Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 29 July 1 >

June 30[edit]

Category:British Commando 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: relisted here. ~ Rob13Talk 18:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: opposed speedy with the edit "rv speedy. Correct before, and the form given would need an apostrophe." by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs). No need for apostrophe and equipment does not need a capital e. See for example Category:British Army equipment. Tim! (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator. If you're going to quote other editors, please quote the whole lot. (See Talk:) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to prevent this to be a variation on weapon by users/peformer by performance type category, one should seriously consider purging Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife which apparently is neither original to the British Commandos nor unique to them. Using similar loose criteria, one could add in helmets, toothbrushes, uniforms, underwear, and such like all of which are neither original to the British Commandos nor unique to them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All four of the items listed, including the F-S, are unique to the Commandos (in this period at least). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on the F-S says otherwise, so either fix it or find a source. From our article: "Large numbers of Fairbairn Sykes knives of varying types, including some with wooden grips, were used by the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division that landed on Juno Beach on "D" Day and by the men of the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion who jumped and fought on the same day. These knives turn up regularly in Canada to this day" Canadian infantry divisions are not British Commandos. So either our article is outrageously false or your statement is. Until cleared up, I'll rely on the article since many more eyes have seen it than your comment. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom or delete/listify as we don't normally categorize mass-produced items by their users (even where, e.g. for some military aircraft, there's only one user), but instead categorize by country of origin - e.g. Category:World War II infantry weapons of the United Kingdom (these 4 articles should be in that category tree). DexDor (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC) If not deleted then rename per nom. DexDor (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merging them into that cat would be misleading (they should remain here, as a sub-cat) because it would imply that this specialised equipment was used by other arms of service, when it was not. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(As you should well know by know) that's not how categories work - what makes you think that being in a of-the-UK category implies that it was used by more than one branch? More significantly, (as I've already mentioned) we categorise mass-produced items by their origin, not by their usage. E.g. BAC Strikemaster is in Category:British attack aircraft 1960–1969 which does not imply it was used by every branch of the the British armed forces (in fact it was used by none of them). DexDor (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Instead of" implies that you wish to remove this category and replace it by another. Not merely supplement the categorization by an additional one.
As to the value of this category, it is because it identifies a small set of items that were specifically used by Commandos, not other groups. That is a noteworthy set, it justifies itself (the eternal list vs cat argument is separate). An iconic, literally, weapon of the Commandos was the Thompson submachine gun - it is the centre of their badge. Yet it's not listed here, because it was also used by other arms and so does not have the same specific connection. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "Instead of". This may be a "noteworthy set" (whatever you mean by that), but that doesn't mean equipment-used-only-by-<organisation> is a good way to categorize; one problem with such a scheme is that the inclusion criteria are not a permanent characteristic. DexDor (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete -- Most of the items listed were not specifically for Royal Marine Commando units. Some had characteristics making them particularly suitable for that, but they were also used in other non-conventional modes of warfare. Landing ships were also used to land army infantry in amphibious landings; etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Most of the items listed were not specifically for Royal Marine Commando units."
Such as? This category, as currently populated, is going to run foul of SMALLCAT for only including equipment that was specific to the Commandos before it overlaps with non-Commando units. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The F-S knife as demonstrated above: the onus is on you to provide a reliable source that these items are UNIQUE to the units. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 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:Olympique Club de Khouribga players[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: speedy keep as no rationale provided and withdrawn by nominator. ~ Rob13Talk 16:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Laxnesh LOKEN (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - no deletion rationale provided by @Laxnesh LOKEN:; this is a category for past/present players of a professional football/soccer club which has 34 entries, clearly notable and worthwhile. GiantSnowman 20:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As given information by Snowman it is decided to be Kept.--Laxnesh LOKEN (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The article Olympique Club de Khouribga does not fill me with confidence that this is a notable club; it does not appear to have been updated since 2014. Nevertheless, if anything is to be deleted, we need to start by questioning whether the club is notable; and if so, how much needs to be built around it. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: - it is a professional club which plays in the top division of Moroccan football. Just because it is out-of-date does not mean it is non-notable. If you disagree feel free to raise at WP:AFD where I spy a snow keep. GiantSnowman 07:05, 7 July 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:Airports in the Paris region[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 as proposed. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: … thereby bringing the category into line with its parent Category:Transport in Île-de-France and all other by-region subcategories in Category:Airports in France.
This would exclude Beauvais–Tillé Airport, which is marketed as "Paris-Beauvais Airport" though not located within the Paris Metropolitan Area or the Île-de-France. Same holds for Châlons Vatry Airport, which is currently not listed in Category:Airports in the Paris region) though being marketed as "Paris Vatry (Disney) airport", while being approximately as far from Paris as Frankfurt–Hahn Airport is from Frankfurt. For European standards, these are no longer metropolitan airports. While they certainly serve passengers from and to various regions including Île-de-France, we don't categorize our articles according to Ryanair's marketing strategies. On which basis would we otherwise exclude other somewhat closer airports such as Troyes – Barberey, which happens not to be marketed by Ryanair? --PanchoS (talk) 18:46, 30 June 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:Rivers of Slovenia by city[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, no other country has such a category - even the US and the UK, which would be the most likely to; nor is such a category needed for Slovenia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:19, 30 June 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:Christmas albums by genre[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Albums under this scheme will already be categorized as Christmas and an appropriate genre without this intersection. Take for example, Harry for the Holidays by Harry Connick Jr., which is already in the categories Category:2003 Christmas albums and Category:Christmas albums by American artists while parent Category:Harry Connick Jr. albums is a child category to genre categories Category:Jazz albums by American artists, Category:Vocal jazz albums. This simply adds another category which basically repeats existing album info and doesn't simplify or improve upon the current categorization schemes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose At a minimum these would have to be upmerged higher on the genre categories, for example Category:Country Christmas albums, all 47, may already be in Christmas albums by nationality, but they will have to go higher up the country music genre tree, where I am not sure. THese categories have a clear centralized meaning, and allow for easy finding of such things. Also considering Christmas albums by American artists alone has over 600 articles, and there are nearly 1000 total articles on Christmas albums, assuming that all that are actually such are somewhere in the by nationality category tree, this seems like a reasonable additional way to categorize Christmas albums. Plus unlike articles on people, albums have a generally limited number of traits, and so do not tend to get overcategorized as much. Plus, as it stands this would just in most cases move categorization to a different category and make the group harder to identify as a coherent group. I actually think we need to create Category:Rap Christmas albums if such exist, and also wonder if Category:Religious Christmas albums, or Category:Gospel Christmas albums or things along those lines might be worth having as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons listed by Johnpacklambert. No opposition to create further subcategories, if they can be populated. Note however that we do not really have a category tree "Rap" for this genre. The main category for the genre is Category:Hip hop. Dimadick (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't know if I get a vote, since I'm the one who created the categories in the first place, but I think Johnpacklambert understands what I'm trying to do with them.
I do take Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars point that an album such as Harry for the Holidays is already in both Jazz and Christmas subcategories, but by that argument, you should also delete Category:Christmas albums by American artists, since Category:Harry Connick Jr. albums is a subcategory of Category:Jazz albums by American artists. (I didn't create Category:Christmas albums by American artists, which has been around for about 6 years, but I did help populate it, as well as creating equivalent categories for other nationalities, as necessary.)
I think Christmas music is different from other types of music in that very few musicians produce only Christmas music, but many prolific musicians have produced at least one Christmas album. This means that Christmas music crosses boundaries between genres and performers in unusual ways, and I wanted to bring together some of those categories.
I've tried to create only categories with at least a half dozen or so members. (Category:A cappella Christmas albums currently has only two members because I hadn't yet finished populating it, but I'll hold off on that until this discussion is resolved.) I've also tried to add the categories only to albums that are solidly within the named genre since musical genre can be a slippery thing. Katya (talk) 20:55, 3 July 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:Lists of Hong Kong politicians[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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 10:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the listing is misleading, it should contain all categories and articles under Category:Hong Kong politicians, but it does not... UU (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the nominator misunderstood the purpose of "Lists of…" categories. UU removed Category:Lists of political office-holders in Hong Kong from the nominated category twice, so further content may have been incorrectly purged from the category out of process. Anyway, the assumption is wrong, and the nomination invalid. --PanchoS (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PanchoS. @UU: please see WP:CLT to understand the differences between categories and lists (and, for that matter, templates). This category only contains pages that are lists, and forms part of the international hierarchy Category:Lists of politicians by nationality. – Fayenatic London 17:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per opposers. The nom is wrong. Oculi (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close The nominator seems to have made a good faith mistake in what the intent of the category is. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Panchos and FL. The nom misunderstands the diff between a category and a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a pointless dead-end category -- The sole content of this is Category:Lists of political office-holders in Hong Kong, which is well-categorised without this. This category has no international parent. If this had some siblings, I might have voted otherwise. Yes the nom has misunderstood the category system, but that does not make this useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 3 July 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:Grand Est[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: Renamed. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming to the region's new, permanent name, precedent being a March CfD and its April followup that renamed Category:Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie to Category:Hauts-de-France.
While the French Conseil d'État will have a final say in November, following public consultation and an early, unanimous decision of the Regional Council, this is expected to be a mere rubber-stamp act. The new name has already been widely adopted by the media, quickly superseding the merged region's temporary name "Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine‎". While the region itself didn't do much to promote the new name, it anyway already constitutes the region's new WP:COMMONNAME (see for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). A possibly divergent WP:COMMONNAME specifically in English-language sources isn't likely to be established soon, as the French regions don't receive much international coverage. --PanchoS (talk) 15:43, 30 June 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:Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes[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 all. ~ Rob13Talk 16:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming to the region's new, permanent name, precedent being a March CfD and its April followup that renamed Category:Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie to Category:Hauts-de-France.
While the French Conseil d'État will have a final say in November, following an uncontested and almost unanimous decision in the Regional Council, this is expected to be a mere rubber-stamp act. The new name has already been widely proclaimed in the media, quickly superseding the merged region's temporary name "Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes". The name has also been actively promoted by the region, being featured in the region's new logo and press releases. And all in all, it already constitutes the region's new WP:COMMONNAME. A possibly divergent WP:COMMONNAME specifically in English-language sources isn't likely to be established soon, as the French regions don't receive much international coverage. --PanchoS (talk) 14:10, 30 June 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:Populated places in Centre (French region)[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: per Category:Centre-Val de Loire and main article Centre-Val de Loire. --PanchoS (talk) 12:39, 30 June 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:Buildings and structures in Franche-Comté by department[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. ~ Rob13Talk 17:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: redundant to Category:Buildings and structures in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté by department. May however be merged up to Category:Buildings and structures in Franche-Comté, where the two other departments of the former region are already listed. PanchoS (talk) 12:23, 30 June 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:Buildings and structures in Picardy by department[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. ~ Rob13Talk 17:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In a followup to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 28#Hauts-de-France we should rename this category accordingly, to allow inclusion of the other two department categories, Category:Buildings and structures in Nord (French department) and Category:Buildings and structures in Pas-de-Calais. PanchoS (talk) 12:13, 30 June 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.

Body identifications by year[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. ~ Rob13Talk 17:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is body identifications by year a useful categorization? It feels like a very strange WP:NARROWCAT approaching a trivial intersection of two categories. This is the not the year of death nor the year of the murders (which are the same) nor the year the body was found but what seems like the trivial year that the body was identified with a name. Murder of Tammy Vincent for example, a 1979 disappearance, would belong under Category:2000s body identifications as only the 2010s categories seem to be going by individual year. Category:1980s body identifications is nothing but redirects. For Gary_Ridgway#Confirmed, the sourcing indicating when the persons disappeared and were found but not the exact date when the body was identified and persons 47-49 remain unidentified and if identified in say 20 years, would then be in a 2030s body identification category. It seems irrelevant and trivial. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to list To me, this an interesting aspect of law enforcement, but the category structure does not make it easy to navigate. As a UK resident how do the World War I casualties fit into this. Every year more bodies are recovered and with advances in DNA more are being identified (approx 100 years after their deaths). Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How far back does this go? It's not even clear it's limited to murder victims but assuming that, if you died and were immediately identified, it would be the same year. Martha Tabram would go to Category:1880s body identifications or whenever her husband formerly identified her and we do have Category:Biblical murder victims which would make this ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that it is clearly limited to unidentified bodies, so Martha Tabram would be excluded. My wording was not of the best. The category is not restricted to murder victims but to those bodies where it is the law enforcement organisations that have the problem of identifying them e.g. it includes Road Traffic casualties, hikers, suicides etc. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the year of identification is incidental, not defining. Further, many of the contained articles are redirects, some of which should not be categorised at all. Eg Lisa Nichols seems to me a usefully categorised redirect, whereas Edna Posey is not as there is no section of the article devoted to her. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Oculi. Presumably nearly all dead people are also identified in the year they died and for some POV reason are not added to these categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So Richard III of England would have death categories from both 1485 and 2013? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possibly listify). Most of these seem to relate to murders and the belated identification of victims. This does not seem a useful tree to me. The fact that so many articles have become redirects strenghtns my view. I not that the parent is "formerly unidentified decedents". Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is another reason for several of these redirects. I did a search of these categories and followed several of the redirects to their destinations. The name of the victim often actually redirects to the article on the murderer, the article on a series of murders where this victim is just one of many, or to the article of a television series or other non-fiction work which covers this murder in more detail. This might be rather confusing for anyone searching for information on the victims themselves. Dimadick (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created List of formerly unidentified decedents and will fill it in over the next few days. I can now go along with delete. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:32, 5 July 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:Removed from Sentry Risk Table[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: move (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarification is required. This category was tagged by an anon editor but not listed for discussion until now. An alternative would be "Near-earth objects removed from the Sentry Risk Table". – Fayenatic London 06:33, 30 June 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:Military organizations by year of establishment[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. There are many different suggestions here, and none of them currently have consensus. Editors persuasively argued that a straight merge would result in organizations which are not "units and formations" being placed in those categories. Editors supporting a merge conceded that such organizations exist but argued they have usually been categorized under "units and formations", but this sounds more like an argument for creating "organizations" categories and populating them/purging "units and formations" rather than an argument for merging. Previous factual errors are not a strong argument for introducing additional factual errors. As for a reverse merge, a reverse merge of the sub-categories would involve removing a select few years from the "units and formations" category tree. This option wasn't fully discussed, and it would probably require a nomination of the whole category tree. I encourage editors to create a follow-up nomination on the general structure of this category tree. ~ Rob13Talk 17:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Military units and formations already covers this. The cat as is only covers a handful of groups founded during World War II Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Child categories have been added to the nomination in order to discuss them in conjunction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose, a military organization is not the same as a military unit or formation. Permanent Joint Board on Defense, for instance which is currently categorized under Category:Military organizations established in 1940 is a military organization and the 11th Infantry Regiment (United States) is a military unit. Merging them would be an encyclopedic mistake in my opinion. Brandmeistertalk 12:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are many types of military organization which are not units or formations, for examples Ministries of Defence. Tim! (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in Concept/Maybe Reverse Merge? I don't think we should split these years of establishment categories too narrowly since it will lead to whole underpopulated categories; at the same time I don't want inaccurate categories. Would a reverse merge accomplish both? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, then purge - We should not allow the occasional exception to mess up a well-established scheme. The "organisations" contains a few outliers, such as Permanent Joint Board on Defense]]n but that is either an international organisation on defence (and not properly in the tree), or a joint formation between US and Canadian generals. Two or three of the "organizations" were in fact military bases, which belong in a separate tree. The Canadian Air Force overseas was surely a formation, since it was concerned with administering the Canadian Air Force deployment in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 3 July 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:Stones Corner, Queensland[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 to Category:Greenslopes, Queensland. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm unclear on why we would need a category for this intersection of two roads and the area around it. It contains only the main article Stones Corner, Queensland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 30 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_30&oldid=1074816847"