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. This is another part of an inexperienced editor's misguided attempt to build a simplified outline of key laws for a portal. – FayenaticLondon 23:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 15:45, 30 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.
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.
Reject, User has created separate New Portal as Portal:Laws in India and Moving the articles from Old Categories to New Categories as they are already creating Mess for Portal:Laws in India. Old Categories would be deleted soon. Tags for Deleting removed. Vineet Gupta, Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh [India] 22:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) user:Vineetgupta22
Comment: user:Vineetgupta22 has explained on my talk page that he was trying to create an outline of Indian law for a new portal page. I have explained that there was no need to disrupt the existing categories to do this. – FayenaticLondon 23:07, 29 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.
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.
Reject, User has created separate New Portal as Portal:Laws in India and Moving the articles from Old Categories to New Categories as they are already creating Mess for Portal:Laws in India. Old Categories would be deleted soon. Tags for Deleting removed. Vineet Gupta, Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh [India] 22:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) user:Vineetgupta22
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:Speedy merge to Category:Parliament of India. The new category was redundant and did not follow naming convetions. De728631 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, User has created separate New Portal as Portal:Laws in India and Moving the articles from Old Categories to New Categories as they are already creating Mess for Portal:Laws in India. Old Categories would be deleted soon. Tags for Deleting removed. Vineet Gupta, Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh [India] 22:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) user:Vineetgupta22
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:speedy delete, see my talk page for WP:G7 consent. – FayenaticLondon 20:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (2 days are required) as this is a duplicate. Do not merge this one, as the members do not belong in the General Elections category, and the new category was added without removing old ones. – FayenaticLondon 21:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, User has created separate New Portal as Portal:Laws in India and Moving the articles from Old Categories to New Categories as they are already creating Mess for Portal:Laws in India. Old Categories would be deleted soon. Tags for Deleting removed. Vineet Gupta, Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh [India] 22:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) user:Vineetgupta22
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:Speedy merge to Category:Lok Sabha. The new category was redundant and did not follow naming conventions. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is yet another duplicate and unnecessary category created by a new user. Request speedy deletion.There already exists Category:Lok Sabha . Request an administrator to caution the editor. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge back into WP:C2C, categories either use English or the official foreign name, not both. – FayenaticLondon 21:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, User has created separate New Portal as Portal:Laws in India and Moving the articles from Old Categories to New Categories as they are already creating Mess for Portal:Laws in India. Old Categories would be deleted soon. Tags for Deleting removed. Vineet Gupta, Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh [India] 22:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) user:Vineetgupta22
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:speedy merge to Category:Presidents of India (merge is now required after later additions/changes; see my talk page for WP:G7 consent). – FayenaticLondon 20:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is unnecessary. It is unlikely to have more than one page. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the member page was added to this without deleting the proper categories. – FayenaticLondon 21:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, User has created separate New Portal as Portal:Laws in India and Moving the articles from Old Categories to New Categories as they are already creating Mess for Portal:Laws in India. Old Categories would be deleted soon. Tags for Deleting removed. Vineet Gupta, Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh [India] 22:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) user:Vineetgupta22
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: speedy delete G7, author has emptied this category. – FayenaticLondon 12:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, User has created separate New Portal as Portal:Laws in India and Moving the articles from Old Categories to New Categories as they are already creating Mess for Portal:Laws in India. Old Categories would be deleted soon. Tags for Deleting removed. Vineet Gupta, Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh [India] 22:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) user:Vineetgupta22
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 both, per the long-standing convention that category names should follow the head article. (Note that Category:Driehaus Prize winners has already been renamed. I haven't checked how this happened). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I consciously named this section after Category:Pritzker Prize winners. We should use common sense here and don't make it appear longer or more complicated. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I consciously named this section after Category:Pritzker Prize winners. We should use common sense here and don't make it appear longer or more complicated. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia categories should follow the articles, after which they are named. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both short form article names are simple redirects to the longer names that include "architecture". I can see no discussions on the article talk pages regarding these names and per WP:Naming criteria the article names might be shortened to be more concise. Until such discussions take place I see no reason to rename these categories. --ELEKHHT 13:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think my argument is valid for both. Driehaus Prize is also just a simple redirect, not a disambiguation page, and there hasn't been a discussion about article name. Knowing how few people edit these articles, and that choosing between two names that are both correct is not a major issue, I don't consider being stable a proof of consensus for current form. The rationale for this proposal is only that of aligning category names with article names just as a matter of standardization and no real need for disambiguation. One detrimental result will be even longer category names at the bottom of the article pages. A further potential disadvantage is that if the articles were to be renamed in the future the category names will have to be moved again. I think at this stage we gain nothing from renaming the categories. Remember WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. --ELEKHHT 23:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as we almost invariably do for award winners' categories. I would normally vote for them to be listified but the articles already have lists. WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The first appears to have been renamed already—don't know why. But in any case, these should follow the general practice of category names conforming to the relevant article names. The reasons given for making an exception here are not persuasive to me. They would make more sense as arguments for renaming the articles. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:43, 10 April 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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 17:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale There is no indication that we could write the article women in immunology or something like that and state anything other than a list. I think we could for the more broad topic of women in biology, but the fact that it hasn't been done makes me wonder if these categories are being created to soon. The more time passes, the more I wish we would require people to actually create those articles before creating the categories, and not allow for the categories to blossom without the articles having been created. This is just too fine a distinction, we do not need gender-specific subcats for every possible profession. As has been pointed out elsewhere, these categories have abysmal rates of upkeep, which has lead to false accusation like "Wikipedia has more articles on female porn starts than women poets" which has never, ever been the case. The intersection of women and poetry writing is one of the most covered such topics, and we still have a hard time upkeeping the categories involved. We should not upmerge to Category:Immunologists since all the articles are currently in by-nationality sub-cats of that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom - a literature search found this that concludes that the performance, funding, and research output of women in immunology equals that of men, though fewer have been promoted to full professor (but, this cat does not differentiate between roles it simply describes the core research so it's not that relevant). That's pretty thin meal for a category, I agree biologists is a reasonable split since a fair amount has been written but one study that incidentally mentions immunology and then finds few differences is not enough to say that gender + immunology is defining, esp not at a global scale. As such I find no evidence of a compelling link between gender + job here and we should merge. We should also look at the other sibling cats which are likely to remain equally poorly populated as JPL points out - I think a forlorn and underpopulated cat is worse than none at all because of the mistaken impression it gives people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:45, 31 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:Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada[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:speedily deletedG7. – FayenaticLondon 17:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another case of a weak award category. We only allow such where the award is defining, and this award is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is an empty category, so that it would normally get deleted automatically. On the other hand, my experiecne of the grant of honorary membership of learned societies is that it is a honour granted sparingly (for example for long service), so that a particularly distinguished member can remain a member without paying the usual subscription. This is an WP:OC#AWARD, so that the normal course would be to listify and delete. In this case, it would be merge back to parent and listify, since the fellowship is (I assume) similar to "Fellows of the Royal Society" in UK, which is important enough for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this category without reading WP:OC#AWARD and concur that honorary fellowships which are not the notable factor do not require a category. Have requested quick deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinesurfer (talk • contribs) 16:55, 9 April 2014
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 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. – FayenaticLondon 17:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See related discussions below/ Tim! (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Austria, and the rest of these countries, are rather securely mounted to Planet Earth; they have yet to create the tragedy of Hyper-Maine. Seriously, this is redundant to the "Fooian space program/programme" category; if that title should be changed to reflect 'not a national space program', that's a different discussion, but it should be either/or, not both. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:39, 1 April 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 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 (as for the "programme/program" spelling issue, I'm just treating the nominator's spelling as if it were the "creator's" spelling for a new category per WP:ENGVAR).Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge Tim! (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Switzerland, and the rest of these countries, are rather securely mounted to Planet Earth; they have yet to create the tragedy of Hyper-Maine. Seriously, this is redundant to the "Fooian space program/programme" category; if that title should be changed to reflect 'not a national space program', that's a different discussion, but it should be either/or, not both. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:39, 1 April 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.
This category, and the others are for national activities related to space that are not a part of national space program. Its not correct to group every activity into a national program when they are not. Fotaun (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Germany, and the rest of these countries, are rather securely mounted to Planet Earth; they have yet to create the tragedy of Hyper-Maine. Seriously, this is redundant to the "Fooian space program/programme" category; if that title should be changed to reflect 'not a national space program', that's a different discussion, but it should be either/or, not both. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the problem: how can things that are not in the national program, but related to space be put in that category? Fotaun (talk) 18:03, 5 April 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:do not rename. If the article is renamed at any stage, a fresh nomination can be made (as pointed out, this could be even be done speedily if that happens).Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Hiawatha Line was the original name of this light rail line, but when Metro Transit added other lines, they changed to a color scheme. See http://www.metrotransit.org/light-rail for the official title: METRO Blue Line (Hiawatha). Runner1928 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think both the parent article and this category should be renamed. There's a new light rail line going in: Green Line (Minneapolis-Saint Paul). It would be nice if the naming convention was the same. Runner1928 (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you have made a case for moving the article. This discussion is about the category which generally follows the name of the article. So if the article is not renamed, why rename the category? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. If the article is renamed, I'll file another request that this category be renamed as well. In the meantime, let's shelve the discussion. Oppose for now. Runner1928 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is reanmed, this can be a speedy nomination. Those happen in about 48 hours if there are no objections. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 5 April 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.
