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 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: Not clear what the criteria for inclusion might be. A couple of members are on isolated rocks; most are on islands of greater or lesser rockiness. I can see a category of open-water lights, but this isn't it and I don't see that the current membership has enough in common. The upmerge presumes that all of these are on islands; exceptions would upmerge to Category:Lighthouses in Scotland or some other appropriate subcat. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Define and keep I think what this needs is a definition. I think they are all on isolated rocks or other otherwise uninhabited islands, as opposed to those on the main islands of the Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland or the Scottish mainland. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a little obscure but half of these lights are not on "islands" in the usual sense i.e. they are built on rocks that are or were in their original state submerged at higher stages of the tide. The original definition I used is easy to relate - they appear in Christopher Nicholson (1995) Rock Lighthouses of Britain: The End of an Era? along with Chicken Rock Lighthouse, Eddystone Lighthouse and half a dozen others. I had a quick look and I can't see a formal definition there - if there was one it would be something like "lighthouses on uninhabitable rocks or very remote small islands" (with Flannan being the only example of the latter). Scotland's coast is very long and convoluted for such a small country and I think the categorisation makes sense in this context. Furthermore, with the exception of Hyskeir they are all 'very notable' for various reasons, in particular the extarordinary engineering feats that created some of them (and in one case a remarkable mystery). BenMacDui16:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the above post (e.g. that the lighthouses are notable) is irrelevant to this discussion. When it comes to categorization it's not unreasonable to count rocks that are covered at high tide as islands (without the category name explicitly saying so). DexDor(talk)08:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh I doubt you would say that if you had ever been involved in building one! At Dhu Heartach "fourteen men were trapped there for five days, and at one point seawater poured in through the trapdoor, swirled around them and exited with their remaining food supplies."BenMacDui12:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
World-wide there is a very small number of these open-water stone foundation lights (I believe for example that the only US case is at Minot's Ledge Light). If we could come up with good sourcing I could support a single category for all the examples, but I'm not seeing a Scottish subcat, and as I said a lot of the members now are conventional construction on smallish islands, and wouldn't properly be members. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2018 (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: All the subjects appear to be physiotherapists. There are other sorts of masseurs, but none of the articles seem to be about them. It appears that physiotherapist is a term introduced during the twentieth century. Rathfelder (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2017 (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:rename to Church buildings by Fooian architects, without prejudice against a follow-up nomination to upmerge the English category, if desired. -- Black Falcon(talk)18:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
UpmergeCategory:Churches by English architects to Category:Churches by British architects would be my prefered action (and I've no problems with renaming to "Church buildings by..."). There's no real deletion rationale presented here and, if there are sufficient ecclesiastical architects of a particular nationality, the sub-categorisation would be acceptable to me. However, there's no great reason to subcategorise by UK subdivisions at the moment. Sionk (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (renamed per nom), adding a parent Category:Church buildings by architect. If consensus is to delete, then the proposed parent would still be a useful replacement. Note that the architect subcategories should be standardised to "Foo church buildings", too. FWIW, there are several "Foo church building" categories for New Zealand architects, though no national category. Grutness...wha?00:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I'd rather it was done ASAP - I'm waiting on the finalisation of the British category name before making uniformly named Australia and New Zealand ones, both of which are ready to be populated. Grutness...wha?05:22, 5 January 2018 (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: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. "Wikipedians by video game" category which has an extensive history of deletion due to an overly narrow scope - there is only one possible article that such users could reasonably be expected to collaborate on (even if one assumes that those who "like" NationStates is willing to collaborate on the article, which is in and of itself questionable). VegaDark (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree because when users identify themselves as being interested in a topic, this allows other editors to collaborate with them. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 21:16, 28 December 2017 (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.
Oppose -- because much of the content is not necessarily shore based. However, this category is a mess, and should be split. It mixes up command posts, some political rather than military; shore based admin; specialised boards; etc. We already have a shore-based subcat. Actually organization fits well. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am in the process of splitting this category. The 'Fleet' fits very well with the 'Military Units and Formations of the USN." THere are some things here (like the United States Ram Fleet) that I've just moved to MF&U categories. The whole rest of the navy is the 'Shore Establishment'. So there needs to be two main categories. Under the 'Shore establishment' will be, yes, shore commands, but that category I have just created, and is intended for formations that are at Command level. Under that level are regions, districts, offices, etc. Yes, also there also needs to be a Category:Department of the Navy (United States) which will take in the Assistant Secretaries etc, but 'Shore establishment' is a distinct body in the USN and needs to be represented. Buckshot06(talk)04:34, 28 December 2017 (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 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: Non-defining characteristic. M-ratings are rarely ever significant and typically do not get mentioned in video game articles at all. The1337gamer (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2017 (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:WP:SMALLCAT, there isn't enough content to have years in female (professional) bodybuilding. The vast majority of these categories have zero or one page, with the maximum being four (2008). --Tavix(talk)00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was going off the hatnote, I hadn't actually read the article. I'll change the hatnote accordingly and endorse the merge. Thanks, --Tavix(talk)14:57, 27 December 2017 (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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 21#Years in female bodybuilding. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)