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: Whitehorse has a population of less than 30,000 and in the past we usually have, to limit the proliferation of small user categories for every minor locality, upmerged user categories for places with less than 50,000 people. In addition, the only user in the category has not edited in over two years and the parent category itself contains less than ten users. On the other hand, Yukon covers a large territory and it could be helpful, from the perspective of obtaining free images (which is the primary means by which these 'Wikipedians by location' categories could be useful), to know where in the Yukon a particular user resides.
I am leaning toward upmerging, swayed mainly by the fact that the category's only member has been inactive for two years, but I want to present both options for discussion. -- Black Falcon(talk)18:20, 17 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.
Support the current name is overly generic, and the codename was NGP not the name of this category. Use the release name instead. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tingstad and Rumbel
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.
Delete "anonymous" deletion nominations are not OK imho. You should contact me first, so that I know that you delete something I have created. It is luck that my nomination is below this; I possibly wouldn't even look at this log. I recommend you to use WP:TWINKLE, as it's very fast and easy. It also puts a note on the talk page automatically, so you don't need to put this manually. Delete this under G7, as per nominator's delete rationale.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed]13:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Nominator's rationale: This category serves no useful purpose. Categorising something as uncategorised is not only contradictory but pointless because it would be easier just to categorise it properly. If no appropriate category can be found for a redirect template, it can be placed in Category:Redirect templates until it is moved to a subcategory. This category is currently empty and only has one in-coming link outside of the user and user talk namespaces. McLerristarr | Mclay104:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: if deleted, change the instruction on the page Category:All redirect templates. I can't figure out what the purpose was, but I think it used to be populated using a template. Consider also nominating the other parent, and three sibling categories:
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. Even if fully filled out, there would only be three or four entries and carry little use. Upmerge to parent and delete. Resolute01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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: While I'm not completely convinced there is value on categorizing Stanley Cup Finals articles by participating teams, if we are to do so, I see no need for numerous microcategories that are redundant to the team season categories. The post-season is part of the season, afterall. There are also several categories with one or two entries, and no possibility of expansion as the teams are defunct. Propose merging all:
I'm also not opposed to simply upmerging to the main team categories, where I believe most of these articles were originally categorized, or simply deleting all. Resolute01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Postseasons are typically part of each teams season page so adding a category for Stanley Cup Finals appearance and big playoff games (e.g Easter Epic) is over categorization, especially given that for the majority of the teams there isn't more than 3 or 4 articles in each category. --Mo Rock...Monstrous(leech44)03:28, 17 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.
Category:The National Archives
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.
Keep Well, as you might expect, I don't agree. (But I'm not going to lose too much sleep about being overruled!) Technically 'The National Archives' is not a widely used name as List of national archives neatly demonstrates. NARA is NARA - and incidentally has the category (Category:National_Archives_and_Records_Administration) to prove it. The National Archives of India are 'The National Archives of India' and so on. The National Archives sited at Kew is not The National Archives UK any more than The Times is the London Times. The question is one of balancing a perceived ambiguity with calling things by their actual name. Curb's separate question of whether people know what The National Archives means is reasonable. Three thoughts spring to mind: one is that people only have to click to find out, secondly that there are many categories that I don't understand but that a user with a broad knowledge of the area in question would instantly make sense of and thirdly the relative lack of knowledge about our institution and collections is exactly what I'm here to attempt to ameliorate. --Mr impossible (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I was aware of that. I just used the former as a (I now see confusing) shorthand. I stand by the point that the disambiguation isn't necessary when the name isn't formally shared with another institution. --Mr impossible (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree with you in the case of the category if there were a consensus to move the article to The National Archives, but I doubt that would occur if a move proposal was made. I think the argument you are making is essentially one that would apply in arguing that the article would be moved. But until then, I don't see why the article and category names should be different. Good Ol’factory(talk)10:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was considerable discussion on that very subject just a few months ago [2]. I must have been washing my hair. But that is a chicken and egg argument. If I went to have the article name changed, no doubt the category name you propose would be cited as an argument for maintaining the status quo there. I have to start somewhere. --Mr impossible (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
