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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:People from Jupiter Island, Florida to Category:People from Martin County, Florida
• Nominator's rationale this was proposed before but in both discussing and closing the nominatoion the actual issues at hand were largely ignored. Jupiter Island is a place with 700 residents and there are only three articles in the category. The argument is that in general with places that have small population we do not seperately categorize people as from there, we do so based on the county. Unless people can demonstrate that there truly are more people from (not just maintaining part time residents) this place who are notable, it seems we should upmerge this as a small category. Since we have recently upmerged several other categories of a similar size in the same manner, I do not see any reason to keep this one, unless we can find more people actually from this place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, is a distinction being made for residents of Jupiter Island as opposed to those born there? Similar issues with 'Monaco'. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The distiction being made is those who are "from" there, as opposed to those who maintain a part time residence in the location. Where any of the people in question were actually born is not relevant to any discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another category which should be merged into this one, "people from Jupiter, Florida." When going through that category and adding a few - that's more then enough for a stand-alone category. Keep.
• Comment Jupiter, Florida is a distinct place from Jupiter Island. The two categories should not be merged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - some of the celebs who are notable as resident in the town would be diffused too far down the category tree if categorised by-county. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it now has seven, and anyway is part of Category:People by island in the United States. – Fayenatic London 19:35, 1 August 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Punitive expeditions and landings in Asia/Pacific (1800-1899) of the United States to Category:Military expeditions of the United States and Category:Punitive expeditions
• Category:Punitive expeditions and landings in Asia/Pacific (1800-1899) to Category:Punitive expeditions
• Category:Punitive expeditions and landings in the Atlantic/Mediterranean (1800-1899) to Category:Punitive expeditions

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. The combination of Atlantic and Mediterranean and the choice of years seem to be completely arbitrary, and not part of any series. Tim! (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Having found these two categories a little more sense emerges, but I think merging with the simpler military expeditions and military expeditions of the United States will suffice. Tim! (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge targets amended to Category:Punitive expeditions on 31 July 2012. Tim! (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Sensible and does the job - puts the expeditions in a broader category where more people will find them. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• do not merge This destroys the parent category structure and thus navigation from the Atlantic and Pacific ocean categories. And '19th century' would be better. Hmains (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  also a punitive expedition is a specific kind of expedition and merging them to expenditions in general does nothing to help the reader navigate. Now part of a category structure Category:Punitive expeditions Hmains (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Pretty weak argument when you say it destroys the parent category structure and then create the said parent. Why 1800-1899 rather than 19th century? I can agree to merge these categories to your new punitive expeditions though but see no need for the non-standard geographic and temporal divisions. Tim! (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I certainly did not destroy the parent category structure relating to Oceans, which is what I mentioned in my statement. And '19th century' would be better. Hmains (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge all to Category:Punitive expeditions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 31 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Roman era rhetoricians in Athens to Category:Roman-era Athenian rhetoricians

Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to completely overlap.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, merge. – Fayenatic London 19:22, 1 August 2012 (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: no consensus. Kbdank71 19:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Spies by nationality to Category:Spies by allegiance

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name of the category is ambiguous as it could refer to the country where the spies came from, rather than to the country they worked for. GCarty (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Indeed it could, and very often does - see the subcat names alone for Category:British spies. It is a mess, but on a quick look around it does seem more a "by nationality" category than a "by employer" one. I doubt "allegiance" is the right word for many of these people. Best left alone really. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• note: "Spies by allegiance" could be a rather tricky thing too. Will double-agents be double-categorized? --Lquilter (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nationality works here. In general people should be categorized by nationality at the time they were a spy. Thus if someone was born in Poland, emigrated to the US at age 5 and later became a spy, they should not be in the Polish spies category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would be better to have both categories. For example, it's interesting to see a list of English people who were spies, but it's also interesting to see a list of spies who worked for England. -NorsemanII (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The trouble is, the categories are currently explicitly defined by allegiance and not nationality. Therefore, on the assumption that the contents reflect the definitions, rename. – Fayenatic London 19:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per FL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 4 August 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Speedway riders by champion titles to Category:Speedway champions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Only champions are included in the subcategories, so the current title "Speedway riders by..." is not appropriate. It is also unnecessarily long. The target matches most others in Category:Sports champions by sport, but this nomination is not eligible for speedy renaming as I have only just set up that hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Always good to see a shorter and less ambiguous title. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2012 (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:Indian independence activists from Punjab (British India). Timrollpickering (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indian independence activists from Punjab (India) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Rename to 'Indian independence activists from Punjab'. No division of Punjab prior to Indian independence, thus there is no point in the '(India)' in brackets. Soman (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any significant Punjabi activists from the Pakistani side of partition? If so, you have to make it clear that you are referring to the former province of Punjab prior to partition. Also, this will need to be made clear in the category, as to exactly what comprises the Punjab (map, or link to eponymous article), which should also be in the category. If there are no Punjabi activists from the Pakistani side of the line than my vote will be for oppose. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The activists in question are those who advoacted for indepedence from Britain. They are not being divided on their position on the 1 state/2 state question, so that issue is not here. The main problem though is that these people are defined as from Punjab, which is at the time a unified state. If all of them were from one village in what is now India the name would still be false, because it implies that they are from an entity that they were not from. The entity they were from was the unified state of Punjab. Likewise we at least should call the category Category:Indian independence activists from Bengal anything else would be anachronistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As presently named, the Category should exclude anyone born on the Pakistani side of the line. Hence my question. Changing the name of the category would include these people. We have to have a precise definition of the geographic entity, if we are going to use it as a category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Checking through, the category has several from West Punjab, and should be renamed. Also, "Rajkumari Amrit Kaur" was born in United Provinces, educated in England and never actually lived in Punjab. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Indian independence activists from Punjab (British India). This is the territory that the Punjab encompassed prior to partition, and it is not very well represented by 'Punjab province' in India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_(British_India)
• Support category:Indian indepepdence activists from Punjab (British India). The fact that Delhi was in Punjab at the time shows that it is not just a question of partition between India and Pakistan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the first person in the category was born in Amritsar but educated in Lahore, so in his case at least he shows a unity of the pre-partition province.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Faculty by university in Thailand to Category:Academics by university in Thailand
• Category:Chulalongkorn University faculty to Category:Academics of Chulalongkorn University

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The US meaning of the word faculty is not generally used in Thailand. Per WP:COMMONALITY, academics should be preferred. 180.180.148.46 (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment a better argument is needed. Most of the by-country subcats within the Category:Academics by university are named 'faculty' while the by-continent subcats are named 'academics'. Not at all limited to the US here, even if the naming pattern makes no particular sense. Hmains (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why the original argument would be inadequate. The meaning of "faculty" as "teaching staff" is not likely to be understood by readers from Thailand, to whom these categories are most relevant. --101.109.218.176 (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC) (OP, on a dynamic IP)[reply]
    • ...although it should be born in mind that this is the English-language Wikipeida... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And while WP:ENGVAR gives no preference over any specific variety of English, it does say that "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia." I'm not sure if editors in this discussion are aware, but "faculty" meaning "teaching staff" is exclusive to American English.[1] Perhaps a broader CfD should be filed for all categories in the tree, but I was hoping to deal with this small and directly relevant group of categories first. --115.67.2.119 (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC) (Same editor as OP)[reply]
• Rename this as a start. I have no prejudice about keeping the word "faculty" for any countries where it is [apparently] understood to mean teaching staff rather than a department, but once this is approved then let's follow up by harmonising Category:Academics by university in Africa as "academics" then move on to Asia & Europe. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 1 August 2012 (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 (C2C). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming

  Category:Weather of Hawaii to Category:Weather events in Hawaii

• Nominator's rationale: The category was renamed from "Hawaii weather", but is still an orphan as the only geographic category in Category:Weather. But “weather events” would be a subcategory of both Category:Weather events in Oceania and Category:Weather events in the United States. The category contains weather events (eg hurricanes) in Hawaii. Hugo999 (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2012 (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.