< July 2	July 4 >

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This small two article category with limited prospects for expansion. In fact there is a current suggestion to merge the two articles contained here. Articles have ample parent categories already. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Peak fuels, as proposed for Category:Peak coal, below. Even assuming both of the articles currently in it are retained, that's still not enough to justify a category. Cgingold (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Uranium is being mined and used primarily as a fuel for reactors and so can be accommodated here quite nicely, I think. I've read some alarmist articles suggesting the world is headed towards peaks in a wide range of other elements. If that's the case and we get a Peak metals category in the future, we can reexamine it then, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2010 (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete and up merge Peak coal to Category:Peak fuels. Looks like another OCAT category. I think only one of the members here even belongs in the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I just proposed merging the stub article Coal depletion into Peak coal, so there's even less reason to keep this category. Cgingold (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2010 (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: rename all. Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Category:Highland constituencies, UK Parliament, 1975 to 1983 to Category:Highland constituencies, UK Parliament (historic)
Category:Highland constituencies, UK Parliament, 1983 to 1997 to Category:Highland constituencies, UK Parliament (historic)
Category:Highland constituencies, UK Parliament, 1997 to 2005 to Category:Highland constituencies, UK Parliament (historic)
Category:Highland constituencies, UK Parliament, current to Category:Highland constituencies, UK Parliament

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OC#SMALL. These for categories contain them only 14 articles, and they are fully populated. It will be quite sufficient to merge them all to the parent Category:Highland constituencies, UK Parliament.
The convention of Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies is to divide the regional sub-categories into current and historic constituencies, but no other area is sub-divided by more fine-grained chronological groupings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but the target for the first three should be Category:Highland constituencies, UK Parliament (historic), in repect of any constituencies abolished on reorganisation. Categories for the counties that preceded the creation of prestn Scottish Local Government structure shoukld be made subcats of this. This is similar to the way in which obsolete constituencies are categorised in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge target amended for the first three, as suggested, per English categ structure. There are no similar categories for the previous counties in the Scottish Highlands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The abolition of Scottish local government counties in 1975 does make things tricky (but constituencies created in 1975 were based on county boundaries, in a review prior to 1975)
(Also, there was another break in 1996, when some regions were abolished in favour of smaller unitary areas)
Seems to me now, ideally, constituencies created before1983 would not be linked to regional names
Laurel Bush (talk)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete.. Not likely to get populated. Has very low traffic at present. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I can see this being populated, with Warsaw-block and USSR related articles, what with Russian-language biases, historically biased views based on Cold War outlooks, etc. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category was only recently created, and in time it is likely to be populated with articles. It should also be noted that this is a hidden category and is used for project maintenance. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete.. Not likely to get populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the maintenance templates generated this as a red link. The category will still work without being created, of course. - Gyrofrog (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete.. Not likely to get populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: which article will use this category other than what is already in a "Eritrea" category?

See 'Ethiopia-centric' above. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2010 (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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 13#Category:Contingencies funds. — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After removing a few articles that simply mentioned a contingency fund, this seems to meet the requirement for OCAT. In the whole, I'm not convinced that we are going to find many articles specifically on contingency funds. If kept, rename to Category:Contingency funds. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2010 (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: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rykodisc Records artists to Category:Rykodisc artists

Nominator's rationale: per Rykodisc/Rykodisc Records. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as per nom. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The main article was proposed for merging to the main hybrid article. After look at the unreferenced article, I redirected it to the main one which actually has references in the appropriate section. This leaves us with two entries probably better classified in the main hybrid vehicle categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The iCalendar article on this file format provides adequate navigation to the products that support this format. If kept, it should be renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another example of Nopetro using categories as a kind of 'what links here' function. The parent article states that "iCalendar is used and supported by a large number of products, including Google Calendar and partially also by Microsoft Outlook." I don't believe this makes it a defining characteristic of Google Calendar and I'm sure it's not defining for Microsoft Outlook, of all things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After removing an entry that simply used the word Autostereoscopy in the text, we have a single entry category. In the future, this category may well be useful, but that is not today. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, until such time as we have sufficient articles, if ever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Rather ambiguous category when we have many specific and well used categories that the members here are already included in. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Nopetro created this as a parent category of the pre-existing Category:Mortgage-backed security. What should we do with this sub-cat? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it in Category:Derivatives? Vegaswikian (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Mortgage-related securities and Category:Mortgage-backed security aren't the same in your view, then? The latter isn't equally deserving of deletion? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Different questions. Related is always problematic in a category name. I could also argue that this category is open ended as a result. Since a security includes fungible assets, this category by extension could contain crude oil and cash, if their possession or pledge could be used to fund a mortgage or be related to the process of generating a mortgage. Yes a stretch, but allowed by the name. For me, Category:Mortgage-backed security is rather clear in that it is any kind of security, that is basically composed of numerous mortgages. In other words, mortgage-backed. 18:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2010 (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, with User:Black Falcon entrusted with the follow-through.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Image-Class articles to Category:File-Class articles

Nominator's rationale: The Image: namespace was renamed to File: more than a year ago, and it is only natural that this namespace-based assessment be updated (also, these categories may contain multiple types of media and are not limited to images only, so 'File-Class' is more encompassing and more accurate). If there is consensus in this discussion to merge, then I will write a follow-up speedy renaming nomination for the 712 subcategories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't File class be split into Image, Sound, Video, etc? (Perhaps this should be a proposal at Village Pump / WikiProject Council ... for additional classes) 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of that idea at a more general venue might be useful, but I don't think there is a need for such splitting (at least in the context of general project assessments). A WikiProject dedicated to improving, finding, or creating images, sounds and/or videos may find it useful to tag only certain types of files, but I don't think general projects would have a need to do this. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I should point out my nomination of this same category in the past. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking to the previous discussion. It seems that there was general support for the nomination, but moderated by three concerns: unforseen factors (BrownHairedGirl); flexibility for WikiProjects (Martin, Optigan13); and proper follow-through (Happy-melon, Martin, Optigan13). I think it would be worthwhile (for the benefit of the closer and anyone else who participates) to re-address each concern in light of the discussion at the previous CfD:

To the best of my knowledge, the Image-Class categories are not functionally different than the File-Class categories (there may or may not be one or two exceptions). The comments in the 23 February discussion appear to reinforce this belief, as does the lack of objections at the discussion which you initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council.

Any WikiProject which wishes to separate categorization of images and other files can do so by one of several means: creating Image-Class as a subcategory of File-Class; using unique sort keys for certain types of files so that they are grouped together at the beginning or end of a general category for files; or creating specialized, project-specific categories such as Category:WikiProject Foo sounds or Category:Foo audio files.

If there is consensus to change Image-Class to File-Class, I think proper follow-through will involve three steps: speedy renaming the subcategories (Cydebot will create the categories and a change to ((WPBannerMeta)) will take care of the rest); updating incoming links to avoid disruption to WikiProjects; and handling any exceptions that come to light. I am prepared to implement each step; as you did, I nominated only the parent category so that I wouldn't needlessly tag 700+ categories only to discover that there is no consensus for the change. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and the previous discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2010 (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: rename. Courcelles (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soundtrack compilations to Category:Soundtrack compilation albums

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:Compilation albums —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The problem with the suggested name is that this category is for compilations of soundtrack music but there are also compilations of pre-existing music used for soundtracks, so it is important that the name reflects this difference. The suggested name would include both these types so is not suitable for this category. Cjc13 (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. These are all albums, and the distinction Cjc13 brings up doesn't seem significant enough to avoid the rename, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2010 (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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 13#Category:Thiomorpholines. — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Thiomorpholines to all parents

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small categroy at this time with one entry besides the main article. Recreate if needed in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2010 (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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Thioethers to all parents

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Excluding the main article, this becomes a single entry category. Upmerge until needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Cannot understand the rationale. The category contains 107 articles and two sub categories. How are they to be upmerged? The individual articles do not belong directly in Category:Ethers, as, strictly speaking, they are not ethers. Category:Thioethers should be removed from Category:Sulfides, as, unless I am mistaken, all thioesthers are Organo, and sulfides are taken to be sulfur molecules (salts?) that are not organic. Category:Thioethers should not be upmerged to Category:Organosulfur compounds as it is an excellent subcategory, the number of types of Organosulfur compounds is so large that it should be broken into subcategories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2010 (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: rename to Category:Albums by artists from Northern Ireland. Courcelles (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Albums from Northern Ireland to Category:Albums by Northern Irish artists

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_15#Albums_by_artist and the subcats. of Category:Albums by artist nationality. Alternately, rename Albums by artists from Northern Ireland if "Northern Irish" is out of vogue. Either way, it is the artist nationality, not the market in the which the album is sold that is relevant here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See Category:People from Northern Ireland and its many sub-cats, all of which use the format "from Northern Ireland", to bypass the sensitivities surrounding the use of "Northern Irish" (see Northern Ireland#Citizenship_and_identity). Suggest some formulation along the lines of "Albums by artists from Northern Ireland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Albums by artists from Northern Ireland, as suggested by both the nominator and BHG. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 7 July 2010 (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: closed without action, category not tagged. If the user wants to renominate, he or she must tag the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The overwhelming majority of military units of the United States Marine Corps in Wikipedia are listed at the battalion level & above. FieldMarine (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this would leave its subcat Category:Reconnaissance companies of the United States Marine Corps deficient in parents. There is also Category:Company sized units of the United States which has other material. The category is not tagged. Occuli (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above mentioned subcat is recommended for deletion based on its limited scope (see below discussion). There are better parent categories for the few articles in the subcat. FieldMarine (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per section below. Sadads (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this category is already populated with ten articles, doesn't make sense to get rid of it. Sadads (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2010 (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: closed without action, category not tagged. If the user wants to renominate, he or she must tag the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rational: Delete. There are only a total of five Force Recon Companies in the United States Marine Corps & I doubt this category will grow. Better category would be the upper level Category:United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance. FieldMarine (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Occuli, this nomimation should be for upmerge to Category:United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance, instead of delete. FieldMarine (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nom needs to be an upmerge to various things, not a 'delete'. The category is not tagged. Besides, to categorise 1st Force Reconnaissance Company under Category:Reconnaissance companies of the United States Marine Corps seems intuitively correct. Occuli (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep five is enough population to keep it and it allows the hierarchy from Category:Company sized units of the United States, (See tree below) Category:Military units and formations of the United States Marine Corps by size and Category:United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance without a whole lot of extra categories at the bottom of each page. I have been doing this on the Army Hierarchy as well and it has been pretty successful, allowing me to classify units by size and type and link up to the higher hierarchies in Category:Military units and formations of the United States with a singular category instead of 2, 3 or more. (see second and third tree)- this effects mostly the by size and by type categories. The logic is more focused on the Military Units and formations logic, not the other categories. Sadads (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Company sized units of the United States

Companies of the United States Army

Companies of the United States Marine Corps

Military units and formations of the United States Army

Lists of United States Army units and formations

Military units and formations of the United States Army by size

Departments and districts of the United States Army

Military units and formations of the United States Army by type

Military units and formations of the United States Army by war

Military units and formations of the United States Army National Guard

Military police of the United States Army

Military units and formations of the United States Army Reserve

Military units of the United States Army in South Korea

United States Army schools

Comment As mentioned in discussion above, articles in Wikipedia on specific units of the United States Marine Corps are at the battalion level or higher, except for rare cases like the five force recon companies. Thus, it is unlikely that this category will be populated. FieldMarine (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we anticipate growth immediately, its important that the company sized units of the Marine corps are accessible from the Company sized units of the United States category. And if we can further refine the company sized units into their funciton, that makes less categories on pages themselves. Upmerging doubles or triples the number of categories on each page, if their is a sizable group of articles which have multiple of the same categories new categories which combine the traits is appropriate. Sadads (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I fail to see a need for this category, unless we intend to categorize everything that contains said product. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If successful, I believe there's other chemical compound categories by Nopetro we may wish to delete. Let's see.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean I stumbled into that pit? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been making good progress in that pit, my friend. There's just a couple of photovoltaic-related minerals cat (because every component in a solar cell needs its own category, apparently) that I'll nominate when this closes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nopetro strikes again. Occuli (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough members. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- too small to be worthwhile. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Geothermal energy is an adequate category for the only article in this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Another Nopetro renewable energy micro cat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2010 (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: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical revisionism (political) to Category:Historical revisionism (negationism)

Nominator's rationale: to match name of main article. Prezbo (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Contents need a cleanup: Japanese war crimes or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Category:Priory of Sion hoax don't belong here at all. Mein Kampf is a far but possible stretch as political but it's not negationism. BTW, what's wrong with "denial" that caused this awkward "negationism"? East of Borschov (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 05:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom to match main article. Common vocabulary can be expanded to encompass negationism. Hmains (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Another essentially empty category by banned sock Nopetro, the catmore tag on this eponymous category helpfully informs us that the main article is MOVELE. Except it isn't: it's merely a redirect to a Spanish public organization Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía that has only an external Spanish-language link to something about a MOVELE pilot project at bottom. Nopetro added a See also link to the redirect in a bio article on Spain's Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. One of the other articles categorized here is the country's telecommunications provider. It's just another example of Nopetro misusing categories to promote his pet agendas. Delete and good riddance. BTW, MOVELE is revealed by Google to be a Spanish plan to get more electric cars on the road. If we ever have enough actual honest-to-god articles about the proposed thing, of course we should have a category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, who puts it well. Nopetro had a habit of making categories like this—essentially attempts to promote stuff he was interested in. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete all. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This collection of subcategories tend towards WP:SMALLCAT and broaching tenuios linkages. While the patent category, Category:Star Trek films, is a resonable split of its parent, these attempt to collect the the film with:

Spin-off merchandise;
"Important" characters;
"Important" props; and
"Important" precursur topics or show episodes.

J Greb (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yeah, this is overkill. I see the article on the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) has to now be in four of these splinter categories. Ships, props, characters and such recur through many of these movies and I don't see any use for this kind of overcategorization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. Way overkill. Acts more as an impediment to category navigation than a help. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 7 July 2010 (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.

July 3

Category:Peak uranium

Category:Peak coal

Highland constituencies, UK Parliament

Category:Russia-centric

Category:Ethiopia-centric

Category:Eritrea-centric

Category:Contingencies funds

Category:Rykodisc Records artists

Category:Range-extended vehicles

Category:iCalendar

Category:Autostereoscopy

Category:Mortgage-related securities

Category:Image-Class articles

Category:Soundtrack compilations

Category:Thiomorpholines

Category:Thioethers

Category:Albums from Northern Ireland

Category:Companies of the United States Marine Corps

Category:Reconnaissance companies of the United States Marine Corps

Category:Cobalt sulfide

Category:Geothermal pumps

Category:Historical revisionism (political)

Category:MOVELE

Subcategories of Category:Star Trek films