Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 18

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:American people of German descent and a subcategory of Category:American actors.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:American actors of German descent to Category:American people of German descent.
• Nominator's rationale this was already done with a nomination made on Feb. 4, 2011 and followed up on on Feb. 12, 2011. As far as I can tell this category was recreated in direct contravention of precedent. It seems to be a case of overcategorization by trivial intersection of unrelated traits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There is no justification for such a deletion. This is part of a series of articles found in the Category:American models by ethnic or national origin. Hmains (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A- this is not about models. B-what of the precedent that the category already was upmerged?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. JPL, can you please add: Category:American models of German descent and Category: American mobsters of German descent, and Category:Murdered American mobsters of German descent to your nomination? Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will seperately nominate those in slightly larger nominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Ok Category:American actors by ethnic or national origin but it does not matter. The idea that immigrants and their descendants are something less than American and that xxx-Americans are an intersection is repulsive to WP and is just toying with rules for an attack purpose. Hmains (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the only person who has suggested this is at all a value judgement is Hmains. The argument is that this intersect is a non-notable one. It has nothing to do with a value judgement on the people involved, and I really wish people would avoid such calling on red herring arguments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if you go to Category:American actors of English descent and follow the link to the discussion on that category being removed you will see this category was also removed at the same time, with the support of about 6 editors with no one claiming there was any reason to get the German related category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2012 (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:American people of Peruvian descent, Category:Hispanic and Latino American actors, and a subcategory of Category:American actors.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:American actors of Peruvian descent to Category:Hispanic and Latino American actors and Category:American people of Peruvian descent
• Nominator's rationale this is a triple intersect, which is discoraged. While there is interest in actors being Hispanic or Latino Americans, there is no evidence that there is any focus on specifically being of Peruvian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There is no justification for such a deletion. This is part of a series of articles found in the Category:American models by ethnic or national origin. Hmains (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is not about models, so that comment makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. At present there are three subcats to 'Hispanic and Latino American actors'. One for Mexico, one for Puerto Rico and one for Peru. Peru has 3 vs 54 and 28. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Ok Category:American actors by ethnic or national origin but it does not matter. The idea that immigrants and their descendants are something less than American and that xxx-Americans are an intersection is repulsive to WP and is just toying with rules for an attack purpose. Hmains (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how is calling for ending a category that differentiates people by ethnic background "The idea that immigrants and their descendants are something less than American"? Anyway I specifically acknoledge that having a category for Latino and Hpsianic American actors is probably justified, I am only questioning there being specific justification for Peruvian ancestry, and to have this category we need evidence that being an American actor of Peruvian ancestry is more than a trivial intersect of occupation and ancestry. The category needs to be proactively justified, not justified by accusing those who suggest deleting it of having some sort of ethnic animus against American people of Peruvian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The relevant quote on this issue is "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created."John Pack Lambert (talk)

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: no consensus. There appears to be a possible consensus for renaming all similar categories, but there is less support for renaming just one of them. So I am closing this as "no consensus" without prejudice to an immediate group nomination of all such categories. If it really is the intent to rename all the by-country subcats of Category:Aircraft by country, then they should all be discussed together.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Aircraft manufactured by the United States to Category:Aircraft manufactured in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Do countries make airplanes? If this is successful, there may be more like named categories to be dealt with. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename while some aircraft might by manufactured by governments, most are manufactured by prive companies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• do not rename There is no indication anywhere that the country name here implies that the government is doing the manufacturing. The country is more than just government. Same with all its sibling categories. Also, looking at the template here, the population of these categories may be something else, namely: 'Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer'. Hmains (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'By' clearly implies that the government is the manufacturer. If this is intended to be for companies in a country, then the proposed form makes this fact clear and unambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree that US means US Government. If US government were meant, then government would be explict. And in any case, it does not address this problem. If the contents were using the template title Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer as the method of inclusion, then this should be made explicit. There is a difference beween a model first manufactured in the US and a model first manufactured elsewhere and subsequently manufactured by or in the US. This entire country category tree seems to be based on 'first manufactured', not manufactured 'at some time'. Also, the parent category is Category:Aircraft by country, and its 59 subcats are all in the 'by foo' format. Hmains (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aircraft grouped by country is clear. There is no implication that they are made by the country, just in that country. This part of the tree is anything but. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on principal that the United States is no different then the other 60 odd categories in this Category:Aircraft by country tree all of which use "by the". MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why you are opposing a test case? Your objection seems to be that the other categories will be ignored, but that is not the case. I just wanted to access support or lack there of before nominating the rest. Would it be fair to say you support as long as the rest are also done? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, I dont have a problem with them all being changed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all in Category:Aircraft by country. Aircraft manufactured by US (or any other country) clearly implies that it is the government making these planes and the majority in the categories are not made by the government. Ravendrop 03:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment 'in' I can accept without the presumption that 'by' meant or implied that the government made them, but 'first manufactured in' would be better and probably more correct. Hmains (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2012 (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: merge both to Category:People killed by Nazi Germany. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming the following categories for consistency:

Currently: Category:Protestant victims of Nazism

Currently: Category:Catholic people executed by Nazi Germany

I am not sure which wording is "better" or more popular (hopefully we'll find out), but I strongly believe they should be consistent, i.e. either both are "... victims of Nazism" or both are "... people executed by Nazi Germany". I see no reason for discrepant category titling in this case. Quis separabit? 23:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• People executed by is a better form in my view. It makes it clear what we are talking about, "victims" is too unclear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Foo people executed by per JPL. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Protestants/Catholics executed by Nazi Germany" as "people" is implied in the construction. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Question to interested editors: I cannot find a similar category for Jewish people killed by the Nazis. Is there one? Hmains (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge both to Category:People killed by Nazi Germany. In a random sampling of about 30% of the articles in each category (and the non-random checking of the one with "pastor" as part of the title) I found none that stated that it was specifically the person's being Catholic or Protestant that led to their deaths. Most of them were resistance fighters or political rivals. Many make no mention outside of their categories that the subjects were of any particular religion at all. The relevant policy is I believe Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality which states in part "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic." Since the articles do not support the idea that these two cross-sections of religion and "killed by Nazi Germany" are relevant the categories should be merged to the parent. If the categories are kept then they should be renamed to "Catholics/Protestants killed by Nazi Germany" to match the parent. But again, they shouldn't be kept. Buck Winston (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Buck Winston's argument. On further consideration I support upmerge. in general we do not merge executed by and religion cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2012 (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 "in" to "of". - jc37 20:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Beer brands in Germany to Category:German beer brands
• Propose renaming Category:Beer brands in the United Kingdom to Category:British beer brands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Was tried as a speedy under C2C to match the majority in Category:Beer brands. The speedy was opposed with the argument that Country related should use country name. So either we rename these to match the others or we rename the others to match these. Another option offered in the oppose was a rename to Category:Beer brands from foo. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Beer brands of German and Category:Beer brands of the United Kingdom to match the such categories as Category:Clothing brands of Germany.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom to match the sibling categories. There is no reason to change the pattern, only to conform to it and to popular English forms. Hmains (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nominator's proposal, but Rename per JPL. The adjectival forms are ambiguous and contentious, whereas the the "of" format clarifies the scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nom's proposal, rename per JPL (proviso fixing "German" to "Germany" in that proposal) -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nom's proposal, rename per JPL to "XY of <country name>". Per BHG "adjectival forms are ambiguous". ChemTerm (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2012 (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:American people of Austrian descent and a subcategory of Category:American actors.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:American actors of Austrian descent
• Nominators rational the intersection of ancestry and being an actor is trivial, at least in the case of being of Austrian descent. The one person currently in this category is also in Category:Austrian emigrants to the United States so upmerging would just create category duplication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete triple intersection of nationality, ancestry, career is overmuch, per WP:OC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. This is one a dozen more subcats of Category:American actors by ethnic or national origin. Their fate should be decided together unless there are particular reasons to make this one an exception. What exactly is it about being of American an actor of Austrian descent that is less defining than being an American actor of Peruvian descent or of Hong Kong descent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There used to be Category:American actors of English descent and Category:American actors of German descent among many others, but they have been deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they were both upmerged as a result of a discussion initiatied on Feb. 4, 2011, but for some reason the German category was recreated. I did not realize that had been done because it was not placed as a subcat of Category:American actors by ethnic or national origin. Personally I am unconvinced we should have any American actors by x descent cats, but each descent category has its own unique issues, so I am not convinced a mass nomination is a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • JPL. please can you explain what the unique issues are? I'm not seeing the difference between Austrian descent and the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the unique issue is that there are some ethnic groups that are historically more distinct. Also at times the issue will get merged with race and thus easy identification. There will be long discussions of possible type-casting by ethnicity if I bring up say Category:American actors of Japanese descent so I am going to go at this peace by peace.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Along with all the rest, this is a non-notable triple intersection. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment On Feb. 4, 2011 there was a CfD that agreed to get rid of all American actors by descent categories that involved European nationalities. Thus there is a general precedent against the Austrian nationality. There has never been an agreement to massively wipe out non-European nationalities in this type of category. That is the key reason why this cateory is inherently different than the Japanese one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment based on the criteria for this type of categories set out at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality the lack of any evidence of systematic study of this particular intersection should cause us to upmerge the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• New Vote: Upmerge to Category:American people of Austrian descent and Category:American actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2012 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People from Sikar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Chu86happychu 18:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking any real content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as empty on 23 Oct following deletion on 19 Oct per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people from Sikar. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 21 October 2012 (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: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs written by Priyanka Chopra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category with one song? BollyJeff | talk 17:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not all songs need to be categorized by author.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:SMALLCAT specifically says, "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist. There is a reasonable argument that this should be amended, but until it is, it should apply here. --82.71.187.33 (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB. The above post was from me, WP logged me out. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as part of Category:Songs by songwriter. More entries will probably follow, as she only signed a recording contract last year, see Priyanka Chopra#Music career. – Fayenatic London 21:18, 21 October 2012 (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: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Priyanka Chopra songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A category with one entry?!? BollyJeff | talk 17:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not all songs need to be categorized by whatever exactly is being recognized her 9since as we just saw there is also a seperate author cat).John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need eponymous cats. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:SMALLCAT and my comments above. It applies more so as it specifically mentions Category:Songs by artist and many, many precedents at CfD. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of Songs by artist. More entries will probably follow, as she only signed a recording contract last year, see Priyanka Chopra#Music career. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 21 October 2012 (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 - If the contents change (such as if the lists are merged), this can obviously be revisited at CfD. - jc37 20:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists relating to the Philippine presidency to Category:Lists of Presidents of the Philippines

Nominator's rationale: The category consists solely of lists of Presidents of the Philippines, so the simpler name more clearly describes its contents. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consolidate all articles into one list and delete category There's no good reason to have all these separate lists when thecould simply be combined into one sortable table. Mangoe (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If and when the articles are consolidated, then we can upmerge (not delete) the category. But right now the articles exist, and CFD's function is to decide how to categorise them. I have no view yet on how feasible merger would be, but note that the existence of multiple lists relating to one office is not unique: there is a similar collection amidst all the other stuff at Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mangoe. Pretty sure WP:BOLD applies here. If the rules stop us from improving the wikipedia, we should just do what should be done when it comes to the attention of other editors. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Question. Do you mean merge the article, or merge the category?

  I am not objecting to merging the articles; in fact I think that it may be a good idea, if the resulting table can be created without too many columns. There is nothing to stop nay editor from being WP:BOLD and merging the lists ... but unless and until that is done, deleting the category will simply leave a bunch of article uncategorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like Mangoe's suggestion of merging all the lists together into one big list, and then deleting the category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2012 (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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Adriatic Sea basin to Category:Drainage basins of the Adriatic Sea

Nominator's rationale: The established tree structure is "Drainage basins of Foo". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:50, 19 October 2012 (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: No consensus to rename. - jc37 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Trials in England to Category:Trials in England and Wales

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The jurisdiction of English law is England and Wales. Tim! (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- The precise venue for a trial is determined by the court service, and could mean that a trial of a crime that happened in Wales took place in England or vice versa. There is a single legal jurisdiction covering both countries, so that the target is much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support without prejudice to create a Wales cat, should a slew of articles of notable trials in Wales (pre-English invasion) are created. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Comment:The category appears to be of trials in a particular location (England) at any time, and a possible Category:Trials in Wales would apply to all periods not just “pre-invasion” Wales. So I favour keeping the Category:Trials in England, to apply to all trials in England whatever the period.

• Likewise Category:Trials in Scotland applies to those held under laws of the present Scottish Parliament, laws passed by Westminster for Scotland, and laws of the Kingdom of Scotland. And trials held now in Scotland under any United Kingdom laws which apply in Scotland. The Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial was before a Scottish court but it was sitting in the Netherlands, so it is classed as a trial in the Netherlands. Some of the charges were of violating Scottish law, but the Aviation Security Act 1982 is United Kingdom law.

• Re the category Category:Trials in Great Britain I will propose that this be upmerged to England, Scotland etc as the category has no links to the history of the Kingdom of Great Britain, 1707-1800. About the only trial in that period is the 1794 Treason Trials, and most trials in the category are either recent trials or witchcraft trials in the earlier Kingdom of England. So most would fit into Category:Trials in England. Hugo999 (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since there is no clear time limit, this category could include trials held in 1060, and mixing together England and Wales at that time makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if you followed the nominator's argument to its logical conclusion, then Category:Courts in England, Category:English laws, and indeed the entire English and Welsh law category trees would disappear. Just because England is part of a jurisdiction called England & Wales does not mean that England does not exist and can be erased from the encyclopaedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2012 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Megacoasters to Category:Hypercoasters

Nominator's rationale: This type of roller coaster is more commonly referred to as a Hypercoaster. The category would also match the name of the article, Hypercoaster. Astros4477 (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to match main article. Just don't ask me to ride one. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reanem per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2012 (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.