Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 14



Naval battles of the British East India Company

 * 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. The issue of whether this should be "East India Company" or "British East India Company" may be pursued in a wider category nomination. For now, we can make this small change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category: Naval battles of the British East India Company to Category: Naval battles involving the British East India Company
 * Nominator's rationale: “Involving” is used for both countries and organisations (eg the Knights Hospitallers) in Category: Naval battles by country. For battles though “Of” is used eg Category:Naval battles of the Barbary Wars. A new category for land battles Category:Battles involving the British East India Company is also required. Hugo999 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. TheGrappler (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Naval battles involving the East India Company, since that is the current title of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Name?: While the main article is East India Company, the main category is Category: British East India Company (Company years from 1600 to 1874, English to British in 1707) Hugo999 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Wikipedia introduction cleanup

 * 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: Productive discussion appears to have moved to the Jan 17th discussion, so closing this as no consensus.. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * wikipedia introduction cleanup


 * Nominator's rationale: delete Make more specific categories for these templates, although there are already some extant.Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep See no good reason for making four or five specific categories when they have such a clear common denominator. See also Template_talk:Lead_rewrite. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what a clear common denominator is. Can you elaborate?Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They have introductions in need of clean-up? Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * My point precisely. User:Bernolákovčina is asking for the obvious. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Counterproposal

Merge Category:Pages missing lead section and Category:Pages with intro too long into Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup, see this merge proposal. I made a separate nomination and posted a link here, because although it is in effect a continuation of the discussion here, the two categories involved were not tagged for the first three days of this discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Stamp collections

 * 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. If users want to try out having this as a subcategory of Category:Philatelic collections, then now would be an appropriate time to implement that, though this discussion really came to no consensus on whether such a set-up would be preferred to what currently exists.. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting: Category:Stamp collections
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too similar to Category: Stamp collecting and will cause confusion. Anything that can be put in the nominated category can just as well be placed in the established stamp collecting category. Maidonian (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I see these as quite distinct.  Stamp collecting includes all the articles relating to the  process of stamp collecting such as catalogs, stamp auctions, some technical terms, etc.   Stamp collections should include famous stamp collections, which in theory merit their own category.  Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be more than one such article at present.  If confusion is the concern, the name could be changed to collections of stamps. Ecphora (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. They are different things but even the proposed different name won't prevent this becoming a source of confusion. And is a an article on famous stamp collections going to be able to meet notability standards? Such an article is likely to be about the collections of individuals so are we saying that we would have an article about a philatelist and one about their collection? Which articles, specifically, would go in a stamp collections category? As mentioned previously, anything that could, could just as well go in stamp collecting. We already have unhelpful overlap between category philately and category stamp collecting so if this is retained we will have three similar ones. How are people supposed to know which one to use? Maidonian (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lack of notability is not a concern.  There are dozens of stamp collections that have been the subject of their own books, journal articles, auction catalogs, and newspaper coverage and have been shown in exhibits and far exceed Wikipedia's minimal notability criteria.  Some will (or do already) merit their own pages, such as the Royal Philatelic Collection.  Other similar ones are the New York Public Library's stamp collection.  FDR's or George VI's stamp collections, each of which could merit their own articles, separate from that of the individual.  David Feldman is publishing a series of books entitled "Great Philatelic Collections" of which eight have already been issued.  Certainly, some collections might be handled under the article for the collector, but if an editor desires more detailed coverage, the collection may be split off into its own article. In some cases, the collection should the the main or only article. To the extent editors need help with this  -- "How are people supposed to know which one to use?"  --- a short explanation can be added on the top of the category page, which is commonly used in Wikipedia.  Ecphora (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created the category for use with Philatelic calendar, and added it to topical collecting where the nominator removed it. That is use of the category for types of collections. I think this category could be also be used for important collections, or perhaps a new category, Category:Notable stamp collections, some of which are associated with a notable collectors, some not. Here is an example of a notable collection: http://www.worldstampnews.com/2010/06/the-stamp-auction-of-the-century-is-on/#more-1270 although I am not proposing an article about it. However it did receive coverage in the trade press. There is always some ambiguity and uncertainty with respect to categories and classification. As a person who is interested in philately and in the stamp trade, but am not a stamp collector, I can relate to the absurdity involved in overlapping classifications, but find them more useful than not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the category "notable stamp collections" is an excellent idea; it accurately describes the category and eliminates any possible confusion. Ecphora (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but possibly rename to Category:Types of stamp collections (per the original vision of its creator before the intervention of Maidonian). I know nothing about stamps but the difference between philately, stamp collecting, a stamp collection and a type of stamp collection seem to me fairly obvious. It would help if more types of stamp collections could be added. Occuli (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Like this suggestion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would rename it to Category:Types of stamp collections per Occuli. And I also added another article, British Library Philatelic Collections, to the new category, Category:Notable stamp collections. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as  Category:Notable stamp collections which makes it clear that the category is for articles on individual collections. But no need for Category:Types of stamp collections which seems to suggest more subcategories by type eg for "Stamp collections involving trains" or Stamp collections involving fish". Hugo999 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete in order to avoid confusion with Category:Stamp collecting. Use Category:Notable stamp collections instead. Maidonian (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I want is to end up with Category:Notable stamp collections and Category:Types of stamp collections; getting rid of Category:Stamp collections which is ambiguous. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Fred, you have jumped the gun by creating all three before the discussion has finished. You should wait until a consensus is reached rather than trying to preempt the discussion. Maidonian (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just an illustration of how it would work. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow up You still should have waited but I see that it has since been deleted anyway. Maidonian (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And now some one will have to delete your new categories, if the rest of us disagree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really a problem. I'll take care of any of that. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Including "notable" is pointless. No article is allowed unless the subject is notable.  If a collection is NN it will have no article and so cannot be in the category.  If we were talking about a list article, "notable" would need to be part of the title.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Famous stamp collections? I would not want any collections a auctioneer says is notable included. Slight press coverage occurs frequently regarding such collections. Actually I think common sense should rule here. Notable should mean more than just mentioned in a press release or auction catalog. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fred, if it passes WP:Notable it can go in the category. If not it should go in AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC).


 * We can write a guideline for this if necessary, but common sense should rule out puffing by auctioneers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have come round to the view that a category for notable stamp collections could be useful as long as 1) it is not called stamp collections and 2) it does not cover the same material as in articles about individual collectors. For instance, details of the collection of Thomas Tapling should be in the article about him until they justify splitting off into an article called Stamp collection of Thomas Tapling which would go in the new category. I don't see that we need an article on the collector and another on their collection except in the exceptional situation where the collector is notable in some other way, eg Thomas Tapling was also an MP and cricketer. Suitable candidates for this category would be the British Library Philatelic Collections, the Smithsonian Philatelic Collection etc, ie mainly ones not likely to be covered by articles on individual collectors. Category stamp collections would still need to be deleted or it would fill up with the wrong articles (I understand redirects don't work well with categories) but what would be the correct name for the new category? I don't think there is a rule about using the word notable, although it does seem a little redundant as the previous editor noted. Maidonian (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Query If a category is to contain [articles about notable] stamp collections, how could any title be more appropriate than Category:Stamp collections? Rich Farmbrough, 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Rename the title is more correctly Category:Philatelic collections as such collections may include more than just postage stamps but also stationary, post cards, presses etc. BTW, Category:Philatelic libraries is a likely parent cat, and so articles such as British Library Philatelic Collections are probably better in that parent rather than this category, however specific collections within the same library such as Tapling Collection would be correctly here. Fæ (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename, I thought of that name but dismissed it as "Stamp collections" seemed clearer. However Fae's argument is convincing - contents of Category:Stamp collections should be moved to Category:Philatelic collections - Category:Stamp collections could properly be a sub-cat, but would be likely to remain empty in the medium term, since even modest collections often include covers, catalogues, books and other material. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Question Does that mean we should have Category:Philatelic collections plus Category:Types of philatelic collection? TheGrappler (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My thought would be that 'it depends', I would suggest creating the main Category:Philatelic collections and see what sort of beast gets put there. Once there are 20+ articles it would be easier to see if there are enough specialist collections (such as purely watermarks, postcards, franks) compared to multi-type collections (like the Tapling Collection) to be worthwhile having sub-cats. Fæ (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Types of philatelic collection (if it were created) should contain articles such as Stamp collection, Frank collection, Cover collection, Stamp-hinge collection.
 * The categories named after these articles (if they existed) would properly be sub-cats of Category:Philatelic collections. Rich Farmbrough, 21:26, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Admin comment. You may all be getting close to consensus; that is good. However, please do not attempt to implement a solution until this discussion is closed. I've had to delete several categories already that participants here have created and attempted to implement. While these might be good solutions and ones that would work, we need to avoid doing this until this discussion is closed to avoid confusion. Some of the edits have involved removing articles from the nominated category, which the note on the category page explicitly says not to do. I know everyone is anxious to find a solution, but your patience with seeing the process to completion is appreciated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment "Stamp collections" is a better name than "Philatelic collections." It is the ordinary term for the subject. And, as the term commonly is used "Stamp collections" are not strictly limited to "stamps" proper; covers, essays, proofs and other related material is included.  If we had both categories, they would contain the same articles.  The category "Types of philatelic/stamp collections" is hardly needed; it is adequately covered by the categories "Topical postage stamps" and "Stamp collecting." Ecphora (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest keeping both, if a collection is limited to postage stamps then calling it a stamp collection is a reasonable term, however it was made quite clear during discussions with the British Library philatelic collections head curator that the collections there are not stamp collections as they contain many other items apart from postage stamps and the term was incorrect to use in any document or website (the BL website recently got this wrong when it was re-designed by another department and had to be corrected). Other organizations in this field such as the Royal Philatelic Society make the same distinction in their literature as well as the title of their organization. Consequently deleting the category Philatelic collections is unhelpful and does not reflect the quality reliable sources referenced in the articles concerned. Fæ (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine a "stamp collection" significant enough to merit an article that does not also contain covers, stationery, post cards, etc. (These are typically also included in "stamp catalogs" by the way.") In fact, the lead sentence in the Stamp collecting article is "Stamp collecting is the collecting of postage stamps and related objects."   So what's to distinguish a "stamp collection" from a "philatelic collection"?  Presses?  If you have both categories and no usable distinction, in practice they will be the same. Ecphora (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be confusing the hobby of "stamp collecting" with categorizing a "stamp collection" versus other types of "philatelic collection". There is no common term of "philately collecting" even though stamp collectors may be philatelists. The category of stamp collections would not apply to a specific collection of newspaper stamps or a post card collection (see, for example the Chicago Postcard Museum). To categorize the Tapling Collection as a collection of postage stamps would be factually incorrect and itself confusing to the layman who might then think that newspaper stamps or revenue embossings were types of postage stamp. I suspect your assumption that there are no notable "pure" postage stamp collections could also be proved incorrect, you may wish to ask at WikiProject Philately. Fæ (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The category of "stamp collections" certainly would apply to "specific collections of newspaper stamps." Newspaper stamps are stamps, just as are revenue stamps, airmail stamps, telegraph stamps, and other types of stamps, and collections of such stamps are in fact called "stamp collections."  Likewise, Postal stationery with printed and/or embossed indicia (stamp like image) are traditionally part of stamp collecting and often are included in "stamp" catalogs.  I see no reason why the Tapling Collection wouldn't also be a "stamp collection".  Ecphora (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you would class the following as stamps: embossed legal documents for raising revenue, a printing press used for printing stamps but also other materials, engraved official portrait images of royal family members and dignitaries in the Crown Agents archive, motor car tax discs of the 1950s or utility savings tokens purchased via the GPO? Again, the same reason that the curators at the British Library do not call their philately collections "stamp collections" (to avoid confusing their readers and researchers) should apply to our articles about the same collections. Fæ (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just me, but Wikipedia (and philatelists) classify several of these as "stamps". You might remember, for example, the The Stamp Act of 1765, about which Wikipedia states:
 * The Stamp Act of 1765 ... was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America. ... The act required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London and carrying an embossed revenue stamp.
 * I don't know about the other items; but if a stamp collection includes some miscellaneous items that doesn't make it not a "stamp collection." Otherwise no serious stamp collection would be a "stamp collection."  And some of the things you mentioned are not philatelic, such as "utility savings tokens".   Ecphora (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is going anywhere. I have already presented my rationale above as to why the category Stamp collections is a taxonomic child of Philatelic collections so can and probably should co-exist on Wikipedia, and we have discussed it thoroughly. As this discussion was raised about the possible deletion of Stamp collections (not Philatelic collections) we are in agreement on the keep outcome. As for GPO utility payment tokens, I was enjoying browsing these yesterday in the British Library Philatelic Collections exhibition, if you feel the Curator of philately (a former President of the Royal Philatelic Society) has made a mistake in thinking these are philatelic, or is generally wrong about insisting that the collections are not described as "stamp collections", you are free to drop him a note via the British Library website, though you may want to consider the Greek root (ateleia) before doing so. Fæ (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am afraid David Beech is a bit off key. At the British Library editathon he openly admitted that Cinderella stamps formed part of the British Library Philatelic Collections, even though they offer no relief from paying any duties!Harrypotter (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice exception example, however though Cinderella stamps do not fit the literal definition they are still philately-related as they would be used in conjunction with "true" philatelic-objects. Oops, my nitpicking alarm just went off. Fæ (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. A perfectly acceptable and logical sub-category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.

Modern American Weapons

 * 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, rename and delete respectively per revised nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting: Category:Modern American weapons or Merge to: Category:Weapons of the United States
 * Propose deleting: Rename Category:Modern aerial bombs of the United States to Category:Aerial bombs of the United States
 * Propose deleting: Category:Modern American anti-tank missiles or Merge to: Category:Anti-tank missiles of the United States
 * Propose deleting: Rename Category:Modern anti-tank rockets of the United States to Category:Anti-tank rockets of the United States
 * Propose deleting: Category:Modern artillery of the United States or Merge to: Category:Artillery of the United States
 * Propose deleting: Rename Category:Modern firearms of the United States to Category:Firearms of the United States
 * Propose deleting: Category:Modern missiles of the United States
 * Propose deleting: Category:Modern American air-to-surface missiles or Merge to: Category:Air-to-surface missiles of the United States
 * Propose deleting: Rename Category:Modern American tactical ballistic missiles to Category:Tactical ballistic missiles of the United States
 * Propose deleting: Category:Modern American torpedoes or Merge to: Category:Torpedoes of the United States
 * Propose deleting: Rename Category:Modern rockets of the United States to Category:Rocket weapons of the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete . What is "Modern"? Most of these categories don't define it. One says "all currently in service (as of early 2006)"; another, "designed, built, and operated by the United States since 1990". Subjective, nebulous, indiscriminate inclusion criteria. Two subcats of the main category aren't even "modern" (one seems to be intended as such; the other, however...). The other "modern weapons" categories probably have the same problem, but we'll start here with the U.S. ones. The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that the word modern seems so ambiguous as to be useless, but surely these categories should be merged rather than deleted? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, most of the articles in these categories are already categoried in both the "Modern..." and generic "[Weapon] of the United States" categories. I suppose merging to the '[Weapon Type] of the United States' categories would technically make more sense, though, since that way none would be 'missed'. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at some of the parent categories there are Category:Cold War weapons of the United States and Category:World War II weapons of the United States  categories. So it seems by default "Modern" means "Post-Cold War". And the Cold War article defines the end of that as 1991. Deleting these categories, or upmerging them, would leave them uncategorized in terms of time period. Category:Post-Cold War weapons of the United States and similar seems an appropriate naming scheme. (There are some cats like this already e.g. Category:Armoured fighting vehicles of the post-Cold War period.) Tassedethe (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering how many weapons were "carried over" from the Cold War period to the post-Cold War period, that would seem to be a very nebulous divider as well. I don't see why not just having them as '[Type of Weapon] of the United States' isn't fine. But I wouldn't argue against renaming as 'PCW [Weapons] of the US', I suppose - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (I think informing WikiProject Military history, or similar, might be appropriate, if not already done.) I'd prefer a more neutral Category:Weapons introduced in the 19xxs etc. I know there are plenty of post-Cold War weapons that due to time-delays (or worse) are obviously only useful for a war between global superpowers. Post-Cold War weapons does give the impression that they are designed for the PCW, which may not be true. Tassedethe (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * MILHIST notified. The problem with "introduced in" articles is, what about weapons that didn't see service, weren't built, or took a long time to develop? IMHO, (Weapon Type) of (Country) should be the primary category, with subcats for WW1, WW2, and probably Korea and Vietnam. "Cold War (Weapon Type) of (Country)" seems rather indisciminate as well, as virtually all weapons developed between 1949 and 1991 would be considered "Cold War weapons". But I seem to be digressing! Anyway, IMHO, "Modern", at least, should be discarded, as I nommed, but I'm interested to see what the rest of the MILHIST people think. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments – I agree that 'modern' won't do, but there is the large Category:Modern weapons by country which needs to be considered as a whole ... a problem with cfd is that a few 'test cases' are considered, the show moves on, and the result is that all countries except the US have modern weapons acc to Wikipedia. Occuli (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, I'd "go after" (to use a perhaps unfortunate term, but I can't think of a better one at the moment) the other countries' "Modern Weapons" categories if this one came up delete. But, if you think I should, I can go ahead for the big kahuna and add all of the Modern Weapons categories here to this one for discussion now? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'd be inclined to see how this goes first; there may yet be a spirited defence of 'modern'. On the whole category names should be permanent which rules out adjectives such as 'current' and 'modern'. Occuli (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/rename as amended. Occuli (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete we should not use 'Modern' in this sense. I agree fully with The Bushranger; we need to 'go after' all these categories that use 'Modern.' This is because in my first year history class, modern was defined as after 1500!! Suggest consideration of 'Twentieth century' and 'Nineteenth century' possibilities instead. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, all those missiles would only be 20th century! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename or Merge -- "Modern" is not acceptable. Modern in history can start as far back as 500 AD, in contrast with ancient.  A month or two back we deleted a load of 20th/21st century categories.  We regularly reject "current" and "former" categories.  "Post Cold War" might be acceptable, if appropriate to the subject matter.   Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * re-voted later -- revised comments below. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename or Merge - (Modern is of course acceptable where it has a technical meaning.) Consider whether there are defining characteristics that can be used - laser guided, squash head, jet powered, fly-by-wire, etc. etc.? Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

Comments on revised nomination

 * Important note: Having noted the "Merge" suggestions, I went through the list and identified merge targets...and realised that five of the categories should not be deleted but absolutely renamed instead. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I take it the contents of "Modern missiles.. " are covered elsewhere? Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 15th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * That'd be correct. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/rename as amended. Doesn't seem to be any desire for a synonym for modern. Tassedethe (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename or merge all as amended, but don't delete any without a manual check. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/rename etc as revised nom. A plain delete would lose category information, which ought to be preserved.  This should  presrve it in an acceptable (non-time-limited) form.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Kamma people

 * 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: administrative close: category is already under discussion at 2011 JAN 12 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * kamma people


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Deletion is suggested because the data is un-encyclopedic. Also the data is usually not verified. Townblight (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Er...what 'data' is being referred to, and how is it un-encyclopedic? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Categories exist to categorise articles. If the articles are inaccurate, either fix them or (if the are unfixable) delete them ... but so long as the articles exist, the category stays. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is there this sudden rush of categories under simultaneous cfd in 2 places? Townblight should opine in the correct place (where the nom has a good rationale). Occuli (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: Could the nomination be clarified? The category looks reasonable and is well populated. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Watersheds of the Barents Sea

 * 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) 00:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Watersheds of the Barents Sea to Category:Drainage basins of the Barents Sea
 * Propose renaming Category:Watersheds of the East Siberian Sea to Category:Drainage basins of the East Siberian Sea
 * Propose renaming Category:Watersheds of the Kara Sea to Category:Drainage basins of the Kara Sea
 * Propose renaming Category:Watersheds of the Laptev Sea to Category:Drainage basins of the Laptev Sea
 * Propose renaming Category:Watersheds of the White Sea to Category:Drainage basins of the White Sea
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. While watersheds is used in North America, it is ambiguous and not appropriate elsewhere. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * rename per nom as drainage basins is the correct word to use. Hmains (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * rename per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * no action Watershed is just British English for basin. The choice is arbitrary. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Watersheds of the Chukchi Sea

 * 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) 00:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Watersheds of the Chukchi Sea to Category:Drainage basins of the Chukchi Sea
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. These look like a duplicate to me and Hike may not be the responsible party here. I'm proposing that we use the international convention for this since the sea appears to be between Russia and the US. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * rename per nom as drainage basins is the correct word to use. Hmains (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename Per standing naming convention. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * rename per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.

People from, part 2

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. Disambiguation categories may be established on the old categories as appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Ashbourne to Category:People from Ashbourne, Derbyshire
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Matlock to Category:People from Matlock, Derbyshire
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Ashburton to Category:People from Ashburton, Devon
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Northam to Category:People from Northam, Devon
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Seaton to Category:People from Seaton, Devon
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Tavistock to Category:People from Tavistock, Devon
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Braintree to Category:People from Braintree, Essex
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Corringham to Category:People from Corringham, Essex
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Whitefield to Category:People from Whitefield, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Denton to Category:People from Denton, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Eccles to Category:People from Eccles, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Hyde to Category:People from Hyde, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Leigh to Category:People from Leigh, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Littleborough to Category:People from Littleborough, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Middleton to Category:People from Middleton, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Radcliffe to Category:People from Radcliffe, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Tottington to Category:People from Tottington, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Sale to Category:People from Sale, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Swinton to Category:People from Swinton, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Royston to Category:People from Royston, South Yorkshire
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Ware to Category:People from Ware, Hertfordshire
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Yarmouth to Category:People from Yarmouth, Isle of Wight
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Broughton to Category:People from Broughton, Greater Manchester
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Chatham to Category:People from Chatham, Kent
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Edenbridge to Category:People from Edenbridge, Kent
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Gravesend to Category:People from Gravesend, Kent
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Herne Bay to Category:People from Herne Bay, Kent
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Adlington to Category:People from Adlington, Cheshire
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Alford to Category:People from Alford, Lincolnshire
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Epworth to Category:People from Epworth, Lincolnshire
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Gainsborough to Category:People from Gainsborough, Lincolnshire
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Horncastle to Category:People from Horncastle, Lincolnshire
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Long Sutton to Category:People from Long Sutton, Lincolnshire
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Louth to Category:People from Louth, Lincolnshire
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Spalding to Category:People from Spalding, Lincolnshire
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Same as yesterday; rename to match main article, the plain title is ambiguous. Tassedethe (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename all: I notice that George Waterfield has been placed in the wrong Swinton (englandstats) (there being a far more famous one in Rotherham: ). Occuli (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of these should be left as disamb cats: eg, , . Broughton: Category:People from Broughton, Lancashire, Category:People from Broughton, Category:People from Broughton-in-Furness. Occuli (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but Seaton (also Cumbria) and Yarmouth (also Norfolk) need dab categories (in addition to Occuli's items); perhaps more. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Ice hockey personnel

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ice hockey personnel to Category:Ice hockey people
 * Nominator's rationale: Per all other such categories of Category:Sportspeople by sport, which use "people" rather than "personnel." There are several subcategories of this which I'll nominate if it comes to that.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - also any other instances of "persons" for people or "individual" for person. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Rename - We went with "personnel" as former players often become coaches, GMs, executives, etc. Changing to people for consistency with other cats seems reasonable. Resolute 14:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename' It was originally people to begin with I believe and a prior discussion moved it to personnel. Or atleast the subcats were. Don't remember if this one was specifically. (ie Ice hockey people from Manitoba) -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename To align with current standards. And all subcats as well. – Nurmsook!  talk...  17:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.