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 current name was decided at CFD 2015 March 21, which I closed, following the name of the lead article at the time. The article was later renamed to 2011–14, but recently EkoGraf moved the page Iraqi insurgency (2011–14) back to Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) stating, New conflict started in early January 2014 when ISIL captured Fallujah and large parts of Anbar. (The recent move rules out a speedy decision.) – FayenaticLondon 22:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I was thinking the same thing actually. The insurgency turned into a full scale civil war in 2014 and it does not match the article it is named after. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The civil war is on-going. We should not apply an end date until there is a clear end. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename presuming consensus for the article rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to agree with the the article names. A different category would exist for the conflict that started in January 2014, with ISIS becoming a major player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2016 (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:Presidents of the Association for Asian Studies[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:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 17:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm open to listifying because I'm not sure this is defining to the biography articles but I don't want a AAS category for 2 articles. What is defining is that these are American professors of Asian Studies but I don't see a current category for that unless that is covered by Category:Orientalists in which case we could merge this into that category. (Is "orientalist" still used as a term?) RevelationDirect (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly delete -- This has the feel of an AWARD category, which we do not normally allow. No need to listify as the main article (on the association) has a list, with a lot of them blue-lined. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming As the one who created the category, this renaming would retain the usefulness of being able to find who were AAS Presidents from each of the pages involved, which blue links would not accomplish, nor would there be redlinks to indicate what articles, if any, needed to be created.ch (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment oppose deletion: this is not the same as an AWARD category because being AAS President is an elected position that requires actual duties, not simply accepting the award.ch (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this category as is fits well within the tree of People by Occupation, the rename would just make the category blurry. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2016 (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 professional organizations[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: Not useful or defining. The categories included would be better renamed. see above . Rathfelder (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the rationale is confused. There are no individual articles at the top level so 'defining' is irrelevant. The subcats (and many more subcats could be added) can also be parented by 'the organisation of which the people are members' so that objection is specious. Category:Members of the Faculty of Advocates are clearly also 'members of a professional organisation' so what is the problem? Finally, the category is not tagged. Oculi (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but containerise. I do see a good case for centralising a cluster of the many many professional organisation categories. If kept, it should be properly populated to include the Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Colleges etc. It could be quite big. I am not entirely sure that this category is valuable for readers, but it is certainly valauable for editors ... so it might be appropriate for it to become a hidden maintenance category. Regardless of anything else, I agree that it should not be for individual people. So I have tagged it[1] as {{container}}, without prejudice to any consensus reached here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think turning it into a container category satisfactorily addresses my concerns.Rathfelder (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2016 (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:merge. delldot∇. 03:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per nominator but due to the spelling, it should be "organisations" not "organizations". Jackninja5 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Note I tagged the target category for renaming so the closing admin can consider the opinions above. (I have no opinion on the regional English spelling.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2016 (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 as container category. – FayenaticLondon 17:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: strong oppose(!). I've recreated this previously renamed category as a container category whereas the former category with this name (which is now named Category:Ante-Nicene Christians) is one of its six child categories. With the content it currently has, the nominated category should be kept, since 1) its six child categories are independent of each other (i.e. they shouldn't be parented to each other as was the case until yesterday) and 2) because the category is part of the established Category:Ancient Christianity tree. For the earlier rename discussion, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification@Marcocapelle: So you're really you're in favor of expanding/repurposing this category redirect into a container category but are coming here to avoid WP:G4 and to make sure your change doesn't break current consensus given the 2013 discussion? I've recreated some more technical category deletions by checking with the closing admin (example) but I think we should probably have more "recreate" nominations here in CFD. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I have in mind, thanks for the further clarification. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate As container category. The revised usage goes well beyond Ante-Nicene Christians that the prior category (of the same name) grouped together.. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the restoration of the container category, though it should also have some text clarifying which historical eras are included. Parent category Category:Ancient Christianity only includes the era c. 30-476. If Late Antiquity is included, the definition would include the 6th and 7th centuries. Late Antiquity partly overlaps with the Early Middle Ages, since the deposition of Romulus Augustulus is not considered the actual end of Antiquity. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support retention (it currently existing) as a container category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2016 (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:Air Force Space Command military installations[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: One page in the category, and there is no reason to keep it when it can be upmerged into another category. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, please name a merge target! Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that Peter, as I would be happy to support Twiceuponatime's idea. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question why not merge to both parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both appear to be already in one of the installations sub-categories. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2016 (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: Two categories which are just duplicating each other for no compelling reason. The second groups the stations by format while the first is an eponymous category for the service that runs all of them — but the only two articles filed in the eponymous category that aren't also in the format category already are the eponym itself, and an article about the broadcasting protocol (Specific Area Message Encoding) that's used to operate the stations, and the only article filed in the format category that isn't also in the eponymous one is an article about one regional office of the National Weather Service which is really not much more an omnibus list of 11 more NOAA stations that (probably much more wisely) have been merged into it rather than existing as standalone permastubs. Which means they're really just redundant WP:OVERLAPCATs, because of the 276 articles involved overall, 273 of them are already sitting in both categories simultaneously with each other. And even the three exceptions aren't actually incompatible with the other category either — so the distinction between the two actually leaves zero articles as true outliers to the overlap. Merge. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - While it's true these are mostly/virtually-wholly duplicated, the merge should go the other way. Category:NOAA Weather Radio is part of several category trees - Category:National Weather Service and Category:American radio networks both fit better with that title as their subcategory instead of the generic one - while there is no by-country weather-radio category tree established, just one other for Canada, and Category:Weather radio works with either as a logical subcategory. Therefore, and as there are no weather radio stations in the United States that are not part of the NOAA Weather Radio network, it's preferable to have the remaining category, after eliminating the duplicate one, being Category:NOAA Weather Radio. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also acceptable. I don't really have a particularly strong opinion about which one should be the target and which one should be the redirect — it was kind of an arbitrary "pick one or the other and run with it" tossup. Other than the fact that they don't both need to exist alongside each other, I'm entirely amenable to the reverse merge as well if that's what consensus would prefer. I've added it as an alternative accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, reverse merge as suggested--Jahaza (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2016 (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: Clarity (to avoid the appearance of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
The purpose of this category is to group popular designs for tattoos which is great. The current name is ambiguous though because it may seem to be referring to the person getting the tattoo. While we do have a Category:Art by subject tree, those categories really group by topic area whereas these articles are more specific designs. (If there is a better art term for these articles than "motif", I'm certainly open to an alternative rename.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename differently "Tatoo design" seems best, or "Motifs in tatoos". Microblading is not really a motif, or subject. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2016 (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: Most species of amphibians are poisonous (have glands that secretes poisonous or noxious compounds), and there is no unambiguous distinction between defensive compounds and poison: what is simply distasteful to some predators may be toxic or lethal to others. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2016 (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.
