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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but this may need to be done manually in favour of subcategories of the presnet target. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Government (Council of Ministers ) and State (Soviet Union) are different things. There indeed is some mix. I will fix it manually. -No.Altenmann >t 04:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE NOW. I emptied the category, moving items into appropriate standard places. More cleanup is required deeper. E.g. In addition to the mentioned category:Government of the Soviet Union, the category:Soviet internal politics must be renamed to a standard one (is there any?) -No.Altenmann >t 04:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is considered improper to empty a category while a CFD on it is in progress....William 18:16, 6 September 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. Number57 17:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's unclear what pages this category is intended to contain. At present it causes Category:WikiProjects (and hence all the wikiproject subcats) to be under Category:Wikipedia help which I don't think is correct. DexDor (talk) 20:58, 30 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.
The result of the discussion was:upmerged. Number57 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category (2 entries), besides the fact that two councils were held in London is not very relevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I think these councils related to the whole of England. Though they took place in London, that were probably not specifically London-related. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the latter, a council of the whole land of England was assembled (quote from article) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merge target for both Category:Councils of the Church in England. Descrining them as RC is unnecessary, because there were no denominations in the period referred to. I am not suggesting "Church Councils", because that might mean that some would include (Anglican) Parochial Church Councils, and similar bodies in other churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please note that the previous suggestion may have implications for the entire tree of Category:Roman Catholic Church Councils which is currently for post-1054 councils when the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic denomination split apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This is the way to make the content clear. Whatever the meaning of "Church" at the time, it is a contested term in the present and we can not designate any group as "Church" without being other than NPOV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 20 September 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly obscure description that makes it difficult to understand the encyclopaedic purpose (if there is one?). SFB 19:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are these people saying they are a kind of fish, or am I missing something?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The description I created says "This page catalogues Wikipedians that, by virtue of evolution, are claded as tetrapodan sarcopterygians.", which I meant to imply that it's a catalogue of the Wikipedians who are in favor of cladistics over Linnean taxonomy. Essentially, the Nominator's Rationale is more on-the-nose with the idea that it's a category for the Wikipedians who are strict cladists; I used Sarcopterygia specifically since it's the earliest known group of tetrapods, which includes pretty much every example of megafauna ever, aside from some of the Carboniferous fauna. I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to a rename, since, well...looking at it now, I can see that the name is rather clunky. Maybe rename it to Category:Cladistic Wikipedians, if we decide to rename the cat? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, "It's a catalogue of the Wikipedians who are in favor of cladistics over Linnean taxonomy" - I fail to see how categorizing such Wikipedians helps the encyclopedia in any way. What purpose would going through this category to seek out such users have? Is their personal preference of taxonomy helpful to know for collaborative purposes? I don't see how that would be the case. VegaDark (talk) 09:24, 11 October 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:no consensus. Number57 17:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Split. Following the cleanup of Category:Bugatti vehicles, we probably need to discuss the organization of this category. Most of these vehicles have nothing to do with VW. VM bought the brand for a company called Bugatti Automobiles S.A.S.. In fact the article says that only the brand was purchased! It is far from clear that the various vehicles really share more then a brand and the different companies vehicles should not be classified together. I'll acknowledge that if we change here, there could be other changes in the category structure. But the question needs to be asked someplace. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing as this category is one purely designated as "automobile by brand", surely the issue of various manufacturers is not an issue at all? SFB 19:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the interests of a short, succinct, common name. Car makers change ownership all the time, but the master category does not get split up as a result. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bugatti at this point represents a brand, so it may make sense to retain Category:Bugatti automobiles as a parent for the three new categories. I agree that succinct is a goal, but one which is not always achievable. As to the common name, yes, in categories we try and use it when the name is not ambiguous. Here we have cars built by three very different companies, so knowing which company built the vehicle is important. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what about a company like Chrysler? It has been moved around a bit recently. Jaguar and Land Rover? I just don't see the benefit as the cars are separate to the entities that own the marque. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chrysler has stayed in business and vehicles have been produced under the name the entire time. So the case there is different. There have been ownership changes but the cars are being produced by the same corporation or its successors. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – FayenaticLondon 07:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The proposal now seems to be that the nominated category should be kept as part of Category:Vehicles by brand, but could have new sub-cats. These could be part of Category:Products by manufacturer, although the latter currently does not have a Vehicles part. Vehicles are mostly only structured by brand. – FayenaticLondon 07:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Conditional support) I agree with the nom except I don't agree with adding "automobiles" after titles which say automobiles in them, or even automobili. One of these CfDs is about changing Volvos Buses to Vovlos Buses buses... and that is a waste of the effort. But splitting them, Bugatti into three, is totally natural, three different sets of styles and histories. Apparently 26 of the articles are redirects, and that might need fixed, but it doesn't really bear on how the should be categorised. ~ R.T.G 09:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and subcategorize: alternative proposal:
Bugatti automobiles
Bugatti automobiles manufactured by Automobiles Ettore Bugatti
Bugatti automobiles manufactured by Bugatti Automobili SpA
Bugatti automobiles manufactured by Bugatti Automobiles S.A.S.
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 has been deleted and recreated multiple times. Delete because it only has two articles which are interlinked and two subcats which are interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt -- Few bands are important enough to need eponymous categories. Alternatively merge the albums and other category here. We do not need three categories for one band! Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 1 September 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.
