< November 30	December 2 >

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. Jafeluv (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a "current vs. past" category of the type that we generally do not favour. Also, we tend to categorize things based on what they are, not on what they lack but used to have. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to equivalent current category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only is it past/present, but also nebulously defined - what is "commercial airline service"? Scheduled? Unscheduled? Charter? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing defining about this, nearly every airport in the world has a discontinued commercial airline service. Flights stop and start all the time. MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Idea involved with airport that got dumped everything commercial passenger service. --B767-500 (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible overcategorization.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify this is list material, not category material. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - I agree with above editor that format is best for the lists! --B767-500 (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely defined and redundant in nature. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 06:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only three airports in it anyway; when in reality there are probably much more. A seemingly useless category. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague and somewhat useless category that is nearly impossible to adequately fill, and serves no solid academic purpose. nf utvol (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would estimate the number of airports which no longer have scheduled passenger commercial service to number in the hundreds in the United States alone. Cities grow and shrink, relegating old airports to reliever status or general use as new facilities are built or losing service as airlines retrench; travel patterns change; airlines will add express services to take advantage of heavy short-term subsidies, like United at PMD, or as marketing stunts, like Delta's ATL-ILM service; any airport which had enjoyed the custom of a 1980s flash-in-the-pan startup airline or a 1960s Department of Defense supply contract would be included here. This falls into the realm of "interesting," since lazy journalists use the availability of scheduled passenger commercial service as a proxy for judging the economic or demographic health of a region or of the airline industry itself, but even then only if constrained and explained: airports that have lost service since jet travel, since deregulation, since the 1990 Persian Gulf crisis, since September 11, and so on. That in turn is too arbitrary for WP categorization.- choster (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More informations[edit]

This is source of idea: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9R7U73O0.htm
This example of 'listify' format: User:B767-500/List of airports with discontinued airline service

Listifying this would require it being broken down by state/country - and would quickly have the list as being indistinguishible from List of airports in Foo, since a very large number of airports used to have service. This is a completely non-defining and indiscriminate criterion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will volunteering to do state/country section heading title. I will be very good volunteer. Can you accept my volunteerings? --B767-500 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it's not necessary - as noted, it would be utterly indistingushible from each location's "Airports in" section. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 10 December 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Gates in Montreal to Category:Gates in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. While part of what is now Old Montreal was walled in the past, I don't believe the city has enough historic or notable "gates" that would necessitate a category in Category:Gates by city. There is only one article here now, for McGill's Roddick Gates. The other is a redirect to a decorative arch recently added to Montreal's Chinatown, which is not really a Gate at all, according the parent article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom, unless more articles can be found. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This set of 70 "articles" is entirely made up of redirects from the same article, List of The Batman characters. So it does the same job as the list, yet in a much less informative way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This set of 17 "articles" is entirely made up of redirects from the same articles, List of Batman television series characters and List of Batman enemies in other media. So it does the same job as the lists, yet in a much less informative way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both -- Categories are intended to be navigation tools. I expect these were created when every character had an article. HOwever these have rightly been merged into a single tabular article. CAtegories consisting entirely of redirects serve no useful purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no longer useful as member articles are now redirects.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:05, 3 December 2011 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Non encyclopaedic cat that is essentially WP:POV. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked a few random pages, and in only one of them was there a claim in the article that the subject had a raspy voice, and even then it wasn't cited. I had thought that this could be restricted to where it is reliably sourced, but that doesn't look like it would happen very often. St Anselm (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It is either POV or will vary from day to day according to the singer's health. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not at all like the other subcategories of Category:Singers by voice type. You can't say someone is a "raspy-voiced" singer in the same way you can say someone is a baritone. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what's next, Category:Movie actors who sound like Clint Eastwood? The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and StAnselm's research.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – ridiculously subjective. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – non-encyclopedic. How about a category freckled hand models? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same experience as StAnselm. Feels like WP:OR expanded into some sort of cat. It doesn't even make sense for some of the artists to whom it was applied. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2011 (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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 22. Jafeluv (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I doubt that this category is helpful in collaberation for creating an encyclopedia, except possibly as original research. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category has as much potential to help as any other category in Category:Wikipedians by profession. I don't see a reason for singling it out. - Eureka Lott 00:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the nom's argument could likely be used for each of those categories, unless someone in one of said professions would be sought out by the foundation for assistance, which would be limited to very few (computer programmers and the like, perhaps?). Actors certainly wouldn't be sought out unless they were planning on making a tv commercial for Wikipedia. That being said, I'll wait for a few more comments to see if anyone can think of how this (and other profession categories) could benefit the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I believe that it applies to most of them. The problem is, that if I were to naominate all of them, we would end up with a trainwreck - as certain categories here are arguably relevant - for example, users in Category:Wikipedian chemists are likely to have enough of an understanding in the reliable sources about chemistry to help source articles about that topic. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately by nominating individual ones you get comments like below where people say you should treat all these equally. I think the best approach, perhaps, is to start that trainwreck after all. Perhaps if you nominated the entire category, and only nominated it for discussion without a proposal to actually do anything, it might soften the blow and we can discuss the merits of such users vs. our policies against original research and such. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a case where WP:OTHERSTUFF applies, I think, as including some professions and excluding others would be WP:POV... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 4 December 2011 (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 to Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield. Jafeluv (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Rivers or streams by battlefield" seems an odd combination, and it's probably not one that we should begin to develop. Geographical features are generally categorized by what geographical or political entity it is located in. I don't think we need to go further than that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield or (dependent on outcome of this CFD) to Category:Gettysburg Battlefield. A stream amy not stricly be a "place", but it is near enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Gettysburg Battlefield is currently a redirect, so nothing can or should be merged to it (which, I guess, is why you said that suggestion was dependent on the outcome of the other discussion). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield. Even though my Grandfather who was a Civil War historian, died before Wikipedia was created, I have not doubt he would think a category about Battlefield streams was absurdly specific. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2011 (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: Upmerge. Jafeluv (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Skirmishes in the American Civil War to Category:Battles of the American Civil War

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. The distinction between a "battle" and a "skirmish" is always going to be a bit fuzzy, which is why we don't have a category tree for Category:Skirmishes—we just categorize all such engagements as "battles". I suggest upmerging this into the parent category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. St Anselm (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2011 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Presenters of notable lecture series to Category:Presenters of lecture series

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Notable" is redundant here, since presumably Wikipedia would not have either a category or list article for presenters of a lecture series if the lecture series itself was not notable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. I guess I included the word "notable" when I set up the category so that just because John Smith delivered three special lectures on subject X he isn't included. St Anselm (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:25, 2 December 2011 (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. Consensus is against categorizing politicians by this particular political stance. Of course, the deletion of the category does not preclude creating a sourced list in an appropriate place (whether as a separate article or as a section in an existing article). Jafeluv (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization by political stance. Politicians have many political stances on various issues, and we can't categorize them all. It might be helpful to have a list article about this, but this category won't be much of a help in starting that, as currently [at the time of nomination] there are only three articles in the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Pledge and its signers are prominently featured in contemporary news coverage, and, probably, will be so featured in the history of our time. Only three articles were included at the time of nomination for deletion because complete listing of all congressmen and women is not complete at this time, see http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/091411-federalpledgesigners.pdf for a complete list of those who will eventually go into the category. The project also includes adding to the article on each of the signers this boilerplate, "[The congressperson] is a signer of [[Americans_for_Tax_Reform#Taxpayer_Protection_Pledge|Americans for Tax Reform]]’s [[Taxpayer Protection Pledge]].<ref name ="ATR">((cite web|title=The Taxpayer Protection Pledge Signers 112th Congressional List|url=http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/091411-federalpledgesigners.pdf|publisher=Americans for Tax Reform|accessdate=November 30, 2011))</ref>". User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing that the fact that a politician has signed the pledge is insignificant or not appropriate information to include in Wikipedia. I am arguing that including such information in a category is not appropriate for Wikipedia because it essentially represents a political position on a single issue, and there are many issues that politicians have positions on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It functions as an oath, that is its significance. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The citation of [[Wikipedia:OC#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue|overcategorization by political stance]] is misleading: here is what it reads:
      Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists).
    - Politicians are defined by their positions on important issues. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problems that further develop from what you have said are: (1) it is subjective to decide what is and what is not an "important" enough issue to justify categorization; (2) if we want to avoid (1) by just categorizing all political positions, we will have way too many categories. This is why, in the past, categories that group politicians for being "pro-life" or "pro-choice" have also been deleted. (3) Politicians are not quite like activists, because politicians almost always hold a wide range of positions on various issues. With activists, category-wise it is usually possible to narrow down the subject matter of their concern to one or two issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. There's an equally important group of people who swore not to increase the debt ceiling, for example. It's reasonable to include it in the article, but as a category it seems like overkill (and POV pushing). —Designate (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the category could be renamed to make it less POV, but it is as an oath to Grover Norquist that the public is aware of it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the name that makes it POV pushing; it's the category itself. It uses the category field as a WP:COATRACK to make people more aware of Norquist's pledge. The intent is clearly not categorization (which implies hierarchy and navigation); it's just a badge of shame to promote a Democratic talking point. —Designate (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signers count it a point of pride. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, some don't. Some probably regret signing it. But this discussion is kind of degenerating. I suggest we focus on the issue of whether the category should exist and why. If anyone counts signing as a point of pride, that is irrelevant to whether we should have a category for it or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. This being used purely as a political hammer for the 2012 election and has vitually no relevance outside of that. If it did it would have been a category long ago when it was first created. Arzel (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The oath has only recently become a prominent element in American politics. Bob Schieffer had Grover Norquist on Meet the Press recently. As to it being a hammer, signers seem to be proud of the action, and voters have a right to know. It is simply a fact; they signed it or did not; take it seriously or do not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. This could lead to an uncontrolled and unmanageable proliferation of categories as new ones are created for every vote, interest-group rating, or campaign stance that some editor regards as important. A list within the article about the pledge would proivde the information just as well as would the creation of a category. Ammodramus (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quantify this: I looked up Project Vote Smart's "key votes" for Senator Ben Nelson; they list 62 such votes in 2011. If we accept categorization by stance on the TPP, then presumably we should accept categorization on each of these 62 votes as well. Add interest-group ratings, which will probably double that number, and a few miscellaneous categories (such as the TPP); multiply by the number of years that a pol's been in office; and we could easily wind up with over a thousand such issue categories for every member of Congress. Ammodramus (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. This is indeed overcategorization by political stance and will clutter the category system in a meaningless way. There are literally hundreds of categories that could be added of this type. Better is for the article on the pledge to describe how many have signed it and the effect it has had on American politics. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically a performer by performance in the grandstand - we cannot categorize each politician by what bill they signed, what pledge they made, what campaign aide they romped with, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining, as it covers a majority of Republican candidates over the last decade, and the document itself isn't quite as defining as its counterparts in Category:Signatories by document.64.125.143.140 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Question While this does seem a bit partisain and political as a category, it could be useful as a list. The references I have seen for the pledge seem to re-direct to the Grover Norquist article. Is there already a list of people who have signed the pledge on Wikipedia? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that having a list could be a good idea. I'm not aware of any current list on WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shouldn't the list be a part of the Grover Norquist article, rather than a free-standing list article? Right now, the pledge is on everyone's mind, but with the passage of years it'll become more and more obscure, and a list with no context will only be meaningful to people who're very enthusiastic about American history. It should be in an article to give it some context, so it doesn't wind up being like "List of Senators who voted for the Fordney-McCumber Act". Ammodramus (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think if a list was completed it would quickly overwhelm Grover Norquist. In such a circumstance I think it would probably be OK to create Taxpayer Protection Pledge as a separate article. (Taxpayer Protection Pledge currently redirects to Americans for Tax Reform.) But I agree that we would not need just a list article of signatories separate from all else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support listifying at Taxpayer Protection Pledge, or somewhere suitable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' - this is important political issue and Grover Norquist is bozo (of mine own opinion) is ruin America and Republican politician which they cannot vote on same side as democrat, wants to collapsed of country. Even though I am foreigner, this pledge is very interesting because of pledge almost cause federal bankrupt and meltdown.— Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs)
Delete/listify This isn't defining. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 11 December 2011 (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: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject notability essays to Category:WikiProject notability guidelines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Project advice about notability is usually called a 'guideline'. Referring to them as 'essays' is confusing and contradictory to the normal English meaning of the word 'essay' which strongly implies a content written in prose "applying ordinary grammatical structure and natural flow of speech"(WP article). Klein zach 02:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. A Wikipedia Guideline is not the same thing as a Wikipedia Essay. "Essay" has a specific meaning in the Wikipedia context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia essays. Anyone can unilaterally write an essay. It takes some degree of consensus to form guidelines. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:POLICY -- not a guideline. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Historical United States Coast Guard weapons to Category:United States Coast Guard weapons

Nominator's rationale: As I understand it, "active/present/current" and "inactive/historical" type categories are discouraged, so this should be merged into the main category. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- WE do not like present and past categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rationale makes sense. New Hampshirite (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2011 (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.

December 1

Category:Airports with discontinued commercial airline service

More informations[edit]

Category:Gates in Montreal

Category:The Batman (TV series) characters

Category:Raspy-voiced singers

Category:Wikipedian actors

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield streams

Category:Skirmishes in the American Civil War

Category:Presenters of notable lecture series

Category:Signers of Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge"

Category:WikiProject notability essays

Category:Historical United States Coast Guard weapons