< January 16 January 18 >

January 17

Category:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 08:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) to Category:Iraqi insurgency (2011–13)
Nominator's rationale: The current name was decided at CFD 2015 March 21, which I closed, following the name of the lead article at the time. The article was later renamed to 2011–14, but recently EkoGraf moved the page Iraqi insurgency (2011–14) back to Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) stating, New conflict started in early January 2014 when ISIL captured Fallujah and large parts of Anbar. (The recent move rules out a speedy decision.) – Fayenatic London 22:14, 17 January 2016 (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:Presidents of the Association for Asian Studies

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. – Fayenatic London 17:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Entry could include the main article and the list of presidents, and enable us to abolish the unhelpful category Category:Members of professional organizations Rathfelder (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm open to listifying because I'm not sure this is defining to the biography articles but I don't want a AAS category for 2 articles. What is defining is that these are American professors of Asian Studies but I don't see a current category for that unless that is covered by Category:Orientalists in which case we could merge this into that category. (Is "orientalist" still used as a term?) RevelationDirect (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2016 (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:Members of professional organizations

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/2016 March 30. – Fayenatic London 17:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not useful or defining. The categories included would be better renamed. see above . Rathfelder (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The following two votes are from the recent aborted nomination on the same category. I'll ping both @Marcocapelle and Oculi: in case their viewpoints have shifted. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • I think turning it into a container category satisfactorily addresses my concerns.Rathfelder (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we agree on containerisation :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 27 January 2016 (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:European associations

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. delldot ∇. 03:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No useful distinction between an association and an organisation Rathfelder (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2016 (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:Ancient Christians

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 17:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: strong oppose(!). I've recreated this previously renamed category as a container category whereas the former category with this name (which is now named Category:Ante-Nicene Christians) is one of its six child categories. With the content it currently has, the nominated category should be kept, since 1) its six child categories are independent of each other (i.e. they shouldn't be parented to each other as was the case until yesterday) and 2) because the category is part of the established Category:Ancient Christianity tree. For the earlier rename discussion, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification @Marcocapelle: So you're really you're in favor of expanding/repurposing this category redirect into a container category but are coming here to avoid WP:G4 and to make sure your change doesn't break current consensus given the 2013 discussion? I've recreated some more technical category deletions by checking with the closing admin (example) but I think we should probably have more "recreate" nominations here in CFD. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly what I have in mind, thanks for the further clarification. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2016 (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:Air Force Space Command military installations

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:Air Force Space Command. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One page in the category, and there is no reason to keep it when it can be upmerged into another category. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2016 (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:NOAA Weather Radio

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 Category:Weather radio stations in the United States to Category:NOAA Weather Radio. SQLQuery me! 00:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two categories which are just duplicating each other for no compelling reason. The second groups the stations by format while the first is an eponymous category for the service that runs all of them — but the only two articles filed in the eponymous category that aren't also in the format category already are the eponym itself, and an article about the broadcasting protocol (Specific Area Message Encoding) that's used to operate the stations, and the only article filed in the format category that isn't also in the eponymous one is an article about one regional office of the National Weather Service which is really not much more an omnibus list of 11 more NOAA stations that (probably much more wisely) have been merged into it rather than existing as standalone permastubs. Which means they're really just redundant WP:OVERLAPCATs, because of the 276 articles involved overall, 273 of them are already sitting in both categories simultaneously with each other. And even the three exceptions aren't actually incompatible with the other category either — so the distinction between the two actually leaves zero articles as true outliers to the overlap. Merge. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also acceptable. I don't really have a particularly strong opinion about which one should be the target and which one should be the redirect — it was kind of an arbitrary "pick one or the other and run with it" tossup. Other than the fact that they don't both need to exist alongside each other, I'm entirely amenable to the reverse merge as well if that's what consensus would prefer. I've added it as an alternative accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2016 (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:Tattoo subjects

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:Tattoo designs. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Renaming Category:Tattoo subjects to Category:Tattoo motifs
Nominator's rationale: Clarity (to avoid the appearance of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
The purpose of this category is to group popular designs for tattoos which is great. The current name is ambiguous though because it may seem to be referring to the person getting the tattoo. While we do have a Category:Art by subject tree, those categories really group by topic area whereas these articles are more specific designs. (If there is a better art term for these articles than "motif", I'm certainly open to an alternative rename.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Abyssal as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Body Modification. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2016 (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:Poisonous amphibians

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) 06:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most species of amphibians are poisonous (have glands that secretes poisonous or noxious compounds), and there is no unambiguous distinction between defensive compounds and poison: what is simply distasteful to some predators may be toxic or lethal to others. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2016 (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