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. As named, it's far too general and has no clear scope. This is absolutely not its correct name per any of our naming conventions, the scope of every single category that our IP friend suggested above is far too general to be any more appropriate, and I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to have any idea what else to suggest. It's certainly possible that a new category might be warranted — is "software and services company specializing in the maritime industry" really a thing that enough companies do to justify a category for software and services companies specializing in the maritime industry? I wouldn't know — but this category absolutely unequivocally ain't the answer. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We certainly do not need both this and Category:Maritime culture, but I wonder whether the best solution might not be to reverse merge that category here, or perhaps merge both to Category:Maritime topics. I omit "nautical", because the word is related to ships, a narrower topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2014 (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 with as "Transgender and transsexual lesbian" below, per Wikipedia conventions about category naming, this needs to be named in the plural "gay men" rather than the singular "gay"; in its current form, it's also a string of adjectives that doesn't even contain a noun for the adjectives to be adjectival to. Truth be told, I'm not entirely convinced that the combination of gender identity with sexual orientation constitutes a category that we actually need at all — which is why I'm bringing it here rather than to speedy, because consensus might be that it should just be deleted instead of renamed — but if it is kept it must be renamed. Delete? Rename? Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, it would be best to creates articles on FTMs attracted to men and MTFs attracted to women and these articles could include lists of such individuals? Not sure, just a suggestion. Solar-Wind (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a general article on transgender sexuality; I sincerely doubt that we could really write or properly source an entire article just about transgender people who are attracted to the same gender. Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could actually but I think it would be pretty bad at this point, as the literature in this area is limited, even Transgender sexuality is in a rather sorry state. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think we need to categorize on every possible intersection of gender + who-you-are-attracted to - the number of combinations is limitless - such as agender people attracted to transsexual men, or pangender people attracted to bisexual women, or transgender people attracted to transgender people, or ...; I think on one hand we categorize by gender when relevant, and on the other we categorize by sexual attraction (when relevant). But not the intersection of same, it's too big a universe of possible combos.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Obi-Wan. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Maybe once a good stand alone article is created it would be more appropriate. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keepattracted to transgender people is extreamly fewer than attracted to male. Transgender and transsexual gay means transman attracted to male. We should make it.--Asdfganistan (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly transgender people who are sexually attracted to the same gender exist. Nobody's denying that. But apart from the simple fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things that may or may not correspond in the way some people think they should (a fact which is already covered in the article on transgender sexuality), what's uniquely notable about being a transgender gay man? How is it a phenomenon that warrants categorization as such in an encyclopedia? Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2014 (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:Transgender and transsexual lesbian[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: Per Wikipedia conventions about category naming, this needs to be named in the plural "lesbians" rather than the singular "lesbian". Truth be told, I'm not entirely convinced that the combination of gender identity with sexual orientation constitutes a category that we actually need at all — which is why I'm bringing it here rather than to speedy, because consensus might be that it should just be deleted instead of renamed — but if it is kept it must be renamed. Delete? Rename? Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, it would be best to creates articles on FTMs attracted to men and MTFs attracted to women and these articles could include lists of such individuals? Not sure, just a suggestion. Solar-Wind (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a general article on transgender sexuality; I sincerely doubt that we could really write or properly source an entire article just about transgender people who are attracted to the same gender. Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keepattracted to transgender people is extreamly fewer than attracted to female. Transgender and transsexual lesbian means transwoman attracted to female. We should make it.--Asdfganistan (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly transgender people who are sexually attracted to the same gender exist. Nobody's denying that. But apart from the simple fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things that may or may not correspond in the way some people think they should (a fact which is already covered in the article on transgender sexuality), what's uniquely notable about being a transgender lesbian? How is it a phenomenon that warrants categorization as such in an encyclopedia? Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2014 (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 per nom. The contents of this category do not belong here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 18 February 2014 (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: See rationale at #Category:Marquisates of Greece. The margraves of Bodonitsa were not Greek, nor where they subject to a Greek overlord. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:25, 10 February 2014 (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 category is misleading: it suggests that its member categories and articles, which describe the marquisate of Bodonitsa, where part of Greece and should be categorized with modern Greek nobility. While this state occupied some of the territory of modern Greece, it was in fact a Frankish crusader state. There was no notion of Greece in 1204–1414, only a Greek-speaking Roman Empire. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:22, 10 February 2014 (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: Either only one crusader marquisate was established, or we just don't have articles on the other ones. In any case, this category contains only a single subcat, and is hindering navigation; I suggest it be deleted until more articles about crusader marquisates are written (if more existed). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:09, 10 February 2014 (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 category is the only category of its kind for cities. I think the pages within and sub-categories would be better placed in other categories such as Category:Municipal government of Montreal. MTLskyline (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to the category suggested by nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category contains 3 pages: Category:Healthcare in Montreal, Category:Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, Service de sécurité incendie de Montréal, and it is not clear which of them are municipal responsibilities ... so a recategorisation under Category:Municipal government of Montreal would be wrong in some cases. As in any other Canadian city, public services in Montreal are delivered by a range of public bodies: federal, provincial, metropolitan and city governments, and various agencies. Grouping them together will help navigation, and if similar categories do not exist for other cities, they should be created. Most city categories have a sub-category for sport, and Category:Sport in Montreal includes everything from chess to motorsport to kickboxing. What exactly is the rationale for not having a similar broad starting point to group education, social services, healthcare, sanitation, building control, policing, and all the many other public services in a modern city? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 17 February 2014 (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: Whether a particular entity issues a bond is, I would argue, generally not defining. There are at least 18 federal agencies in the US that issue debt, and if you broaden the scope to entities which issue (or have issued) municipal debt (i.e. below the sovereign level), this goes up into the tens or maybe hundreds of thousands globally (according to this, there are 80,000 issuers of municipal bonds in the US alone: [1]). And of course, most private companies also issue debt, and this is clearly not DEFINING for the private companies (which is why we don't have Category:Private sector bond issuers). I don't think navigation would be improved by building out this structure further, and I think other existing categories, such as Category:Finance ministries or Category:Government-owned companies by country or Category:Central_banks fulfills the purpose of this category a bit better; there are many ways governments raise money, issuing bonds is one of them, but a category of all agencies that have at any point in the past issued debt would not be useful because it would likely comprise a very large number of government agencies and government-owned corporations, at least in the US. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment As an example, here is a list of some US Federal agencies which have issued debt in the past: US Treasury, Government National Mortgage Association,Federal National Mortgage Association,Federal Home Loan Mortgage,The Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation ,Federal Farm Credit Banks,Tennessee Valley Authority,Federal Farm Credit Bank,Resolution Funding Corporation (REFCORP),Federal Farm Credit System,Financing Corporation (FICO),The Private Export Funding Corporation (PEFCO) ,Government Trust Certificates (GTC),The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID),The Financial Assistance Corporation (FAC),The General Services Administration (GSA),The Small Business Administration,The U.S. Postal Service, etc. The fact that all of these entities, and tens of thousands of more state/county/city level government entities have at one point raised money by issuing a bond is fundamentally not defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining; virtually every state, county, city, school district, water district, sanitation district, and various agencies of each of them in the US also issue debt (or have ever issued debt as this is not a "current" category, I hope). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2014 (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: Not clear of the purpose of this category; the parent category is sufficient here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2014 (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: The scope of this category is unclear and all articles currently in there are adequately categorized using long-standing categories. Pichpich (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nice category, for gathering all beneficial and supportive tasks, solely related with the improvement of Women rights. OccultZone (Talk) 14:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed opinion, Delete. OccultZone (Talk) 07:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete there are well developed trees in feminism and women's rights that are largely sufficient, a separate category like this one is not needed and duplicates the work of many other categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of the long-standing (and more neutrally named) categories mentioned by other Obi-Wan. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Empowerment of Women should actually be a parent category which could encompass a lot of the smaller categories. Basically there are two major sides women and men. Let's just make it a neutral topic and neutral categories. I propose keep this one. and also create a category Empowerment of Men. Long standing never trumps change, and a better equality and a movement toward total neutrality on our beloved Wikipedia could make Wikipedia more encyclopedic. Carriearchdale (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2014 (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: Should be merged up into the giants in fiction or Giants in popular culture category seeing as there's practically nothing in this one. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Criteria too vague to be useful especially when there are also sports teams named Giants that appear on television. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2014 (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: So, there are a couple of things wrong with this category. First of all, it has a title that begins with a term that is rather vague, since the word "gay" can mean multiple things to multiple people. Additionally, it includes "sportsmen," which doesn't really explain anything. If the name of the category is to be taken to include just athletes, which it doesn't in practice, then it should be superceded by Category:LGBT sportspeople. It does also include a wide array of persons by occupation, although there are also categories that can replace this, so that should also be taken into account. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete convention says we dont separate out gay and lesbian, but use the umbrella LGBT, and we also dont use "men", but rather "people". if we need to distinguish between male and female, we can use "female tennis players" or "male shotputters". this category is easily superseded by the one indicated by the nominator, so all the people in it should be upmerged to that one.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, those aren't the conventions on either issue.
For LGBT people, the convention that we use a merged "LGBT" category is true only in cases where the number of articles is not yet large enough to split them out into quadrant-specific categories — but if the number of articles is large enough, or gender has special relevance as an aspect of the topic (which it very much does in sports, since there are very few sports in which men and women directly compete against each other), then we do split them into quadrants. See, for example, Category:LGBT writers, Category:LGBT politicians, Category:LGBT musicians and Category:LGBT artists, all of which are quadrantized. You certainly have the option of arguing that Category:LGBT sportspeople, which currently has roughly 300 articles distributed among its subcategories, isn't large enough yet to justify being quadrantized — but you're mistaken if you think that we never allow quadrantization.
And the general parent categories for gender vis-à-vis sportspeople are located at Category:Sportsmen and Category:Sportswomen, to boot. (Yes, we use the more general "sportspeople" in categories where gender isn't the distingushing feature of the category, but where it is the relevant distinction we currently use "sportsmen" and "sportswomen" rather than "male/female sportspeople".) As with LGBT, you're certainly free to propose that we rename the whole shebang to "Male/Female sportspeople" if you wish (though I'm pretty sure you'd lose that fight, for the same reason you'd fail to get Category:Actresses renamed to "Female actors"), but these categories are using the existing wording for the sportspeople side of their parentage. Just for the record, it was a CFR consensus to rename this category to its current form in the first place; it was previously at "Gay sportspeople" (first created at that title in 2006!), and was renamed to this form last year precisely because the parent category was Category:Sportsmen and not "Male sportspeople". Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. No explanation given why Gay should be deleted but not Lesbian, bisexual, or transgender categories. There is a whole tree of LGBT sportspeople but LGBT is divided by quadrant when gender is relevant, which it is for most sports. Rather than splitting each individual sport into g, l, b and t, these higher level categories serve that purpose, so a given person might be placed into 'gay sportsmen', LGBT basketball players, and male basketball players.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have LGBT sports categories, and more specific ones for Lesbian sportswomen, Bisexual people, Transgender, and the Gay sportsmen categories. Absent strong evidence that anyone is being mistakenly categorized as a gay sportsman, meaning any other use than for his sexuality, keeping makes the most sense. If there is a better term than sportsmen then let's discuss it, and see if it works. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In its current form the category is entirely consistent with practice on both the "LGBT" and "sportspeople" sides of its parentage; LGBT categories can be filtered down into quadrant-specific subcategories when it's useful to do so, "gay" is the standard term across the category tree for subcategories that are specific to gay men, and all other sportspeople-by-gender categories do use "sportsmen" and "sportswomen". And both gender and sexual orientation are relevant issues in sports as things currently stand, as well — we might all wish we lived in a world where everybody was on equal footing and none of the identity issues mattered at all, but that isn't actually the world we do live in (said the guy who is, literally as I type this, listening to a radio debate about whether Michael Sam just killed his NFL chances or not by doing exactly guess what.) Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gay players of sport don't play differently than non-gays, so this is unsupportable under WP:CATEGRS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When we live in a world where people aren't still debating whether or not there will ever be an openly gay player in MLB or the NHL or the NFL, then maybe it'll become unsupportable under WP:CATEGRS. When we live in a world where the only openly gay NBA player in history hasn't spent the entire year since his coming out sitting at home undrafted by a new team, then maybe it'll become unsupportable. Actually playing the sport differently than people outside the defined group is not the only criterion that defines whether such a category is supportable or not — if you're playing the sport the same way as everybody else, but doing so in a cultural context that treats you differently for it, then that satisfies EGRS just fine too. Bearcat, who far from coincidentally wrote large portions of EGRS in the first place and thus knows quite well what it does and doesn't allow (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It means what it says, not the undisclosed thoughts of its drafters, as you ought to realize. We live in a world where lots of people have difficulties finding employment for all types of discrimination or pre-conceived notions, including popular appeal or not, but that does not mean that categories for such people are appropriate. Write an article on the subject, rather than categorize people on these traits. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it means what it says — but everything I just said is not an "undisclosed thought", but is right there in the document, and thus is part of what it means and says. And guess what else, numerous articles on LGBT people in sports already exist — and the ability to write an encyclopedic head article about the topic is, furthermore, one of the factors in how a category becomes justifiable under EGRS. Bearcat (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I agree 'Gay' can be confusing because it is often used to define homosexual men and women. However, Wikipedia commonly divides LGBT category trees into 'Gay' and 'Lesbian'. The issue of sportspeople 'coming out' is an ongoing hot topic, so it is reasonable to categorise sportspeople by their sexuality. Sionk (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In light of the above comments, especially those by BrownHairedGirl and Bearcat, I'll withdraw this, as I never realized this was not an anomaly in that sense. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2014 (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 all (i.e. do not rename). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename categories in line with the hyphenation of other similar categories. The French Canadian category has the hyphen in the wrong place. Solar-Wind (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I guess I made a mistake on the French-Canadian category. I think the rest should be renamed though. Solar-Wind (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Oppose The Canadian proposal aside, the other ones don't even line up to naming conventions on the site, and just reading them with the hyphens doesn't flow correctly, so that should also be taken into consideration here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose all Violates the naming convention for American categories and results in also results in ambiguous categories names and such names should never be ambiguous. Not an improvement to WP. Hmains (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2014 (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 (no voiced opposition after relisting). Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Permanent category renamed to Category:Chilodontidae (gastropods), as this family name is also in use by fish. Propose changing the corresponding template to {{Chilodontidae-gastropod-stub}}. At this point, the permanent fish category is small enough to not worry about a stub category or template. Dawynn (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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:Wikipedia events and real-life initiatives[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: Real-life comes across as a bit odd- onwiki/online events are still (I hope) part of reality, so I suggest renaming the real-life part of this category to offline or offwiki. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 10:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Suggested better re-name off-wiki intitiatives - so the potential confusion as to what constitutes reality, real life, on or off line are not unnecessarily further argued here or anywhere else - to keep it simple with off-wiki - if it is undertsood sufficiently may be more appropriate. satusuro 11:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support change. I prefer "off-wiki" to "off-line" but neither of them are widely accepted terms. "Off-wiki" is something only said by Wikipedians, and this category includes virtual meetups outside Wikipedia, so that is not the best term. Still, I think it is better than "off-line" because it is used more on Wikipedia, even though offline captures more of the meaning. Actually, this is problematic. I do not know what is best. A change to either of those terms is better than the current title, though. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Support The other name makes it sound like we are introverts who consider the real world a magical place (well, that probably is true), so we should probably rename it to make more sense to others. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2014 (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: Skimming the parent cat verifies that generally it goes without saying that a certain fortress is inactive. Active ones are usually called Bases, Prisons etc. trespassers william (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Forts, or appropriate sub-categories thereof. I agree we don't need to separate former forts here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2014 (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.
