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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flash cartoons to Category:Flash animation

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. This article about the flash animation. JJ98 (Talk) 22:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I think the main article is not strictly accurate. The category is for cartoons made with flash, not everything flash animation related (which I think is covered by Category:Adobe Flash). jorgenev 01:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How do you decide what is a "cartoon" as a sub-set of animation? This seems to be introducing a distinction that does not exist. What is the criteria for something being a cartoon?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Warfare post 1945, reconsider deletion separately if necessary. This is a tricky one with little support for the current title, no clear consensus on deletion and the title above seems to cover the various concers. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warfare of the Modern era ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Historians' understanding of the 'Modern era' - and our well sourced Modern era article, date the modern era starting around 1500 - 1600. This category says it begins from 1945, reflecting a very limited understanding of history. Category would probably need to be renamed 'Warfare of the Twentieth Century.'

Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. We also have Category:20th-century military history. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps this could be renamed to something along the lines of "Warfare of the Atomic Age"? If I recall the original discussions about this set of categories correctly, the intent was to allow a division of 20th-century warfare into pre-nuclear and post-nuclear, so as to better document the shift from total to limited warfare as a consequence of the availability of nuclear weapons. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that is a possible alternative until a new more destructive weapon is developed. My problem with a change to labeling conflicts like this is how many nuclear wars have actually been fought? So the title is problematic. The coldwar could be included, but how about all of the uprisings and non conventional actions or the chemical weapons usage or the huge number of conventional conflicts? Atomic is not really the best title. Vegaswikian (talk)
    • 'Warfare of the post-Hiroshima age'? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague. Neutrality^talk 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to (?). The category is a subcategory of Category:Military history by era, with earlier subcategories Category:Warfare of the Early Modern era (c1500-c1800) and Category:Warfare of the Industrial era (roughly 1815-1945) PS: The Napoleonic Wars (c 1803-1815) should not be in this category. There is also a Category:Cold War (1946-1991) which however is not a subcategory of Military history by era. Should it be added as an “era”, with a separate era post-1991, or else have a category for the whole era/period 1946 to present. Called perhaps Category:Warfare post-1945? To be a parent category for various subcategories eg Category:Military units and formations of the Modern era and Category: Military units and formations of the Cold War. Hugo999 (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to 'Warfare post 1945' as per Hugo999. Following the discussion, this is perhaps the clearest of the available alternatives, and of course will then require the mil units and formations cats to change as well. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Include Category:Military equipment of the Cold War and similar categories; though Category:Military aircraft of the Cold War is rather thinly populated (are most military aircraft in categories by decade?) Hugo999 (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The notion of a major shift in warfare in 1945 ignores the Spanish Civil War and a litany of other conflicts fought during the first half of the 20th century. Most wars before 1945 were fought on a limited basis, World War I and World War II being the exceptions. This really boils down to an arbitrary line category, and so should be delted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some category is required for Category:Military history by era post-1945 and for current military equipment categories under discussion including Category:Modern Russian tanks (June 20) and Category:Active United States military aircraft (June 22). Hugo999 (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anthony Burgess characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-item category with little likelihood of growth. The sole article is already in a Clockwork Orange category. Delete per [{WP:OC#SMALL]]. No prejudice to re-creation should there suddenly appear a number of Burgess character articles but for now it isn't needed. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I happened to notice that Enderby (fictional character) was in it the other day, but that has just been deleted; I might have tried to rescue it if I'd noticed the PROD (titular subject of 4 novels after all, see Enderby#Other). However, two members wouldn't justify keeping this category anyway. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to category:Formula One. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Formula One companies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Almost all "Formula One companies" are either competitors or engine suppliers, for which there are already categories. The only company which has Formula One as its primary business, and is not covered by another category, is the F1 Group, making a category with no real use. QueenCake (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to category:Formula One. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what I was thinking, would make considerably more sense. QueenCake (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are other companies as well... like fuel suppliers, gear box suppliers, timing suppliers, tyre suppliers, F1 race contract holders, F1 circuit companies etc.... 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F1 circuits, and by extension their operators/promoters, are already covered by Category:Formula One circuits, while other technical partners and suppliers are not exclusively "Formula One companies", as the category infers. QueenCake (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many gear box suppliers are notable enough that articles exist on them?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename and restrict to articles on the TV series itself. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Contender to Category:The Contender (TV series)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match The Contender (TV series). The Contender is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Rename - the category as currently conceived is for people who "competed, guest starred, or were otherwise involved in" the TV series. This is overcategorization of performer by performance. In the absence of the participants' articles there are nine articles remaining, including two bare lists of fights that should either be deleted as redundant or merged. Seven articles is insufficient for a category where the contents are all linked through the TV series article. The category is likely to continue to draw articles about the people involved, making for burdonsome maintenance. If this is kept, the category needs to be cleared out and repurposed, preferably with a note advising that individual people shouldn't be placed in it. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rationale for deletion sounds fine to me. So fine, in fact, that it reminds me of someone. (I feel like Darth Vader when he first senses Obi Wan's presence in the Death Star in Episode IV ...). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but repurpose and depopulate, keeping only the articles with names beginning "The Contender". - Fayenatic (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note User:Harley Hudson has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Otto4711. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fayenatic's plan does not work. Categories are not supposed to be used as substitutes for disambiguation pages. Things are supposed to be categorized by their traits, not their names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian television horror series to Category:Indian horror television series

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent, Category:Horror television series. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename, also consistent with others in Category:Indian television series by genre. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Franco-Greek relations to Category:France–Greece relations

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with all other subcats of Category:Bilateral relations of France and similar categories in the 'bilateral relations' category tree. 70.225.168.199 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am the nominator --- logged myself out somehow. LeSnail (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This may be subject to the ArbCom injunction. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That injunction talks about not moving article pages, but I don't see anything that indicates that it extends to categories or other non-article pages. The point is also to avoid edit wars, not to prevent decisions for renaming to be made by consensus. Since categories typically are not moved without consensus, I don't see the injunction as being very relevant to any proposal made here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename; convention of Category:Bilateral_relations is Category:Country1–Country2 relations.- choster (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename to reflect category convention. Neutrality^talk 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we want a dash. Why not Category:France Greece relations?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 27. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Godfrey Douglas Giles to Category:Works by Godfrey Douglas Giles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category contains files of works by Giles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Percy Earl to Category:Percy Earl paintings

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is a category full of only painting files. Currently there is no article about Percy Earl. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. jorgenev 03:08, 12 June 2011 (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.