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:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'Delete. Misleading redirect, which may give editors the impression that they are adding an article to a list, rather than to a category. As far as I can see, there are no other categories or category redirects whose name begins "list of buildings". BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a redirect-category, but is an improbable one. Category:Buildings in Cairo would be a little more probable thing to have aas a redirect, but I doubt we need either. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 8 October 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. The subcategory here is about transportation in the Arctic region and includes transportation in Alaska which is not part of an ocean as far as I know. The two articles describe a turning point for early commercial aviation in one ocean and an old planned stop over route in another. I suppose that it is possible that there could be some articles about flying over oceans in general where these articles could go in a category for that, but at this time there are not enough articles. No upmerge since the three entries have acceptable categories in good trees. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative rename to something like Category:Trans-oceanic aviation and purge. Hugo999 makes a good point about the existence of articles which relate primarily to aviation across an ocean, and it seems to me that we should try to construct a category which reflects that. The current category doesn't do that, because it seems to lead to Category:Aviation in the Arctic. The Arctic category is rather pointless, because it simply applies a new geographic framework to material which is already well-categorised. The situation would be even worse if we had a Category:Aviation in the Pacific, which would rapidly fill with all aviation topics in the Pacific region. However, as Hugo999 points wrt the Atlantic, we do have a lot of material which relates to transoceanic airflight. Many of Hugo's examples are of historical incidents, but the concept has much wider importance: the trans-Pacific air-routes developed since the introduction of the Boeing 747 have created dominant new political and economic linkages. Just as trans-atlantic steamship crossings tranfsormed 19th-century economies. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 15 October 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:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm not sure that an award established in 2003 and recognizes people who have flown 50 years and meet some criteria, meets the criteria for an awards category. So far there are over 2,000 people who have gotten this award. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the award is not sufficiently defining for a notable recipient. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. This award is too common to be defining. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 12 October 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:Oil and gas companies of the People's Republic of China[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:Upmerge. Seems unnecessary and confusing. E.g. Oil and gas companies of Hong Kong are listed in Oil and gas companies of the People's Republic of China. Beagel (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I hope that all Taiwanese categories have now been renamed to "Taiwan". If so there is no objection to PRC categories being renamed to China. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It doesn't matter whether ROC companies are renamed to "Taiwan", because while there may be controversy over whether Taiwan is "China", PRC can't be anything else. Shrigley (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support in actualy usage the more common way to speak of this entity is just China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 26 October 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:06, 4 November 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:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. As the main article points out, laboratory has many meanings. So clarifying the name of this category to match the description seems like a wise move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Laboratory for scientific research is the primary usage; perhaps that should be "scientific investigation". The main article should be renamed, not the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could argue that in the US, laboratories are most often used for clinical labs where you go to get blood drawn and analyzed. In any case, ambiguous article names can be acceptable and there is no requirement that in that case a category must match the article name. I will add a request to rename the article noting that the WP:RM backlog is currently 2 weeks shy of 2 months. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Scientific research facilities; avoids the above-mentioned ambiguity of "Laboratory" and also the ambiguity of whether a "lab" is the building or just rooms in the building. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with that option. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is the primary usage of the term per the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't necessarily oppose renaming to Category:Scientific research facilities, but in that case, it would require manual pruning due to the category's current contents. - jc37 05:52, 30 October 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.
Delete -- this is a parent to "by country" and "by continent" categories. We do not need this layer, but I think we could do without the "country" category as well. This would give a rational tree. Alternatively (and second best), we could delete this and the "continent" category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i agree with these alternatives, we dont need so many layers here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:02, 15 October 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.
