Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 4



Category:Mayors of Whanganui

 * 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) 10:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Whanganui to Category:Mayors of Wanganui (over redirect)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename and reverse redirect. A user has recently manually renamed the nominated category as proposed, indicating a desire for this spelling change in the category. The article is at Whanganui and the parent category is . However, the article about the mayor is Mayor of Wanganui and there has been no consensus to change it. I am neutral as to the proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever title is adopted, ensure that there is a redirect from the pother spelling. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The spelling of this placename is contentious, see Wanganui. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the reason users want to change some but not all of the category names. The thinking is "Mayor of Wanganui" is a title which has always been spelled that way regardless of how the name of the city has been spelled, which has changed (or at least been argued about) over time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename --  Ce ra don  talk contribs   03:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename I recently changed the category from Category:Mayors of Whanganui to Category:Mayors of Wanganui based on Talk:Mayor of Wanganui. The mayoral title has always had the spelling without the 'h' to this date, whereas the place name did get the 'h' added. I assumed that this is sufficient to go ahead and change the category, but apparently it's not.  Schwede 66  21:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's gone back and forth a couple of times now in the past two years based on various speedy criteria, but it's never been properly discussed, so to prevent the jumping around, I thought a discussion about it would be beneficial. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough then.  Schwede 66  17:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to match head article Mayor of Wanganui.


 * 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:LGBT people from Serbia

 * 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 as (currently) empty. postdlf (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting lgbt people from serbia


 * Nominator's rationale: There is no requirement for false pages to contain not a single entry. The individual intended for this project was a hoax (Marija Šerifović). There was a lot of talk about this between 2007 and 2008 and now it's gone quiet. Many entires appeared in various media attempting to damage the woman, yet those in Serbian and Croatian sources where she spoke and answered questions herself all confirm her position as straight. A discussion on her talk page in 2007 saw no agreement but the general message was to keep all mention of the topic off her article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. --  Ce ra don  talk contribs   03:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD (empty category), without prejudice to re-creation if there is even one article to populate it (per WP:SMALLCAT, since this is part of the series Category:LGBT people by nationality). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 5 June 2012 (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.
 * This is an additional comment which I place outside the box in accordance with instruction not to modify - if it could tag along with the box in future archives that will be fine. Ideally I would have placed this remark under Brown HairedGirl's comment. No, despite my nomination, I am not opposed to the page existing once a genuine case arises. Although I am a subject of the former Yugoslavia and our people are largely homophobic almost to the point of denial of such persons from our lands, there is no question there are some. Very recently, the Bosnia and Herzegovina page opened and contains Vjekoslav Kramer who meets the criteria by having "come out". The information on the woman for whom the page was intended is scanty and moreover from a distant source. The Finnish journal may be good but no way could something hold true if it never travelled back to her homeland and surrounding countries. Meanwhile the media closer to home have dismissed everything on this topic. Not to worry, that's that for now. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Rich Farmbrough bugs

 * 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) 10:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting rich farmbrough bugs




 * Nominator's rationale: Firslty, personal categories for users are aginast policy. Secondly, these categories are explicitly related to use of automation by, who is now prohibited from using automation. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep they provide a simple way to categorise problems, and are not restricted to automation, templates being included. Moreover the model is not limited to editing on my account, and can certainly include, for example, bugs in published scripts, bugs in published AWB settings, and bugs in other published components or stand alone robot code. Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Delete - It seems that we have 20+ categories being used to house a total of six pages. I realize that this number can increase, but it seems to me that this could be tracked just as well on a user subpage, such as User:Rich Farmbrough/bugs. I wasn't even aware of the ArbCom case until now, but it is not a factor in my opinion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Don't really see a reason for this. --  Ce ra don  talk contribs   03:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per long-standing consensus against personal categories; there are other ways of organising this material. The arbcom restrictions have no relevance either way. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:33, 7 June 2012 (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:Indigenous Hawthorn Hawks players

 * 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. Articles are already categorised in the suggested upmerge targets. The Bushranger One ping only 19:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting indigenous hawthorn hawks players


 * Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection, we already have Category:Hawthorn Football Club players and Category:Indigenous Australian players of Australian rules football. Jenks24 (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I really think there is no reason to delete this category. --  Ce ra don  talk contribs   03:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The intersection is not a significant one: there is nothing uniquely 'special', so to speak, about a Indigenous Australian who happened to play for Hawthorn Hawks as opposed to any other club. While it might be useful to begin subcategorizing the two parent categories, Category:Hawthorn Hawks players should not be split by descent and Category:Indigenous Australian players of Australian rules football should not be split by club. There is no need to upmerge at this time, since the member articles have not been removed from the two parents, but this should be checked again prior to deletion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per Black Falcon. Additionally, this category ghettoises the Indigenous players of that club, contrary to the long-standing guidance at WP:CATGRS about avoiding ghettoization. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (changing my !vote). Upmerge to both parents. Same rationale, but to ensure that articles remain in their relevant categories, this category should be merged to both Category:Hawthorn Football Club players and Category:Indigenous Australian players of Australian rules football. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all the players are already in the 2 "parent" cats so upmerging effectively has already been done. Catscan or other tools allow for intersections like this to be found, we don't need dedicated cats to do so. Note that there are only 6 articles in this cat, but the Catscan intersection finds 10 who should be, highlighting the problem with dedicated intersection cats- they are rarely kept up to date or complete, compared to "standard" cats. The-Pope (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete we do not sub-categorize players on specific sports teams by ethnicity. Even subcategorizing players of specific sports by ethnicity is questionable at best, but we do not do such for specific teams.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2012 (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:Nintendo 64 combat flight simulator games

 * 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) 10:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting nintendo 64 combat flight simulator games


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only 1 article (since August 2011, and the Nintendo 64 is not getting new games for over a decade) and no other platform has a such sub-category in Category:Combat flight simulators. Niemti (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2012 (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:1717 inventions

 * 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) 10:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 1717 inventions


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Not part of a series. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I think that inventions do not lend themselves to categorization by year. The process of invention can be, and often is, a long one that involves multiple stages, variants, and inventors (for example, see the history of the incandescent light bulb). Does the 'year of invention' refer to the year of conception (of the idea), the year of publication, the year of implementation (e.g., when a working model is built) or the year of recognition (i.e., the invention is recognized and/or registered)? If the technology has undergone various revisions, does the year of invention correspond to the invention of the first version or the current/final one? The situation becomes more complex when different variants of the same technology are invented in different years by different people working separately, or when there is a dispute about who first invented something (see Category:Discovery and invention controversies). -- Black Falcon (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (and per Black Falcon's considerations). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (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:John Williamson songs

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting john williamson songs


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the bigger scheme of Category:Songs by artist.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the 'unless' clause in WP:SMALLCAT. Oculi (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2012 (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.

Wikipedia lightbulbs

 * 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. The creator is encouraged to use the pipe trick if he or she cannot abide the red links.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * lightbulbs that are out
 * lightbulbs that are unscrewed


 * Wikipedia Lightbulbs
 * Category:Lightbulbs that are unscrewed to Category:Wikipedian Lightbulbs that are unscrewed – C2C This is a user category, not a content category, so should indicate such. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This category actually is not a user category and the nominator himself added the user category template. This category is to demonstrate a point about Wikipedia in this essay: How_many_Wikipedians_does_it_take_to_screw_in_a_lightbulb%3F.--v/r - TP 17:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Lightbulbs that are out to Category:Wikipedian Lightbulbs that are out – C2C This is a user category, not a content category, so should indicate such. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. These seem to have been created to change redlinks to blue at the humorous essay page How many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?. See the related Template:Lightbulb is unscrewed which is currently up for deletion. If we rename these then, rather than spoil the joke, the links in the essay would have to be piped. But then, they might just as well be piped to the Sandbox or any other page. I'm inclined to delete the lot; the joke worked just as well with red links. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the two mainspace articles from these categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done. I am now tagging this one with a formal Oppose as well. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

These categories are humour categories for the essay How_many_Wikipedians_does_it_take_to_screw_in_a_lightbulb%3F, and as such are not content categories, so should not occupy names that can be used for any kind of content categorization. Further as implication of the essay, this is a user categorization, and as evidenced from the only categorized content at the time the Speedy was originally opened, it only contained user pages. Therefore these should be deleted or renamed into Usercategorization space. Deletion was the opinion of two commentators at Speedy, so is the proposal given here. The alternative, renaming, the original option at Speedy, are to rename the two to Category:Wikipedian Lightbulbs that are out and Category:Wikipedian Lightbulbs that are unscrewed. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nominator as the nominator, I agree with the deletion opinions lodged at speedy, so I say delete. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Messy, waste of wikitime and per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care if these stay or go (read that as neutral) - But I think these and the related templates and such should have all been nominated together at MfD instead of splitting the discussions out amongst several XfD discussions. So at this point, I suggest that the closer please take the other discussions into consideration when considering this close. - jc37 04:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not every red link should turn blue, and these categories serve no useful purpose. The links at WP:LIGHTBULB can just be piped to Category:Wikipedia humor so that they will not appear red. -- Black Falcon (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2012 (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:Dinosaurs of Appalachia

 * 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) 10:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting dinosaurs of appalachia


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty and uneeded. Only one article ever applied and it was moved to Dinosaurs of North America Kumioko (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment it is my understanding that this category pertains to the ancient landmass Appalachia (Mesozoic), and not the modern North America, per the recent CFD on the Dinosaurs categorization heirarchy by location. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom but note that Appalachia is not equivalent to North America. There is a List of Appalachian dinosaurs but I would be opposed to categorising them in Category:Dinosaurs of Appalachia since there needs to be a qualification for each of the taxa. A category cannot give the added detail. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:35, 4 June 2012 (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.

Decades in transport

 * 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 all to their respective "xx century in transport" category.. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge all to the appropriate century category, and WP:TROUT the nominator for not doing one group nomination. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your wish was apparently their command : ) - jc37 12:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I did create some of these categories, but at the time, they were certainly not empty. Someone must have emptied them later. I suppose they should be deleted as opposed to maintained, since there are so few articles anyway. Ardric47 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1550s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1550s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1500s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Comment I can not support the recommendation to redirect to Category:1500s in transport since that is a decade category and your proposal shows that it is still ambiguous. If redirected, it should be to Category:16th century in transport.  A like comment applies to the rest of your nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I could see the argument with keeping the Century cats like 1500s in XX. That to me seems completely reasonable but I do still think that we don't need a large columne of empty or nearly empty categories for things like this. Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The century categories are not named Category:1500s in transport, they are named Category:16th century in transport. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point sorry I wasn't clear I just more or less copied your example. Kumioko (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Category:16th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1545 in transport

 * Propose deleting 1545 in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1500s in transport. Unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:16th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. If this is deleted, then the associated article will be removed from any category having to do with 1545.  An upmerge to multiple categories would be required for the article.  If deleted, recreation should be allowed in the future if this category has more eligible articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1520s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1520s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1500s in transport. Unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:16th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Transport disasters in 1527

 * Propose deleting transport disasters in 1527


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1500s in transport. Unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Delete - per nom. --  Ce ra don  talk contribs   03:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. If this is deleted, then the associated article will be removed from any category having to do with 1527.  An upmerge to multiple categories would be required for the article.  If deleted, recreation should be allowed in the future if this category has more eligible articles.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Or re-categorise it into something reasonably big regarding 1527? I do note that this is a subcategory of Category:1527 disasters, which has as single sub-category Category:Transport disasters in 1527 which has as a single subcategory Category:Maritime incidents in 1527, which has as a single page St Anthony (ship).  To me, to make sense, if such a tree is used, then most of the possible end-categories (of which 'Maritime incidents in 1927' is one) should contain at least 3 articles (i.e. a branch comprised of 3 categories for 3 articles ..)  Browsing back from there we also get Category:Maritime incidents in 1545, Category:Maritime incidents in 1564 (each a container for 1 page), Category:Maritime incidents in 1591 (2 pages) and Category:Maritime incidents in 1588 (4 pages).  The upper holding category Category:16th-century_disasters has a tree of subcategories for 16 of the 100 available years, most of those contain 1 subcategory most of which contain 1 page (and the fact that 84 years are not categorised does not give much hope that the lowest level categories hold many more than 2 pages each, whereas for each year the tree expands with, at least, 3-4 categories.  And then, in 1527 transport was something that was reasonably prone to 'disaster' - 'mass' transport did come of the ground, we do have Category:12th-century_maritime_incidents (which has escaped the Category:Transport disasters in 1120-faith), but already has an absurd tree of 2 categories to hold one article (Category:12th-century transport disasters, Category:12th-century maritime incidents, where it is (currently) the only transport disaster between 1100 and 1199.  Such a tree makes sense in the twentieth century, but then applying it back to the 15th and 16th century is not making sense.  Splitting up large categories, in the end per year, is fine, but setting up trees for single years, or decades which start with having only one, with the expectation that they will have maybe two or three articles in the end if one searches hard enough is the wrong way around.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1390s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1390s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1300s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:14th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1370s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1370s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1300s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:14th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1340s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1340s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1300s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:14th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1320s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1320s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1300s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:14th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1310s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1310s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1300s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:14th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1280s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1280s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:13th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1270s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1270s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:13th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1260s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1260s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:13th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1250s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1250s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:13th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1210s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1210s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:13th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1180s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1180s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:12th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1170s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1170s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:12th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1160s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1160s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:12th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1150s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1150s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:12th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1140s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1140s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:12th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1120s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1120s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed. Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Merge into Category:12th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1100s in transport

 * Propose deleting 1100s in transport


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it worthwhile. This one could potentially be useful if we redirect all the other 11XX categories to this one. Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and search for other similar empty categories for deletion, or underpopulated categories for up-merging. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

transport
 * Note the upmerged category would be Transport in the twelfth century. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Actually it would be to Category:12th century in transport. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Category:12th century in transport. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 June 2012 (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.