Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 8 February 10 >

February 9[edit]

Category:OS/2 text editors[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: keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator without any outstanding non-keep !votes. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty (one entry moved to parent category). Be..anyone (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red X I withdraw my nomination after Matthiaspaul extended the category to no-nonsense. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT as part of a series editors-by-OS under Category:Text editors. User:Be..anyone, please restore the contents of this category, while the discussion seeks a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There are "lots" of other (I could name four) OS/2 text editors, some listed in category OS/2 software or REXX (programming language). I'm not going to restore The SemWare Editor flagged as inaccurate spam since 2011; you can do if you like. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the nominator's claim, the category was (and now is again) not empty. Category:Text editors has numerous similar categories for text editors under various operating systems, so it makes sense to have a similar category for OS/2 as well. Lots of other OS/2 editors can be added here in the future (as you write we even have articles for some of them). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly was empty when I added it here. Stuff you need for a no-nonsense category includes KEDIT (the redirect, not its target), THE, E, and Vim. The various TED articles are apparently not about the tiny editor for OS/2. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:29, 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.

Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule[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: keep, i.e. do not rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As explained in article Holy land, this is more a religious concept than a name of an area. This one is the exception within relevent historical categories, which mostly use Palestine, Israel or Syria trespassers william (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but make clear that it covers the 3 Byzantine provinces. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposedThis a relevant historical category. Perhaps if there was a way to keep this category and also create your category. A redirect or something?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the proposer agrees that it is "a relevant historical category". That's why he wants to give it an historical name, not a religious one. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per consensus on August 2013, categories should reflect only states which existed at the time of the category year. Commonly, Palestine refers to current State of Palestine and certainly not Palaestina Prima; furthermore, Palestine and Holy Land don't fully overlap, especially if one is taking Palaestina Prima as a reference.GreyShark (dibra) 19:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no current state of Palestine...When talking about P in relation to Byzantine history, any confusion can be cleared with one click, which is better than with using Israel. But there is no prob with Palaestina provinces under Byzantine rule, Byzantine Palaestinae Prima (like "Ottoman Syria"), or plain eponymous cats (one or two). Surely, you are not opposing to doing away with "Holy Land"? trespassers william (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The user is referring to State of Palestine, which is a current entity, though not universally recognised. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There are multiple possible "holy" lands, but there is only one Palestine (even if its boundaries change).John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Holy Land is a much better and more neutral word to use in this case. As the article says, "The term [Holy Land] is also used by Muslims and Christians to refer to the area between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea i.e. it includes modern Palestine as well as Israel." Shalom11111 (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Holy Land is just fine. The region has been called many things over thousands of years, from Canaan to Israel to Judah to Syria-Palaestina back to Israel again and the West Bank is now known as Palestine. What if the names were to change again?Evildoer187 (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: 'The Holy Lands' is an inclusive term that includes all the lands which are the subject of this page. After 'The Holy Lands', 'Israel/Palestine would be the next most inclusive term. There is no "State of Palestine" due to the fact that the PA, the most legitimate Arab Palestinian government in the disputed territories of Palestine, has yet to declare an Arab Palestinian state. We should and must avoid politics that would confuse the subject matter of this page and make it less reliable as a reference. Gilad55 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Comment Isn't it funny how often the ploy of decrying politics is used right after a political stance is taken? Everybody's stance is political except one's own stance of course. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but not to Palestine. As Good Ol’factory points out, that is a reference to a contemporary political entity. I think the term "Holy Land" is inexact, vague and to be avoided. There are many locations on Earth that are considered holy to members of specific religions and cultural backgrounds. To identify any one as THE holy land is ethnocentric. This should be a geographic category not a religious one. Plus, the two subcategories in this category identify the Holy Land as Israel, so why not rename to Israel? I realize that the country of Israel didn't exist then but those are how the child categories are identified. Liz Read! Talk! 16:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, you have reversed the discussion. Israel is clearly the name of a modern nation-state. Palestine is generally accepted as a more open, geographical designation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because the term Holy Land has been well-used historically, perhaps even more so, among Jews, Christians, Muslims and secular scholars. Please avoid falling into the tiresome trap of the delegitimization of Israel and pro-Palestine Liberation Organization and appearances of WP:POV pushing in the guise of "historical" political correctness. Israel, as the one and only Jewish homeland is OLDER than its modern political founding as a modern state in 1948. The Jewish people (who have been around nearly 4,000 years, see Jewish history) have always referred to the Land of Israel, as affirmed by the Bible. If anything rename to Category:Land of Israel during Byzantine rule because the Land of Israel was conquered by foreign powers and it was the ROMANS who invented and imposed the name "Palestine" as a punishment to the conquered Jews. Thus Land of Israel is a far better and accurate solution. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is far from NPOV reasoning, but for for the record, I agree that Israel is still better than Holy Land. Note that this is a discussion about a category of Byzantine history, so what the ROMANS called it is pretty relevant. Israel and Palestine/Plaestina have comparable Google results, HL is somewhat behind. trespassers william (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the term 'Holy Land' is well-understood, the change is undesirable. --CyberXRef☎ 10:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Holy Land' is not well-understood. I just looked at a bunch of old (European) maps with that title (or Promised land), and for one, they all include lands to the east of river Jordan. trespassers william (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • So does Palestine, just look at when it was a Syria Palaestina as a Roman province. --CyberXRef☎ 18:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the Byzantine P are historical entities. One can look up its borders. If you use HL as a "neutral", a-historical alternative, applicable in all periods, there is no telling what area exactly you are talking about. One intuition would be to equate HL with todays Israel (plus P. territories), another to equate with Byzantine Palestine(s), another, "Jesus' land", Tiberias-the Jordan-Jerusalem -(what in the west?), another tribes of Israel-land, way into the east. trespassers william (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now if I may note your responses on the other threads, the uses of Israel also works for you, because there is a historical Eretz Israel. Is it safe to conclude that you take them as synonimous with "west of the Jordan"? Because that runs against your agreement that HL may stretch to the east...

On my part, I already wrote a cat of Byzantine Ps hould be styled as to make it clear it refers to the province(s), not the timeless thing. trespassers william (talk) 20:36, 27 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:Centuries in Israel[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most centuries only should be under Category:History of Palestine. trespassers william. Maybe pre-Roman ones shouldn't. (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of using the working definition in Category:History of Israel. Browsing around, the cat under discussion looked like an anomaly, even if other exceptions can be found. trespassers william (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for most of those centuries, Israel did not exist Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is a result of mismanagement (centuries in refer only to states at the relevant time period), centuries in Israel, other than 20 and 21 should be deleted; category:centuries in the Palestinian territories already exists (maybe we should split from it Category:centuries in the State of Palestine).GreyShark (dibra) 19:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We have consistently rejected the use of "Israel" to describe events in 1918.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, however maybe we could change its name from "Category:Centuries in Israel" to "Category:Centuries in the Holy Land. Shalom11111 (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree with Shalom11111.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, In browsing through 'Category:Centuries by country', there seems to be a consensus about relating to the current country. If a decision is made, should be part of a wider discussion that would affect other parallel categories like the USA and Canada.--Almasworld (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is difficult and not clear cut at all. I agree with BrownHairedGirl that there shouldn't be an arbitrary cut-off point but this discussion shouldn't be WP:POINTY either. It is questionable to use contemporary names for geographical locations that went by different names in the past. This is more of a historic-geographic question than a cultural one. While Israel or Palestine might be top level categories, the specific child categories and articles should use the place names that were used at the time of the events described. I'm not an expert in historical geography but I think whatever practice is used worldwide, should be used in this instance. Liz Read! Talk! 16:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. NOTE: The term Land of Israel has been well-used historically, perhaps even more so, among Jews, Christians, Muslims and secular scholars. Please avoid falling into the tiresome trap of the delegitimization of Israel and pro-Palestine Liberation Organization and appearances of WP:POV pushing in the guise of "historical" political correctness. Israel, as the one and only Jewish homeland is OLDER than its modern political founding as a modern state in 1948. The Jewish people (who have been around nearly 4,000 years, see Jewish history) have always referred to the Land of Israel, as affirmed by the Bible. If anything rename to Category:Centuries in the Land of Israel because the Land of Israel was conquered by foreign powers and it was the ROMANS who invented and imposed the name "Palestine" as a punishment to the conquered Jews. Thus Land of Israel is a far better and accurate solution. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 09:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Israel is fine; there is no confusion, any attempt to split is confusing and unclear, what's "most"? the commons category "region of Eretz Israel in the Levant, and the contemporary State of Israel in Western Asia." pretty much sums it up. --CyberXRef☎ 10:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the state of Israel existed since Biblical times - there was never a state of Palestine, there was never a Palestinian people, the whole issue is a propaganda against the right of Israel to exist.--Yoavd (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the state of Israel did not exist in any form from AD 100 to AD 1948. The name "Israel" actually ceased to be used prior to 700 BC. So this claim really does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Yoavd meant to write Kingdom of Israel, not state. And no, your claim that the name "Israel" ceased to exist is simply not true. And even if it was, as explained above, it still wouldn't be a sufficient reason to change this category's name since other counties that did not exist during these times have similar categories named after them - see Category:Centuries by country. -Shalom11111 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are these three discussions going to close any time soon? They have all been opposed by most voters and it's been a month now... Shalom11111 (talk) 20:26, 5 March 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:Medieval Israel[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: keep, do not rename. – Fayenatic London 22:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems WP is leaning toward identifying Palestine as the more historically stable name of the area. See eg Category:Land of Israel. If we do not resort to double categorization just to avoid the headache, this should be renamed, along with some others I will propose. trespassers william (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the central point here is that "current country Israel" didn't exist during the middle ages. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My intention was to put all articles and categories on Middle Ages in categories named after modern countries in Europe, Middle East and North Africa. -- Bojan  Talk  02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of sense in that too. When dealing with more local history, like archeological sites that saw many rulers, it becomes a little silly to pick one historical name of the land, rather than the country where the site is actually located. Broader topics still feel like they are stuck in the terminal.
Now maybe the way to go is creating Category:Middle Ages in Palestine as a SUBCAT, in Israel's as well as Lebanon's, Syria's etc? Or to rename / split Category:Middle Ages by country, into Category:Middle Ages by current country and Category:Middle Ages by former country (or region)? To be honest, I thought there would be more solid precedents to work with. trespassers william (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against that as long Serbian counterpart has interwiki link(s). -- Bojan  Talk  04:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - both "Medeval Israel" and "Medieval Palestine", as well as "Medeval Lebanon" or any Medieval <state>, referring to modern states which didn't exist in Middle Ages, should be deleted. period. Retroactive history doesn't work, and it is nonsense to rename all wikipedia article categories if some modern state changes its name (just imagine what happens if Scotland splits from England...)GreyShark (dibra) 19:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally that would be true, but history is not only done this way, but also written this way. Should we start counting reliable sources at [1], or be as bold as suggest deleting Category:Medieval Italy? What I am trying to do is find out the more stable way to refer to an area. With Israel/Palestine, it has the added bonus that the current layout of the area is significantly smaller pieces than in previous centuries, so useful sets of topic in such areas as crusader or Roman history would be united. but at the bottom line, this is an index, and readers and might want to find the history of a (smaller) land ordered in one place. In this case, a more systematic distinction between cats by country and cats by region (See Template:Middle Ages by region) will do. trespassers william (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Israel was created in 1948. This is anachronistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Greyshark's well written explanation. Shalom11111 (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Greyshark.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In browsing through 'Category:Middle Ages by country', there seems to be a consensus about relating to the current country. If a decision is made, should be part of a wider discussion that would affect other parallel categories like the Medieval Jordan‎, Iraq, Iran, etc... entities that did not exist in the middle ages. --Almasworld (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we are not going to be so modernist as to put events in Medieval Ramallah in a different category than things happening in Medieval Haifa. Also, the claim they follow modern boundaries will not hold up when the contents of some of the categories are examined. Israel is a creation of the 1940s, and should not be imposed on the Medieval period, any more than events in 1820s California should be considered part of the history of the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. NOTE: WP uses the term Middle Ages as the official name for "Medieval", additionally the term Land of Israel has been well-used historically, perhaps even more so, among Jews, Christians, Muslims and secular scholars. Please avoid falling into the tiresome trap of the delegitimization of Israel and pro-Palestine Liberation Organization and appearances of WP:POV pushing in the guise of "historical" political correctness. Israel, as the one and only Jewish homeland is OLDER than its modern political founding as a modern state in 1948. The Jewish people (who have been around nearly 4,000 years, see Jewish history) have always referred to the Land of Israel, as affirmed by the Bible. If anything rename to Category:Land of Israel during the Middle Ages because the Land of Israel was conquered by foreign powers and it was the ROMANS who invented and imposed the name "Palestine" as a punishment to the conquered Jews. Thus Land of Israel is a far better and accurate solution. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 09:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; Israel when used in a historic context, as in these categories, has always referred to Eretz Yisrael; this category is just fine. --CyberXRef☎ 10:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the Jewish people have existed, and continue to exist, for millennia, their state or states have not done so. There were large tracts of time when Jews were a minority people in their former state(s). During those periods, the conquerors' de facto name(s) ought to be employed. This in no way diminishes any cultural or religious ties that the defeated Jews may have felt towards the conquered territories during those periods; it merely recognises geo-political realities. The situation may be contrasted with Ireland which, for the better part of 800 years was a conquered state(s), yet at no time did the conqueror re-name the territory so it correct to speak of it as Ireland throughout. This is not the case with Israel or the Land of Israel. This proposal and alternative proposal has nothing to do with the delegitimization of Israel as it did not exist as a state at that time. It is a legitimate state of the 20th and 21st centuries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to go that direction than it shouldn't be Palestine anyway, it would be Eretz Yisrael or Cana'an which was used even during the Roman conquests times... dating back over 5 millennia. --CyberXRef☎ 22:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query Is Greyshark and those who cite their support for his rationale voting for "Keep as is" or for "Delete entirely"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - those who agree with him and and those who said "Oppose" obviously think that the category should be kept as is, since the proposal was to change its name, not to 'delete it entirely'. Shalom11111 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is that obvious, when GreyShark explicitly wants to delete (any Medieval <state>, referring to modern states which didn't exist in Middle Ages, should be deleted. period.)? trespassers william (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal was strictly "Renaming 'Category:Medieval Israel' to 'Category:Medieval Palestin'"; that's what being opposed. --CyberXRef☎ 23:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I oppose this rename.GreyShark (dibra) 19:27, 5 March 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:Cold War passenger ships[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 all. Confirmed that all are now correctly up-categorised, so no merger necessary. The Bushranger One ping only 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
or upmerge to "Category:Passenger ships of Foo". DexDor (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing passenger ships by a military era is a bit odd. Presumably other editors think so to and haven't been putting many articles into these categories (unless there really was just one passenger-carrying ship designed, built, or operated in Greece from 1945 to 1990). The articles I've checked are in plenty of other categories. DexDor (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom; the two have nothing really to do with each other. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Passenger ships of Foo. I support the nominator's rationale for deletion, but merger will ensure that all articles remain properly categorised, even if the nom's checking missed something or articles are recategorised before closure. The bot handles merger as easily as deletion, so there is no reason not to specify a merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, although only one article currently in these cats needs such an upmerge (the others are in "Category:Ferries of Foo" etc). DexDor (talk) 07:09, 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.

Category:Allied vessels involved in Operation Neptune[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: listify. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Allied vessels involved in Operation Neptune to article List of Allied vessels involved in Operation Neptune
Nominator's rationale: We categorize articles about individual (naval) ships by the wars they've taken part in - a particular ship is unlikely to play an active part in many wars so that's not an unreasonable characteristic to categorize by. However, categorizing ships by military operations could lead to some ship articles being in many categories. This is better covered by a list - advantages include the ability to include ships that we don't (yet) have an article about and consistency with pages like List of Allied warships that served at Gallipoli. DexDor (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. This is an appropriate list subject, but not one for categorisation. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per Bushranger. Ships may take part in many operations, and this form of categorisation will lead to terrible category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lisitfy per people above -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 08:06, 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.

Category:People from Kalida, Ohio[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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just three entries. ...William 18:08, 9 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:Petron Blaze Boosters seasons[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: rename per C2D (San Miguel Beermen). The Bushranger One ping only 11:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The PBA team has been reverted to it's original name "San Miguel Beermen" as announced by its owners last January (see source). -WayKurat (talk) 15:31, 9 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:Howitzers of the Cold War[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: merge single article to Category:Cold War artillery of the Soviet Union‎ and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or merge the single article to Category:Cold War artillery of the Soviet Union‎.DexDor (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article (which is in plenty of other categories). Deleting this category would be a (small) step towards tidying up this area of categorization which is a bit muddled because terms like Howitzer and Field artillery have several meanings. DexDor (talk) 14:38, 9 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:Proposed Cold War military equipment[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; content merged to Category:Proposed military equipment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. The only article in this category is in plenty of other categories. DexDor (talk) 07:10, 9 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:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Basically all those characters are comic book characters, with a "in other media" entry detailing the films. Of course, the marvel cinematic universe is not the single adaption of Marvel comics to other media, and we can't categorize characters for all the works where they have appeared. The only original characters from the Marvel Cinematic Universe who got their own articles are Phil Coulson and Erik Selvig; very few to keep a category just for them Cambalachero (talk) 01:18, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_9&oldid=1146512355"