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:Dinosaurs by continental landmass. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Dinosaurs by continent to Category:Dinosaurs by location

Nominator's rationale: The category contains an article and subcats that are not continents, and there is no need to have another category that is a "misc" dump. I think location is the best word. "Region" has specific connotations that would be confusing to readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment shouldn't it be Category:Dinosaurs by modern locality ? Clearly continents have changed between an during the Dinosaur Age and now (such as the loss of Pangea). The subcategory "by landmass" should also be upmerged into this category. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose India is often considered a "sub-continent". So to me, calling the cat "by continent" keeps things clearer than the problems that can be introduced by the suggested rename (as has already been noted above.) - jc37 08:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do with New Zealand? It is not a continent? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well my first inclination was to re-name the Australia one to "Australia and New Zealand" (Which I have read it referred to in scientific works). (Or even Australasia.) But due to continental drift sometimes they include Antarctica. So maybe use another term for that continent: Oceania. Which should then solve it.

All that said, maybe "by landmass" may also perhaps be an option. (Or perhaps better: by continental landmass? - since in much of this we're talking about continental plates. - jc37 08:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with landmass. There are a few other random ones such as South Polar dinosaurs and List of Australian and Antarctic dinosaurs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the proposed renaming. Abyssal (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support change to Category:Dinosaurs by landmass. de Bivort 03:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Dinosaurs by landmass. Although I'm also ok with continent. A simple note could be placed at the top of the category, noting that these are ancient continental landmasses. --KarlB (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Dinosaurs by landmass. 76.7.228.247 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To be clear: Rename to Category:Dinosaurs by continental landmass per continental plate. If we leave it just to landmass, we're including every rock or islet in the ocean. See also Continental fragment/Category:Continental fragments, as well as Indian subcontinent. - jc37 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Dinosaurs by continental landmass or Category:Dinosaurs by continental plate per Jc37's cogent comment. (By the way, New Zealand is part of a continent, that of Zealandia and should not be lumped into a vague Australasia or Oceania. These last two are convenient cultural terms, but are not appropriate geologically. It is some 60 MYA since the remnants of Gondwanaland broke apart to form Australia and Zealandia.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:55, 30 May 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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 23. Dana boomer (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Vehicles introduced by year to Category:Vehicles by year of introduction
• Propose renaming Category:Locomotives introduced by year to Category:Locomotives by year of introduction

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The existing names seem to be the only ones in Category:Introductions by year to use "introduced by year," which I find a bit awkward. I considered "Vehicle introductions by year" as well as "Vehicles by year of introduction," but I believe the latter is smoother for compound constructions as we will see further down in the tree, or which we find even at the same level: Category:Fictional characters by year of introduction‎ over Category:Fictional character introductions by year, which pushes us into crash blossom territory. Note that the nom is for the named categories only; I have no quarrel with the subcats as they stand. - choster (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have a mild concern about the slightly ambiguous name for the category. What does introduced or introduction mean? Take the Chevrolet Volt which was introduced a few years before it went on sale in 2010 which is where it is categorized. It even won at least one award in 2009. So for this vehicle, 2010 represents the year it first went on sale. I'm not opposing the rename for the reason given, just wondering about how we are categorizing items by year here. We only have a vehicle type specific subcategory for ships like Category:2010 ships (which includes commissioning, launches and shipwrecks). So how do we clean this up so the contents are based on some firm definition of introduction? Is introduction the first year of sale or the year first shown either of those would suggest adding appropriate named sub categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this is a discussion for Category talk:Introductions by year. Was the 2010 Volt event considered a demo or a launch? I wouldn't consider a demo to be a product introduction, even if it is an "introduction to the public" in the sense of informing outsiders about something new. After all the Ford Probe was first presented as a concept car as far back as 1979, but it wasn't on the market until 1989. Conventions may vary by branch, and multiple dates may be entailed in some cases. The same potential ambiguity lies in Category:Establishments by year. The United States says it was established in 1776, but off the top of my head I could make a case for 1774, 1775, 1777, 1781, 1787, 1788, and 1789 as well.- choster (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooh ooh, also 1783.- choster (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Automobiles by year of introduction and create new head category ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Vehicles by year. This is because, as far as I have seen, the articles in the year-by-year sub-cats are all for automobiles. If people here think it sounds a good idea, I will bring forward a separate nomination for them to be renamed from "Vehicles introduced in 19XX" to "Automobiles introduced in 19XX". I know there are also sub-cats for "19XX ships", and a small number of the "Railway locomotives introduced in 19XX" are likewise in them, but I would sort these out afterwards. – Fayenatic London (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they are not. There are buses and lorries, and I have been adding motorcycles to them.- choster (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then how about ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Road vehicles by year of introduction? Do we need "by year of introduction" for anything other than road & rail vehicles? – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The categories also include subcategories for ships, and the main category is Category:Vehicles, so I don't know why we need to change it now. Category:Automobiles by country is its own mess and a half to clean up. - choster (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know; I would move the "ships" categories up into the new head category "Vehicles by year", which would contain Ships by year, Road vehicles by year of introduction and Railway locomotives by year of introduction. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The related ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Automobiles by decade and its contents are ambiguous, as they contain cars by dates of production rather than introduction. I intend to bring forward a proposal to rename these as "Automobiles by decade of production" and "Automobiles produced in the 19X0s". Please comment on this suggestion here as well. – Fayenatic London (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would wonder if we need that type of category at all. While the beginning and end dates might be notable, I don't see how it is notable for the decades. This is strongly pointed out by a model that existed for two years and happens to span two decades, in fact a single model produced for one year could span two decades. Why is that logically grouped in a decade category with a model that had a twenty year life? And for that later case, a model could be in 3 decades if the first year moved forward or backward a single year. I think that the manufacture templates that that show the model histories do a much better job for navigation in this area. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is off-topic, and I'm not the most active editor for motor vehicle topics. For what it's worth, the concept of production years for a model does seem to be uncontroversial and of some importance to those editors. Production years and model years have top billing on Template:Infobox automobile and there is an extensive collection of production year timeline templates (see Category:Automotive company timeline templates).- choster (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I saw those templates, and I'm inclined to retain the categories for production. In many cases, the designs change incrementally over the years; this makes the production years relevant for the vehicle, as well as the year of introduction. I have no objection to the use of decades, despite Vegaswikian's valid points. I just think the categories need a more specific name. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, if we want to talk about a name misleadingly representing something of radically different design, I propose California's 35th congressional district :). I suppose most high-number legislative districts would qualify. To think Maxine Waters holds what is nominally the same seat as James B. Utt boggles my mind.- choster (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Michigan's 1st congressional district has a history that is equally as off the wall. There is no connection between the current district and what it was when represented by John Conyers. So it is not even high number districts that have this issue. Whether seperate articles should be created when some level of redistricting occurs is probably an issue worth discussing. The congressional district articles tend to be overly presentist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Based on the above, it is clear that this is a mess and so are the associated categories. We should however allow recreation under a new name that removes the ambiguity associated with the current name. If the result here is delete, then I guess we need a discussion on other subcategories of Category:Introductions by year. However in looking at those, I think this could be the only one with issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 1 June 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: keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Industrialists to Category:Businesspeople

Related categories:

• Category:American industrialists‎ to Category:American businesspeople
• Category:British industrialists‎ to Category:British businesspeople
• Category:English industrialists‎ to Category:English businesspeople
• Category:French industrialists‎ to Category:French businesspeople
• Category:Italian industrialists‎ to Category:Italian businesspeople
• Category:Pakistani industrialists‎ to Category:Pakistani businesspeople
• Category:Romanian industrialists to Category:Romanian businesspeople
• Category:Scottish industrialists‎ to Category:Scottish businesspeople
• Category:Welsh industrialists‎ to Category:Welsh businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I propose the merger as one possible solution; however, my main reason for this nomination is to have wider discussion to find the best solution for this category and its subcategories. The main issue for this category is that there is no clear guidelines which articles should be categorized by it and by its subcategories. By my understanding, the main article of this category should be Industrialist. However, there is no such kind of article and it redirects to Business magnate which is also synonym for tycoon or oligarh. As it was earlier said in different CfD discussions, irt can't be populated objectively. and WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE applies here. It could be that the article Industralization gives some hint, but by my understanding it does not. As I said, I agree with keeping this category (and its subcategories) if there will be clear critearia for inclusion. Otherwise, it would be better to merge. Same applies also its subcategories, which if to be kept, need extensive cleanup. Beagel (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge for now. The fact of the matter is that the activities of businesspeople are not very effected by the activities of their companies. Whether their company makes widgets or runs grocery stores, they are going to focus on management, budgets, planning and growth strategizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep for now. JPL's description reflects a contemporary American view of business management. That model has not applied at all points in American history, and it is less applicable in other cultures. For example, the Irish industrialists John Boyd Dunlop and Harry Ferguson were heavily involved in the design and engineering of their pioneering industrial products, and established huge businesses on the basis of their own inventiveness. The same goes for Sir David Brown, Henry Ford, Guglielmo Marconi, the Gougeon Brothers, Thomas Edison, Werner von Siemens and many others.
  I have doubts about whether a sufficiently clear line can be drawn to make an objective category, but JPL's recentist rationale is fundamentally flawed, and I want to see some discussion on whether a distinction can be drawn between the contemporary business-manager model of industrial leadership, and the pioneering inventor-engineers who created so many large companies in the 19th century and early 20th-century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can it be defined non-pejoratively? No? Then upmerge and delete. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It certainly can be defined be defined non-pejoratively, as here or here.

  It seems to me that the crucial question is whether it can be defined in such a way as to objectively and clearly distinguish it from the broader group of businesspeople, and in particular from other business leaders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, (or to be specific strongly oppose upmerge) the use and meaning of the term "industrialists" is pretty clear, (though often is used to refer to persons active during the industrial revolution), is remains in use, - for example Lakshmi Mittal in an industrialist of the modern age. eg google search. A definition would be "a business magnate active in industrial business activities". Clearly there are reliable sources for the definition as noted above. I see no need for any clarification when clear dictionary defintitions exist, and if in doubt WP:VERIFY can be used for individual cases.Oranjblud (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Possibly you need to read a clear definition of what is meant by an "industrial enterprise" eg[reply]

• A rough-and-ready definition of the industrialist might be that he is the man who owns and operates a factory http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qCgCnRnb9CwC
• It is relatively easy to define the industrialist as the personification of that group of people who are engaged in human exertion which is applied to the creation of value in the form of goods and materials http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lI87AAAAMAAJ It should be possible for people who don't know what this widely used term means to self educate themselves on the topic.Oranjblud (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "a business magnate active in industrial business activities" is clearly definition which opens the door for WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, starting with term "magnate" being pejorative. I agree that if keep it may be linked with industrial revolution (industrial revolution in the Western world and in some Asian or African countries are centuries apart). That is true that different definitions are exist but are they usable as non-subjective inclusion criteria? The issue is not about self-education but rather having clear inclusion criteria. Beagel (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting I might infer from that line of reasoning that the label Template:Subjective category applies here. Or that labeling someone as an "industrialist" is likely to be problematic. I don't accept that either issue exists. Ignore the definition I gave and rely on reliable sources the problem goes away

In terms of issues relating to the term "business magnate" (which I accept may be problematic)- what I can point out is that that is not the categories name, nor is the term used in any of the four verifiable definitions given above. If there was a category "business magnates" then such an issue might exist. The page industrialist redirects to a poorly referenced article with probably factual problems - that, in my opinion is where the problem originates, not the category itself.Oranjblud (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that our coverage of economic & business affairs is so poor that we don't have a proper main article should not be an argument for deletion. We should certainly distinguish between these people & bankers or retailers etc. The nominator asked for clear criteria & has been given them by Oranjblud. That many contemporary industrialists also own other types of business (less common in the past) should not be an issue. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 2 June 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: speedy delete by request of category creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Disruptive, WP:POINTy new creation of a category which is the rename target for another category under discussion at CfD May 21. The creator has mischievously taken my criticism of a his stupidly verbose proposal for a new category as evidence of support for the creation of such a categ under a less verbose name. This a) wilfully misrepresents my views, and b) pre-empts the formation of a consensus at CfD May 21. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now. a useful sub-category, that groups together nobility from irish and british kingdoms. depending on the outcome of the other CfD, if this one is found to be no longer necessary, it can be re-proposed for deletion. --KarlB (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Karl, you created the categories under discussion at CfD May 21. There are are several possible outcomes to that discussion, deletion of the categories, merger, or renaming to one of several possible targets.

  What you have done, however, is to pre-empt the outcome of that CfD by unilaterally creating a category which reflects one possible outcome of the CfD. This is blatantly disruptive, because it either creates a fait accompli or it splits the discussion into two, by having 2 separate discussions on related categories. If you do not agree to its prompt deletion pending the outcome of the other discussion, then I will take this up elsewhere to seek admin intervention against this disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find creation of a useful category, which the nominator himself had proposed, as disruptive. I would point you to the recent creation of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British Islands, which was also a proposal that came out in the middle of a hot debate on ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Politics of the British Isles (and I *opposed* the creation of this category, but there it sits), but I don't see you taking RA to task for that? My experience has been that in CfD discussions, people regularly add things to categories, and even create sub-categories, during the discussion. The one thing that seems to be verboten is to empty a category under discussion, but that's not what is at stake here. You yourself created ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Teaching hospitals in Northern Ireland smack dab in the middle of the debate on ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hospitals in Ireland. In any case, what's done is done, I'd suggest we just close out this particular discussion, and move the discussion back to the original place. I'm sure if a merge or rename is required, it can be handled quite well from other there.--KarlB (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, this is not complicated. At CfD, nominators propose, other editors discuss it with them, and action is not taken until there is a consensus.

Related changes may happen along the way, as with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British Islands or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Teaching hospitals in Northern Ireland, but neither of those creations had any impact either way on the proposal under discussion.

In this case, you have directly pre-empted the outcome of the May 21 CfD. I have explained to you why that is procedurally wrong, and since you don't have he courtesy to revert your unilateral action pending the achievement of a consensus, I'll seek an uninvolved admin to intervene. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete This editor seems to be hell bent on creating pointless categories. WP has enough of these already. Bjmullan (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This cat has been speedy deleted per request. Can we get back to the meat of the discussion now please? --KarlB (talk) 17:44, 24 May 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) 10:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:The Simpsons promo cards and promotional artwork to Category:The Simpsons promotional artwork

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Including the words "promo cards" is redundant, as this category contains more than just promo cards. Any Simpsons images that are not specifically promotional, can be included in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:The Simpsons images. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator Cambalachero (talk) 19:42, 24 May 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/Add. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Irish Republican Movement → Category:Republicanism in Ireland
• Category:Irish Nationalist Movement → Category:Nationalism in Ireland
• Add Category:Republicanism in Ireland as subcat of Category:Nationalism in Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_16#Category:Republicanism_in_Ireland, to fix capitalisation and to make in line with similar cats (for example Category:Unionism in Ireland). --RA (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per nominator and per previous discussion, to follow the "Foo in Ireland" convention of other similar categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, this solves any issue over potential confusion over whether the category is for a single movement or a collection of separate movements. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I do note this article: Republican_Movement_(Ireland) which distinguishes 'republican movement' from Irish republicanism. --KarlB (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Oppose renaming Category:Irish Republican Movement provided unless somebody undertakes to add Irish Rebellion of 1798, Robert Emmet, Young Ireland etc etc. to the cat so that it does what it says on the tin and isn't unduly weighted by the later 20th-century Republican Movement. --Scolaire (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've fixed the ones you suggested by adding Category:United Irishmen, Category:Young Ireland and Category:Irish Rebellion of 1798‎ to the cat. I suggest there could be further sub-cats to tidy at least some of the current pages in the cat into further sub cats. Any suggestions? --RA (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Once I know that somebody is undertaking to do the work I am happy to have it renamed, and the sooner the better. I suggest "Irish republicanism in the 19th century" "...twentieth century", "...in the period of the Troubles", "Irish republicanism in the United States", "Easter Rising", "Anti-Treaty republicans", "Defunct (or whatever the appropriate word is) Irish republican organisations". Scolaire (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added "Easter Rising". Scolaire (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per nom. Snappy (talk) 17:54, 25 May 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: Speedy delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:D-Class articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete No WikiProject recognizes D-class articles. The category is populated only with user-space articles in the category creator's user space. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Housekeeping. Sweep it away. Created by a newbie editor who may be unfamiliar with the complexities of WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what about Template:D-Class ? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:34, 25 May 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/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Decades of the 20th century in Serbia to Category:Decades in Serbia and Category:20th century in Serbia
• Propose deleting Category:Decades of the 20th century in Europe

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This seems to be the only category which has separated its decades out into a "decades by century" subcategory, and has only done so for the 20th century. This does not seem to be useful. Category:Decades of the 20th century in Europe contains only the Serbia subcategory and can be deleted. Tim! (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good catch; I can't find any more like this either. – Fayenatic London (talk) 14:29, 25 May 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:Circassian people in Russia, following the tree, with leave for immediate renomination of the tree for discussion of the Circassian/Adyghe question. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Circassians living in the Russian Federation to Category:Circassian people in Russia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this would be a more standard way of naming this category and it would make it conform better with other category names. (1) "Circassian people", not "Circassians"; (2) eliminate the word "living", since some are dead; (3) use "Russia" instead of "Russian Federation". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Circassians of Russia. Although, is Circassian the right term for the Adyghe? Maybe we should name the cateogry Category:Russian Adyghe on the model of Category:Russian Armenians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent category is ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Circassian people, so the rename should match that standard format, should it not? (It's quite common for categories with the format "FOOs" to be speedily renamed to "FOO people".) After this nomination, I'll follow up on ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Circassian people; it should perhaps be renamed to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Adyghe people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article is at Adyghe people. Circassian is generally considered an outmoded term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following this nomination, I am going to nominate ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Circassian people and all its subcategories for discussion on this point so whatever we decide can be consistently applied. Prior to that, I think we need to straighten out the format of this particular one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 29 May 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 all to Category:Chulalongkorn family.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

• Category:King Chulalongkorn's daughters to Category:Thai princesses
• Category:King Chulalongkorn's sons to Category:Thai princes
• Category:King Mongkut's sons to Category:Thai princes

Nominator's rationale: Merge. In categories we tend to avoid categorizing people by who their parents (or other ancestors) are. I believe templates are sometimes used for this purpose, and they work well from what I have seen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:King Mongkut's sons, but keep Chulalongkorn cathgories. I broadly support the principles behind the nominator's rationale, because this sort of categorisation could lead to a huge number of small categories which merely duplicated the content of the head article ... so I support deleting Category:King Mongkut's sons.
  However, King Chulalongkorn appears to have been an extraordinarily Big Daddy: Category:King Chulalongkorn's daughters and Category:King Chulalongkorn's sons contain between them 60 biographical articles, and the category provides an appropriate means of navigating between them according this defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would creating some sort of more standard category like ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Chulalongkorn family or ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Family of Chulalongkorn be a better way to approach this? We do have lots of "family" categories, but not really any that separate individuals by being sons or daughters of an individual. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there is no need to separate sons and daughters. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Chulalongkorn family sounds fine by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree with "Chulalongkorn family", as the term doesn't exist. Existing sub-family categories already exist under Category:Houses descended from the Chakri Dynasty, but there is no common familial designation given to all the descendants of King Chulalongkorn. If kept, I think the descriptive Category:Children of King Chulalongkorn (not sure whether to have "King" in the title?) would be the most appropriate. Undecided as to whether the category should be kept, but if so, would it be diffusing? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the term necessarily has to "exist" as such, since it's more of a descriptive phrase than a technical term. But I do still think deletion is the best option since the Thai royalty articles are subcategorized well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Thai Wikipedia diffuses its Category:Chakri Dynasty by subcategorising under each king. I think if this is done, it should be done completely. Paul_012 (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I'm okay with deleting all the proposed categories or merging the first two into Category:Children of Chulalongkorn or Category:Children of King Chulalongkorn. I don't think creating a family branch category listing all of King Chulalongkorn's descendants is really useful at this point, as it would end up overlapping some three quarters of Category:Chakri Dynasty anyway. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:29, 2 June 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Living Thai royalty (contents already in subcategories of parent Category:Thai royalty)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We generally do not divide categories for people into living/dead subdivisions, nor do we tend to subcategorize ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Living people. Is there any good reason to make an exception here? (Technically this could be seen as a nomination to merge to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Thai royalty, but I believe all of the contents are adequately subcategoried in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Thai princesses, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Thai princes, etc., so no actual merge is necessary.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator and per long-standing practice of not dividing categories by whether people are alive or dead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not sub-classify groups of people as living or dead. We do not subdivide Category:Living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 24 May 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: do not rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Monmouth, Wales to Category:Monmouth

Nominator's rationale: Article is simply at Monmouth, contested C2D nomination. I think the category should follow the article, but I'm not too fussed – if the consensus is that it needs disambiguating then the subcategories should be renamed to have ", Wales" appended. Jenks24 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as I believe that this name is overly ambiguous to be used as a category name, and would require excessive cleanup. As with other category names that require excessive cleanup, it should remain disambiguated. As well as other communities named Monmouth brought up at the speedy objections, there is also the 1st Duke of Monmouth and Geoffrey of Monmouth to consider, as material related to these two historical personages can end up categorized at the bare name. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with your point about the towns of this name, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that anyone would realistically categorise anything to do with the Duke of Monmouth or Geoffrey of Monmouth as simply "Monmouth". Jenks24 (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match article. Tim! (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, essentially for the reasons noted at WP:CFD/S. I can see the nom's reasoning, and it is sound, but I believe that this is one of the relatively few cases that warrants an exception to speedy renaming criterion C2.D. There is, in my opinion, a higher-than-acceptable level of ambiguity associated with the title Category:Monmouth, since it can refer to one of several places outside of Wales. Per Jenks24, I don't think that miscategorization involving the Duke or Geoffrey of Monouth is likely, but I think it is quite plausible that someone would add a person from one of Monmouths in the United States to Category:People from Monmouth without first checking the category description page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent article. Lugnuts (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Black Falcon. The term "Monmouth" is ambiguous, and ambiguous category names lead to miscategorisation. There are a lot of cases now where he use of speedy criterion C2D is generating objections in the case of ambiguity, and the scope of C2D needs to be narrowed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think narrowing C2D is unnecessary. I also disagree about there being a lot of cases – overall it is a very small percentage. Jenks24 (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think it's a major overstatement to say there are "lots" of C2D cases that are generating controversy. If you keep an eye on WP:CFDS and watch how many C2D nominations go through, the ones that are opposed are a tiny percentage. I cannot think of how it would be "narrowed" to catch controversial cases. If we eliminated C2D and moved every C2D nomination to a full discussion, we could easily double the number of full CFD discussions every day. Does anyone really want that to happen? The ones that are controversial tend to get "caught", from what I have seen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • One could add "unless there is a dab page at Article Name (disambiguation)" to C2D. Oculi (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I support that clarification, and have proposed it (with a small tweak) at WT:CFD#Speedy_criterion_C2D_and_primary_topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as even one objection suffices to end a speedy nomination, I think that the criterion poses minimal risk. The criterion's scope could be narrowed (e.g., Oculi's proposal) but I'm just not sure whether the added complexity would be worthwhile. Controversial applications of the criterion seem, in general, to be caught before any change is made and sent to a full discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – obviously ambiguous. Monmouth is a small town in Wales (population 8500), no global presence whatever, very much on a par with at least 2 of the US Monmouths (2 have populations around 9000). The subcats should be renamed, and Category:People from Monmouth should be a dab category (like Category:People from Birmingham, which invariably contains a few lost souls). Eg there are Category:Monmouth, Oregon, Category:Monmouth, Illinois and Category:People from Monmouth, Illinois. Oculi (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I believe the most common use of "Monmouth" in the U.S. would be in reference to Monmouth County, New Jersey (630,380), or to Monmouth College located there. I've never heard of any of the U.S. towns called Monmouth.- choster (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BlackFalcon. The present name is the best name for clarity for the average reader. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Category names should be more distinctive than article names, not least because you can't see what you are getting when you pick a suggested category using WP:HOTCAT. – Fayenatic London (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are too many other Monmouths, and they're not even all in the USA; when I hear Monmouth, my first inclination is underwater, and the same name is shared by several others. Nyttend (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and eliminate any ambiguous article names! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 1 June 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: speedy delete (criterion G7: creator consents to deletion). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Albums conducted by Sy Dale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The conducter of a rock album is not a defining aspect of the album itself. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As creator. Speedy delete per ((db-author)). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 24 May 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: split to Category:Radiation accidents and incidents and Category:Nuclear accidents and incidents. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nuclear accidents to Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents or Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents

Nominator's rationale: Quite simply, the category's title does not accurately reflect its current scope. It should be changed to Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents (reflecting the title of the main article) or to the more inclusive Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents (reflecting the fact that we seem to differentiate between accidents and incidents, as shown by the existence of separate lists for civilian nuclear accidents and civilian nuclear incidents). The parent categories are little help, since this category is a member of both Category:Industrial accidents and incidents and Category:Accidents. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents as the IAEA has a scale that includes "incidents" and "accidents". Further other industrial categories also are named in this manner. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to include both "accidents and incidents". And all the other such cats should too as appropriate. - jc37 08:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents. It has occurred to me on occasion that it would probably be a good idea to rename this category to explicitly include radiation accidents - so that would be a welcome change. But let's not get carried away with things here: Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents would be needlessly complicated and unwieldy -- as well as being grammatically confusing. It reads as though someone forgot the comma between two disjunctive pairs of nouns. (When my wife saw it she just gasped!) There's really no compelling reason to tack on "and incidents", as the latter are already covered under "accidents" -- they're basically just a lesser variety, a distinction which doesn't need to be captured in the category name. Cgingold (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, no. While an accident may also be an incident, an incident is not necessarily an accident. Besides that, The IP makes some fair points above. And real world nomenclature should probably trump our stylistic preferences I would think. - jc37 09:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: One issue is the conflating of "nuclear" with "radiation". A second issue is the conflating of incidents and accidents, leading to the current situation where Category:Military nuclear incidents is incorrectly a sub-cat of "nuclear accidents".

One option would be to make "Nuclear accidents" a sub-category of a new category:Nuclear incidents, and to make these sub-cats respectively of "Radiation accidents" and "Radiation incidents". This would solve the a current problem in that the nominated category is within "Environmental disasters", even though it includes articles on relatively small-scale over-exposures during radiotherapy, stretching the rule at WP:SUBCAT (although I do support being flexible with that rule).

However, I suspect that readers might often be more interested to look at the combined picture of accidents and incidents, including "near misses" for that matter if any of these have become notable. There are quite a lot of categories for "accidents and incidents", e.g. Category:Aviation accidents and incidents, which has one sub-cat in common with the nominated category.

If accidents are also incidents, then the category could use the short name "Nuclear incidents" and include accidents among its members, but this smacks of WP:WEASEL. I am therefore inclined to follow the pattern of other categories and use the long name Category:Nuclear accidents and incidents.

This leaves the question of conflating nuclear and radiation. Despite the lead article Nuclear and radiation accidents, I am inclined to split these, creating a head category Category:Radiation accidents and incidents for articles such as orphan source and the radiotherapy incidents. – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with splitting radiation a&i from nuclear a&i. The articlespace pages can be dealt with editorially. - jc37 13:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Radiation accidents and incidents and Category:Nuclear accidents and incidents. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split to Category:Radiation accidents and incidents and Category:Nuclear accidents and incidents. This seems to meet all criteria, both grammatical and logical. (An incident is not necessarily an accident IMO.) Oculi (talk) 11:51, 1 June 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: reverse merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Flag designers to Category:Vexillographers

Nominator's rationale: It is the same thing Cambalachero (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Technically, isn't a "vexillographer" a person who studies flags or is expert in flags? That said, the category Category:Vexillographers does seem to be simply filled with flag designers. Unless I'm set straight on my assumption, I'm leaning towards a reverse merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question but many flags are not designed by experts, how would they be vexillographers, if they aren't scholars of vexillography? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It does concern me that vexillographer is a very rare word. It's not in the (shorter) OED and Wiktionary describes it as 'rare'. Flag designers would seem a better choice, from that perspective - but since Category:Vexillographers existed first (and for a long time), I'm happy for Category:Flag designers to be merged in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk • contribs)

  That is an odd rationale. If this was some sort of speedy process, that a merge to the older category seem s like a neutral way of removing duplication ... but now that we are having a full discussion, it seems perverse to use anything other than the "better choice", as you describe it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support It seems like it's the exact right word - I just learned something today :) Keep the redirect from Flag designers. --KarlB (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Vexillographer is the correct term, and isn't the point of the wikipedia to inform people? Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. Vexillographer is too rare a word to be of use for navigation, and "Flag designers" is a plain English phrase which clearly conveys the contents of the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the term accurately represent the contents of the category? Yes? Then we should use the correct term. We can redirect 'Flag designers' to Vexillographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkenobi18 (talk • contribs)
    • Reply. Does it accurately represent the contents of the category? No, unless it is a) in dictionaries, and b) reasonably widely used. "Vexillographer" meets neither of those tests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. "Vexillographer" doesn't even appear in the full online version of the OED, so at this stage it is still essentially a neologism. I still also think it carries a connotation of one who academically studies flags and flag design rather than one who actually does the designing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I don't think it's fair to say it's a neologism. It's used in a number of books - here it is defined in 1995: [1]. I'd say keep the correct term, and use a redirect from flag designers.--KarlB (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source you provide above says "vexillography" is "the art of designing flags". But if you look at the other results for "vexillography" or "vexillographer" on google books, there is a source which says "vexillography" is just another name for "vexillology", which is "the study of flags". So which is it? Another source says a "vexillographer" is a "designer, maker and philosopher of flags". If this is so, not all designers are necessarily makers or philosophers of flags. Because there is apparently no settled definition for this technical word, I think using a plain-English descriptive term would be better. If a word is used but the definition is not yet settled and it doesn't yet appear in large English dictionaries, I think it's fair to say the word is still in neologism territory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:JARGON -- use plain English. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. Although it can be educational to use obscure words in category names, plain meanings are preferred, especially if they are concise. (As the "Old Fooian" categories were renamed to the longer phrase "People educated at Foo School", we are not likely to keep Vexillographers.) – Fayenatic London (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a new-ish term isn't necessarily WP:NEO. That said, if the reverse merge goes through, Category:Vexillographers should become a category redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This one is neither defined in dictionaries nor in wide use. So in what way is this term anything other than WP:NEO? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – as we have Vexillology, Category:Vexillology and Category:Vexillologists, it seems to me we should consider these together with Category:Vexillographers. Or merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, because the meanings of "Vexillology" and "Vexillologists" is well-established. The words are present in English dictionaries, for example. "Vexillographer" is not found in dictionaries and works that define the term suggest that is means different things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. "Flag designers" just seems to be the better term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge - per above, as well as to reduce ambiguity. - jc37 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merger - "designer" is a simple, easy to understand term that reaches the largest number of readers possible. Many of the individuals listed in this category are amateurs or self-taught flag designers, not professional vexillographers (sculptors, artists, businesspeople, contest-winners, etc.). Scanlan (talk) 15:52, 15 June 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.