Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 27

: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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Climbing and mountaineering-related lists to :Category:Climbing-related lists

:Nominator's rationale: Mountaineering is a type of climbing. The category "climbing and mountaineering-related lists" is akin to a hypothetical "swimming and breaststroke-related lists" category. Most of the category contents are related to mountaineering, but I think the broader category "climbing" is better in this case. Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The introduction to mountaineering says it includes more than just climbing. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - some of the contents and subcats would not be appropriate under that name. --Qetuth (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Well I don’t mind, but I thought that “climbing and mountaineering” would make the coverage of the category unambiguous. As in List of climbers and mountaineers, although doubtless those on the List of people who died climbing Mount Everest would count as mountaineers! Hugo999 (talk) 04:53, 3 December 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.

: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 20:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Regensburg culture to :Category:Culture in Regensburg

:Nominator's rationale: Siblings in :Category:German culture by city use mostly "Culture in Foo". ChemTerm (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. We generally use x in/of/from y forms for all sub-national entities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 28 November 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.

: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. Lowercasing the "T" in "Tribes" should be part of a group nomination, if folks want that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Tribal communities of Rajasthan to :Category:Scheduled Tribes of Rajasthan

:Nominator's rationale: India has a complex social ordering system that involves, inter alia, jati, caste, gotra and tribe. Sources often vary in how they describe a particular community. In the case of tribes, you might also find them described as a caste, a gotra or a clan (although gotra is the pretty much synonymous with that). The variation - and there are others - is huge and often there are inconsistencies in the same source.

However, the government of India has a social classification system that specifies tribes. Instead of dealing with the inconsistencies that can arise both in and across articles dealing with such "tribes", it seems sensible to use the government system as a standard for categorisation. This is a test case: there are a few other similarly named categories that could be merged or renamed per my proposed schema. I am prepared to verify the contents post-merge - in fact, it ties in with my current exercise anyway. Sitush (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

:*BTW, the capitalisation - Scheduled Tribes - is per Government of India practice. The PDF can be seen [http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf here]. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rename to "Scheduled tribes of Rajasthan" - The Government of the Indian Union does not define capitalization of English words in the English Wikipedia. The EU capitalizes Member State all over the place, still the WP article is Member state of the European Union. ChemTerm (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

:*On the other hand, the Government of the Indian Union certainly does define the capitalization of the names of its designations and classifications. Not every U.S. representative is a Representative; not every U.N. special rapporteur is a Special Rapporteur, and so on.- choster (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

:*I really don't mind about the caps either way. but it is a sideshow in terms of my proposal. Whoever closes can do whatever they want about that. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rename as per ChemTerm. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. We bow to local usage by English-speaking countries. Since India has English as an official language, is the government of India feels that "Scheduled Tribe" should be capitalized we should do it. Anyway this is more or less a proper name, so we should capitalize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

:*It is not "mpre or less a proper name", it is a proper name. This is an official government classification system that comprises Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Classes and Forward Classes. You'll never see those in lower case in the Indian media etc when they are referring to the system and, indeed, often they simply abbreviate to SC. ST, OBC and FC. However, everyone here seems to be missing the bigger point: I am proposing a merger - the capitalisation issue is less significant that us being able to categorise in some sort of sensible manner. The creator of :Category:Tribal communities of Rajasthan agrees with me, btw, but has said so on their talk page rather than here. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

::*Good point. I had not noticed that the destination category does exist. In that case we definantly should merge and not tinker with the current Scheduled Tribes cat. I believe there is also :Category:Scheduled Tribes of India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

::::Actually there is not. There is Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes but that article uses the form "Scheduled Tribe" in the opening line. There is a lot of work needed to get consistency, and it does not help when people treat India as a non-English speaking area where we can ignore local usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Inclined to support the nomination, but Question: the nominated category is currently a sub-cat of :Category:Indigenous peoples of India, so should the target category also be within that one? If not, then perhaps the nominated category should instead be renamed to {{cl|Indigenous peoples of Rajasthan}}. – Fayenatic London 13:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

:*Fayenatic, I've been a bit troubled by Indigenous peoples of India but haven't had the heart to raise the matter. I'm in enough squabbles as it is, right now. One of the difficulties is that, particularly in northern India (of which Rajasthan is a part), many groups claim the Aryan invasion theory. I'm unsure whether the terminology - "indigenous" - is even being correctly applied but I'm not a professional anthropologist etc. The "tribes" defined by the government of India may or may not be the equivalent in anthropology to, say, the Aborginal people found in Australia but until we have a really good definition for "indigenous" that is applicable to India, well, my suspicion is that the category you refer to should actually contain far less articles and perhaps none at all (although there may be a case for those who claim Dravidian descent in the south). I think people may be confusing indigenous/ethnic group/tribe/caste etc in all sorts of inconsistent ways and it might be better to use :Category:Social groups of India etc. But it is all probably a topic best dealt with in another nomination, if ever I can summon the willpower. I'm a bit dis-spirited with the sniping going on elsewhere at present. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think the idea of :Category:Indigenous peoples of India is well thought out. How can we call Hindi people non-indigenous when Hindi culture developed in India? In the case of India I think the whole concept is unwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 10 December 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.

: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: listify and delete; generally the best way to record boundary changes in the encyclopedia. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Villages formerly in Derbyshire}}

:Nominator's rationale: As far as I can find, there are no other former village by county categories for the UK on WP. We don't categorize articles by former attributes either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This sort of grouping is exactly the sort of helpful thing that categories are for. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and expand category system I think it might be better to categorize according to both former and present county (though that might lead to cumbersome category names), but I personally find the category helpful in sorting out the shifting county boundaries, and I would like this kind of category extended to other counties in England. Since deletion seems a foregone conclusion, I would prefer Listifying as suggested below. Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete many of these articles are on things that are not villages at all. Categorizing places by all the 2nd-levl country subdivisions they have been in is a potential nighmare causing plan, and not really advised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete we cannot categorize places based on their former jurisdictions...nearly every large European city would end up being in dozens of categories: Warsaw, Poland, would be in categories: Cities formerly in the Duchy of Masovia, Cities formerly in the Kingdom of Poland, Cities formerly in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Cities formerly occupied by Sweden, Cities formerly occupied by Transylvania, Cities formerly occupied by Brandenburg, Cities formerly in the Kingdom in Prussia, Cities formerly occupied by France, Cities formerly in Congress Poland, Cities formerly in Russia, Cities formerly occupied by the German Empire, Cities formerly in the Generalgouvernment, Cities formerly in the People's Republic of Poland... too much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - what a horrific mess this could become! What next? :Category:Villages formerly in Germany (eg. Neman)? :Category:Villages formerly in Norway (eg. Fjällbacka)? :Category:Villages formerly in the Umayyad Caliphate (eg. Monachil)? Anybody who just pauses to think how many times administrative lines on maps have been altered during the millenia, in literally tens of thousands of administrative units, will immediately realise the horrendous path such a category tree would lead us down. Kill this nonsense at infancy. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Actually the situation would be worse. A more equaivalent set of categories would be :Category:Villages formerly in West Prussia, and then also having categories for all the various first-level sub-national entities that Poland has had over the last century. This is truly a nightmare.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

::* I agree would create many, many new categories. But in somes cases, wouldn't those things be defining, and demand a category of some kind. We already have :Category:Roman towns and cities for places formerly in the Roman Republic or Empire. I supposed the alternative to list them, as in List of towns in New France or template them as in {{tl|Gardariki}} (Norse settlements). Do wikiproject former countries or cities have any poicies on this? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Listify and delete -- There have been lots of boundary changes in England over the past couple of centuries. I do not think it is useful to try to reflect past geography in categories. An article can explain when and why changes were made. I think I recall an article on places that have ceased to be in Worcestershire. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

:*I would consider this a satisfactory solution. There really needs to be some easily understood presentation of these changes, and I'm not wedded to categories as being that presentation. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would support listifying. It would solve the problem that some of these articles are on wards that are made up of vilalges that were in Derbyshire at one point, but the wards that the articles are on were never part of Derbyshire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 30 November 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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Steam games}}

:Nominator's rationale: While there are other facets of Steam (software) that would be useful categorization (such as Steamworks-enabled game, Steam Workshop games, etc.) just being available on Steam is equivalent of building a catalog of what products a retail sells (eg this is a stone's throw away from something like "Amazon.com products") This is not necessary nor appropriate for WP. MASEM (t) 14:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree that the category is too simple, and because of the consensus that Steam is a store, not a platform, it would be more akin to :Category:Amazon.com products then :Category:Windows games. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete – I love me some Steam, but I don't see that the category does anything useful besides organizing by retail source, which we shouldn't be doing. I also agree that the idea for a Steam Worship category in particular would be useful. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• (On that last point: done :) --MASEM (t) 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Steam is a store and listing store's sold products is inappropriate. Per nom. We already have List of Steam games. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Yeah, I didn't know about that page. Whoops. —017Bluefield (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete WP:Snow Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete categorizing products by who sells them is a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - This category offers nothing but a reference to a catalog of software. DarthBotto _talk•cont 16:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete product by retailer is a bad path to start down. --Qetuth (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep really useful, it helps us organise the pages, we also have other helpful articles including:

:*List of Steam downloadable content

:*List of Steam games

:*List of games using Steam authentication

:*List of Steam games released in 2012

:*List of Steam games released in 2011

:*List of Steam games released in 2010

:*List of Steam games released in 2009

:*List of Steam games released in 2008.--Vaypertrail (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

:::Reply: You haven't really said why it is useful - in fact, I would think the lists you mention would largely make the category redundant. For a list of steam games, Steam (or Valve, note these lists are not in the category discussed but in :Category:Valve Corporation), is a defining feature of the list. For say Braid (video game), steam is not a part of the game, it is just somewhere you can buy it. It is is not a defining feature of Braid any more than Gamestop or Amazon. --Qetuth (talk) 07:20, 4 December 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.

: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 rename. (Result of close discussion and template moves on Speedy.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Philosopher templates to :Category:Philosopher navigational boxes

:Nominator's rationale: All templates in the category are navboxes.and it's a subcategory of {{cat|People and person navigational boxes}} and {{cat|Philosophy and thinking navigational boxes}}. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 11:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Rename as per nom. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:32, 27 November 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.

: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 rename. (Result of close discussion and template moves on Speedy.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Radio show templates to :Category:Radio show navigational boxes

:Nominator's rationale: Category only contains navboxes and is a subcategory of {{cat|Radio navigational boxes}}. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 11:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Rename as per nom. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:32, 27 November 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.

: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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Disease-related deaths by country}}

:Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#TRIVIAL. Dezastru (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't mean to step on any toes by proposing this deletion, but it seems that the category is in direct violation of WP:OC#SMALL. I'm also not sure how this form of categorization would be useful to readers, particularly since most of the daughter or grand-daughter categories contain just a handful of members. Dezastru (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as a top-level category for the by-country sub-cats. Often individual country categories have a handful of members when part of a larger scheme. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. If deleted, where will all the subcategories go? Or is the intent to nominate all of the subcategories? If so, they need to be nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

::I don't see that the subcategories are useful either. I am new at categories procedures. Is there a bot that can delete the tree, or is everything manual here? Dezastru (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

:::There are some bots that have been able to tag the categories. I have been away from WP for awhile though, so I'm not sure what the current status of those procedures are. I believe that these categories are mainly container categories; they are not intended to have articles placed in them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• keep top level categories get kept. This a mis-interpretation of WP:OC#SMALL and has no valid deletion argument. Hmains (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks to all who have pointed out my admitted error in the interpretation of WP:OC#SMALL. However, that was a secondary rationale. The primary rationale, as stated, is WP:OC#TRIVIAL: "this form of overcategorization also applies to grouping people by trivial circumstances of their deaths, such as categorizing people by the age at which they died or the place of death.... Even though such categories may be interesting to some people, they aren't particularly encyclopedic." Dezastru (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

:::It's not trivial though, as it is defining to the individuals within each sub-cat. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

::::Not sure I follow what you mean. If you were to say that death by aplastic anemia due to radiation poisoning was defining for Marie Curie, or death by poisoning was defining for Socrates, or death from lung cancer was defining for John Wayne, or death from complications of anorexia was defining for Karen Carpenter, or death from complications of AIDS was defining for Rock Hudson, I would understand. In all of these cases, the cause of death was/has been a prominent part of what has been reported about them. But is that true for most of the individals whose articles are grouped in the sub-categories? Is death by cardiovascular disease defining for former US President Dwight Eisenhower? Is death from myelodysplastic disease defining for Roald Dahl, or death from esophageal cancer defining for Harold Pinter? I'd say, no, disease-related deaths (and their specific sub-categories) were not defining for any of these individuals, or for most of the other individuals whose articles are so categorized. The actor John Wayne led a very public campaign against smoking after his diagnosis with smoking-related lung cancer, and Rock Hudson's diagnosis with and later death from AIDS were widely reported at the time and had an enormous impact on public perceptions of the AIDS epidemic. In their cases, the cause of death is part of what people remember about them. The other group of folks just died of diseases people get when they get old. Everybody dies eventually; the cause of death is not automatically notable/defining. Dezastru (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete the whole tree. Categorization by cause of death, at least diesease-related deaths, is trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. like :Category:Establishments in California by year, each year may not have many, but the category is unambiguous and the fact documented is noteworthy. nearly all notable humans have their cause of death noted in their obituaries, thus the fact is not trivial, though of course some may see it as such. human civilization documents and honors each human death, esp. the cause of death. I refer you to the film F/X, where the killer is identified because he DIDNT ask how the person died, and the detective KNEW that the first question asked by everyone upon hearing of someones death is "how did they die?".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep the whole tree. This is a well-defined category tree grouping an important biographical parameter. It is normal to include cause of death in a biographical article when known and documentable. Whether or not the cause of death is to be considered trivial is a matter of POV.--MChew (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment—this sub-tree is part of a wider range of categorisation of cause of death. For New Zealand we have the parent category :Category:Death in New Zealand with :Category:Accidental deaths in New Zealand, :Category:Disease-related deaths in New Zealand, :Category:Drug-related deaths in New Zealand, :Category:People executed by New Zealand, :Category:Deaths by firearm in New Zealand, :Category:Massacres in New Zealand, :Category:Murder in New Zealand, :Category:Suicides in New Zealand, &c. Before we decide to dismantle one part of the "cause of death by country tree", we should be talking about what to do with the rest of it. At the same time, the notability for most people is not the particular disease from which they died. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have just noticed that this topic had been raised recently at :WP:DEATH. I have put a link to this discussion there. (When oh when will people have the good grace to involve actual editors in these CfD? - :WP:BIOG may also be interested in this discussion) Ephebi (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• keep This is a parent category and particularly useful. Dimadick (talk) 12:38, 8 December 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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Culture by area navigational boxes to :Category:Culture by region navigational boxes

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. When I first saw "area" I thought it meant different types of culture. "Region" clarifies this as being different parts of the world and the content of the category seems to relate to regions as Wikipedia describes them. 86.40.203.115 (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Rename as per nom. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:32, 27 November 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.

: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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Book navigational boxes}}

:Nominator's rationale: This category is effectively redundant at the moment as I moved all remaining books that were novels to :Category:Novel (book) navigational boxes and anything else is in the broader :Category:Literature navigational boxes. There is one left (Template:Book year) but it is protected so I can't move it to :Category:Book templates where it should probably be (I don't think it's even a navigational box anyway). 86.40.203.115 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:34, 27 November 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.

: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 main, Hugo, Nebula, Nobel, and WFA categories; upmerge Austrian, BSFA, Locus, and Italy categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Book award templates to :Category:Literature award navigational boxes

:Nominator's rationale: This is what they are or mainly are. In the event of a slight deviation the offender can be disciplined (or removed, whichever is deemed the more appropriate action). This would then slot into :Category:Literature navigational boxes. 86.40.203.115 (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• :Category:Austrian literary award templates to :Category:Austria literary award navigational boxes (or possible merge to main book awards category as it has only one entry)
• :Category:BSFA Award templates to :Category:BSFA Award navigational boxes
• :Category:Hugo Award templates to :Category:Hugo Award navigational boxes
• :Category:Italy literary award templates to :Category:Italy literary award navigational boxes
• :Category:Locus Award templates to :Category:Locus Award navigational boxes
• :Category:Nebula Award templates to :Category:Nebula Award navigational boxes
• :Category:Nobel Prize in Literature templates to :Category:Nobel Prize in Literature navigational boxes
• :Category:World Fantasy Award templates to :Category:World Fantasy Award navigational boxes
• Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Rename as per nom. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment these should be upmerged:
• # :Category:Austrian literary award templates is a single template category
• # :Category:BSFA Award templates is a two template category
• # :Category:Locus Award templates is a four template category
• # :Category:Italy literary award templates is a five template category
• : -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. obvious. Locus Award templates now has a parent cat for the award categories, founder, mag, so the template category may not be necessary any more.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:18, 2 December 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.