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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. These are essentially two different names for the same topic, which causes confusion because some articles/cats are in "Category:American military chaplains" while other articles are in "Category:United States military chaplains". Eagle4000 (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate - I have taken the liberty of tagging the second category because I believe it needs to be renamed and there's little point in not discussing it here and now. The second category as Occuli notes is for articles related to the position or office, or whatever the official term might be, of chaplain in one or another branch of the US military and not for articles on individual military chaplains. The first category should be retained for individual chaplains and the second should be renamed to reflect its scope. I can't think what the best name would be. I suggested Category:Chaplain positions of the United States military but I'm far from married to that idea. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:18, 14 May 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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Hyde United F.C. reverted their name back to Hyde F.C. in June 2010, and this category includes people who have managed the club since that renaming. Furthermore, all of the other subcategories in Category:Hyde F.C. use the Hyde F.C. name. – PeeJay17:04, 14 May 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 as nominated, with no prejudice against a separate nomination to deal with the possible ambiguity of the word "battery". עוד מישהוOd Mishehu12:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Singular oder plural is considerd to be a long term discussion. In international wikipedia chapters there are different evatlutions about what is to be the exact handling for an encylopedia. I don´t mind if you want it to be in plural - i just refer to the rules of the german chapter. Regards --Alternaiv (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since an artillery battery is a configuration and fortification of a set of artillery, then you can invent such things. mix, placement, breastwork configurations, etc. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:39, 17 May 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 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:keep. We have a great many "state" categories that contain non-states, not the least of which is the District of Columbia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. It's more than just states. It also includes territories, etc.. I'm not fixed on the new name. Anything would be fine: "location," "place," "jurisdiction," etc.—Markles13:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is. The single sub-category with territories has been removed. Including the District of Columbia with the 50 states is done throughout WP without changing the parent category name to anything other than 'by state'. The United States consists of 'states' not 'locations' or anything else. Hmains (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, DC hasn't been removed, it's still contained in these categories. Furthermore, this category isn't intended to be a statement about what United States consists of. It's just about geographic subcategories.—Markles11:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rename to use "state or territory" phrasing. Many of the subcategories contain subcategories for DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, etc. Good Ol’factory(talk)10:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we do better than "Category:United States federal elections by state or territory"? It sounds too cumbersome.—Markles13:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The precedent is to ignore the fact that we have non-states in these categories. We accept that "by state" includes a very few non-state, state level entites. It is much easier and less cumbersom, and has served us well for a long time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 23 May 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.
Category:King George Island (South Shetland Islands)
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.
do not rename the category, rename the article instead. King George Island is one of the South Shetland Islands and should be named as such. It is not part of 'Antarctica'. I would have renamed the article myself but there is already a redirect that must be reversed Hmains (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is "part of Antarctica". Antarctica is a continent, and the South Shetland Islands are islands that are included in that continent. As the first sentence in South Shetland Islands states, "The South Shetland Islands are a group of Antarctic islands ..." If you want the article renamed, then it should be nominated for renaming through WP:RM, which has not been done. So if that is not going to be done, the category name should match the article name. We can't rename an article via a proposal to do so in CFD. I think everything I have said is non-controversial and well-established conventions. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting the RM discussion, which is what should be done initially when users are convinced an article is misnamed. If the rename of the article goes ahead, I have no objection to this discussion be closed with no action taken since that would mean the article name would match the current category name. Good Ol’factory(talk)10:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute the substance (and spelling) of what you said, but if you want the article to move, you need to place your comment at the article move proposal, since comments made here will have no effect on whether or not the article is moved. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:38, 23 May 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 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:Presbyterian churches built in the 19th century
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.
A building isn't "established," a congregation is— buildings might be designed, approved, started, consecrated, occupied, etc. but in the English I speak, organizations are established, objects are not. The wholesale move of "churches" to "church buildings" was roughly equivalent to moving Category:Parliaments to Category:Parliament halls, was overall incredibly ill-conceived and is to be resisted.- choster (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection if all of the other categories are renamed to match this one or the Eastern Orthodox one. However when I started in this tree the proposed name was the most common. I'll note that synagogues follow the Eastern Orthodox naming format at the century level. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 7 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.
Support both - if I remember right, the precedent is to use the current team's name in a situation like this, and seeing as the redirects are already in place for the mainspace articles, it makes to do the same here. —BETTIA—talk06:21, 16 May 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I'm not convinced that this defining or a needed class. In looking at the contents of the parent category, it looks like that most everything there could be moved to this category. I don't see that as aiding navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing why you wouldn't divide terrestrial vehicles apart from air vehicles (aircraft, etc), watercraft, space vehicles, tunnel boring machines, etc. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, do aircraft operate on land under their own power including moving backwards for certain models? Yes. To say that a tunnel boring machine is not a land vehicle may not be totally accurate. Is a hover craft a land vehicle? Well, it does move on land under its own power. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is Per pattern established within the parent category Category:Vehicles. There is no reason at all to start eliminating the sub-cats, of which there are already too many. Siblings of the air and water sub-cats. Hmains (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've added several pages now. There are 25 now, whereas Category:Vehicles has 50. If there's a Category:Aircraft, Spacecraft and Watercraft, there must be one for land vehicles. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 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.
Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 8. Jafeluv (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)