< September 11 September 13 >

September 12

Category:Sport in Bohemia by sport

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) 01:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Structure has just one category. There is no reason why we need to divide this from the parent Category:Sport in Bohemia. SFB 18:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian religious leaders

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 as container category. – Fayenatic London 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is hopelessly vague. It includes articles on obscure cranks like Peter Ruckman alongside Jesus, offices like abbot, lists like list of Popes and List of Anglican diocesan bishops in Britain and Ireland. Individual and definable offices or roles (like Category:Prelates or Category:Television evangelists) can and should be kept but they need to be navigable from some method other than this almost random mish-mash category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'll agree with all the arguments of the nom, but think the solution is to keep the cat and put a note that all articles need to be placed in subcats (the tree Category:Christian religious leaders by nationality‎) perhaps a by century is also needed, so that recent folks whose influence is not widely felt would end up in concentrated in the 20th & 21st century cats and not mix with Jesus, Calvin, Luther, etc. I think deleting the cat would leave a void where it would be more difficult to find some particular Christian religious leader of 16th century France or such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Previous nomination WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_17#Category:Christian_religious_leaders was closed as Keep and Cleanup. Choster's keep argument then seems to me to be still relevant. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile I've removed offices and lists from this category, so that shouldn't be a problem anymore. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English-only movement in the United States

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. – Fayenatic London 17:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Speedy was denied with the following discussion:
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military history of Rhodesia during World War II

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: During World War II the country was called Southern Rhodesia, not Rhodesia. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Southern and Northern Rhodesia were very much separate entities, the former being a self-governing colony and the latter a protectorate directly controlled by London. Both then and now "Rhodesia" is often used in a pre-1964 context where "Southern Rhodesia" is meant, even officially (for example, many Southern Rhodesian military units, such as the Rhodesia Regiment, the Rhodesian African Rifles and, later, the Rhodesian Light Infantry, omitted the word "Southern"). This leads to muddying of the waters regarding the true situation. It would be clearer to have Northern Rhodesian subjects (such as the Northern Rhodesia Regiment, for example) go into separate categories on Northern Rhodesia, and Southern Rhodesian subjects go into categories on Southern Rhodesia. Regarding the specific points you rose, all the guys who joined the Long Range Desert Group came from Southern Rhodesian regiments. I'm afraid I don't quite see where John Edmond comes into this as he was still a child during World War II. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Edmond is in one of the categories, and it says he was born in Northern Rhodesia. Well, I as long as the two countries are kept separate... Abductive (reasoning) 02:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any World War II-related categories on the John Edmond page. He is in the "Rhodesia Regiment personnel" category as he was in it in the 1950s and 60s. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Allotropic materials by element

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:Allotropes. – Fayenatic London 16:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the reason for the mess is that Category:Allotropic materials by element is too ambitious (and also has redundant phrasing, since allotropes by definition are composed of individual elements).
So I propose a new structure for this topic: Category:Allotropy will contain the article on Allotropy and any other theory or overview articles such as Allotropes of oxygen, plus the subcategory Category:Allotropes. Then Category:Allotropes will have Category:Carbon forms and Category:Sulfur forms plus all the other articles on actual allotropes. Abductive (reasoning) 05:09, 12 September 2014 (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.
More