the various Parliaments he served in. This is partly a result of allowing far too many award categories, but it also comes from every Parliamentary election producing a new category. I am glad no one has thought to do the same with the US house.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be possible to do it on the county level? Aka, Northhumberland, Kent, Sussex, Essex, London, etc. That would seem to me the closest analogue to the American division. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. If anyone wants to demolish the scheme, the entire scheme needs to be nominated for a discussion that can focus on that issue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to not be the place to discuss UK MPs at all since this is a Greek MP category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Can we close this now, please? I never expected such a brouhaha out of a routine rename. Constantine ✍ 09:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm surprised this has not been done before. We may or may not delete one day all MP categories by term for Greece, but until this is done this category needs to be renamed. I also note that for the time we keep the term-by-term categories, there may be a Category:Greek MPs May–June 2012 needed soon. Place Clichy (talk) 12:52, 24 May 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: Redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:30, 18 May 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:Rename. A French twist on the "Old Fooians" categories. This category is for alumni of the École spéciale militaire de Saint-Cyr. The French alumni categories use a mix of "FOO alumni" and "Alumni of FOO", and I don't care which form is used, but most of the other subcategories of Category:Alumni of the Grandes écoles use the latter form. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom.--KarlB (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename not about people from Saint-Cyr (places) or followers of Saint Cyr. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (or to 'les vieux garçons de l'École spéciale militaire de Saint-Cyr' per Old Boodleianese francaise). Oculi (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I initially thought this category was to group together the various Saints named Cyrian who have lived from time to time (although I have no clue if there have been any such saints).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 19 May 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.
