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. This category has a main article Women in the art history field but that would not make a good category name. – FayenaticLondon 06:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This will put the category in line with its parent Category:Women historians. It will also better reflect the fact that virtually everyone in this field is an adult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see why not. Not much chance that there will be any art historians who are minors. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 July 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:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 2009–[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.
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. Insufficient content for eponymous category. The subcat and main article now have sufficient direct links between them. – FayenaticLondon 22:42, 11 July 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.
Rename – contents are all people, not occupations. Oculi (talk) 14:36, 12 July 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. – FayenaticLondon 07:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support also JPL's suggestion. Keep the French and American ones as they are: these are clearly referring to the nationality of the historian, not his subject. Art historians does not seem to be so overpopulated as to need a split out art historians by subject; by nationality is already a subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 19 July 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.
Merge setting is easier to determine than subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I concur that this is not part of a wider pattern, nor is it needed. – FayenaticLondon 12:36, 12 July 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:withdrawn. – FayenaticLondon 07:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge and redirect. The Naval architecture article says "also known as Naval engineering". The nominated category has been here since 2007, and the target since 2004. The French wiki category has been named likewise since 2006: fr:Catégorie:Ingénieur et architecte naval. – FayenaticLondon 15:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rename simply to Category:Naval engineers? Naval architecture says A naval architect is an engineer. There is a difference between the branch of science/design and what we call the practitioners. I'm not sure from the limited research I did, but naval engineer clearly is a leading contender. I will note that the BLS does classify them as Marine Engineers and Naval Architects. So... Vegaswikian (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. It would probably better to consider a rename with a separate proposal that has full notice to the intended category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The target is a mess. It contains a few genuine engineers concerned with shipbuilding, but the majority seem to be shipbuilders or shipwrights, including some who rose to be surveyor of the Royal Navy. One person wioth the suffix engineer turned out to be a military engineer who had served on baord ship as a gunner. I suspect that the problem with Naval architect may be that its lead lacks hisotrical perspective. An engineer in the Navy is the officer who looks after the engines. I would prefer to see the handful of people in the target who were mechanical engineers purged inot a separate category, leaving the shipbuilders in the present category, which could then be merged with the naval architects, perhaps renamed to shipbuilders. Those who were more concerned with design than building should go into the ship and boat designers category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per PKI. Marine engineering starts off by distinguishing marine engineers as something unrelated to design. Really it is the second category that needs to be split up. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to the opposers. I am withdrawing this, and may propose the second one for splitting instead. – FayenaticLondon 07:25, 2 August 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:Rename. Chellomedia was renamed AMC Networks International this week and most pages related to it are under the Chello Zone category. Bbb2007 (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per new organisation name. SFB 21:21, 20 July 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 (unanimous discussion). – FayenaticLondon 08:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While the legislative house of the Canadian province of Ontario is sometimes referred to as provincial parliament (e.g. members style themselves as MPPs, or Members of Provincial Parliament, even though the relevant statute calls them "members of the Assembly"), and the legislature's sessions are often referred to as parliaments, the body actually calls itself the Ontario Legislative Assembly and Section 69 of the Constitution which created the body also calls it by that name. Google searches show that Ontario Legislative Assembly, or even Ontario legislature, is by far more commonly used than variations of Ontario Parliament. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: then why not rename using that official name, instead of the other way round with "of" in the middle?– FayenaticLondon 22:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it is. Moreover, the official site does also use that name "Legislative Assembly of Ontario", not "Ontario Legislative Assembly" as stated above. However, there was until recently also an article at Parliament of Ontario, see merger discussion initiated last month. – FayenaticLondon 17:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recently created duplicate article. Same editor who created that article created this category tree. And, apologies, I erroneously referred to the Ontario Legislative Assembly above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:41, 13 July 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:Merge. Proposing merger per this Cfd discussion. As right now there are two different level categories, it is hard to make distinction which article should be categorized in which category. There is also some overlapping. Beagel (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename. I have added selected sub-cats to the nomination (others can be processed speedily if this nom is approved). The members of Category:History of the petroleum industry in Canada show that it currently includes pages which are specifically about the natural gas side of the industry. – FayenaticLondon 11:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As nominator I can support merger in both ways. It is more important that these categories would be merged. Beagel (talk) 14:13, 12 July 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:Oil and gas industry regions of Ukraine[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 result of the discussion was:delete (unanimous discussion). I also made the list that I suggested below. – FayenaticLondon 08:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Obsolete category. There are no specific oil and gas industry regions in Ukraine but the category just includes administrative units on which territories oil and gas industry upstream operations are carried out. These are not historical regions, and does not include regions which have midstream or downstream industries. There is no similar categories for other countries. As a rule we do not categorize administrative units by industries on their territory. The only exception I could recall is Category:Coal mining regions in Europe and its subcategories by country. That also needs a proper discussion; however, these categories are not submitted now. Beagel (talk) 13:14, 11 July 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:delete. – FayenaticLondon 10:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Seems to be overcategorization by shared naming characteristic. There's nothing else that unites the articles that are categorized. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge/rename? These are all connected by the notion of a few huge companies dominating an industry/sector both economically and politically. If there is already a category for that, these should go there; if there is a main article but no corresponding category, this should be renamed to match that main article. Obviously the current naming basis is hopeless and if no other solution can be found, it should be deleted, but I don't see focusing on the shared name aspect as a first resort. see below Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify per nom. I'd point out that Category:Big Bang currently fits within the parameters of this category, as named and defined. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain the rationale of conserving? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is categorisation by shared word, which we do not allow. No objection to listifying. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
split/delete Some members (e.g. big oil should be moved over to Category:Oligopoly (or be somehow made a subcat), but when those are removed, the remainder lacks any unifying element. Mangoe (talk) 17:54, 19 August 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.
