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 C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:26, 6 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.
Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged. Some of these are works he's scored, so I'm not sure if they should be included. Either way, a footer should comfortably navigate these. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like some clarification please:
How much content is enough? Does this content count include sub-categories?
Eponymous are discouraged? See Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories. There are guidelines supplied and I don't draw the conclusion that these categories are discouraged. Since you're using this as a justification for lots of nominations for proposed deletions shouldn't there be a consensus on this issue and a note in the above link to this effect?
If he's scored these works why aren't they suitable for inclusion in this category? Perhaps another sub-category is needed: Works scored by Paul Kelly (musician)?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pursuant to my comment above I've had a look at other categories named for musicians/bands and find many with fewer articles inhabiting them. As for eponymous categories: they exist, certainly guidelines ought to be followed but I see no support for the claim that they are discouraged.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are more than suffienct articles to warrant this category. Dan arndt (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although I think the category should be cleaned up. In particular, I don't think the films should be in there (see for instance Category:Ennio Morricone and see the absence of Category:Category:John Williams). But still, I count at least five articles that definitely belong there and at least two categories (I think Category:Professor Ratbaggy albums should be created). That's enough for an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 13:16, 2 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.
Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category. LugnutsAnd the horse 17:56, 1 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.
Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category. LugnutsAnd the horse 17:56, 1 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.
Nominator's rationale: Too few articles, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe it has sufficient content and dispute contention that eponymous categories are discouraged.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category. LugnutsAnd the horse 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is enough articles for this to be covered in its own category. Dan arndt (talk) 04:28, 2 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. The nomination is incomprehensible without guesswork. The suggested action is "delete", but the rationale talk of upmerger without listing what the merge target is. Editors cannot meaningfully comment on a proposal unless it is set out clearly. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All images are up at WP:FFD, upmerge subcat to the parent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you upmerge, or if you keep, this category needs to have the NOGALLERY flag activated. -- 76.65.131.79 (talk) 06:47, 1 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.
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe it has sufficient content and dispute contention that eponymous categories are discouraged.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category. LugnutsAnd the horse 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sufficent articles for the category to be retained. Dan arndt (talk) 04:29, 2 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.
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category. LugnutsAnd the horse 17:56, 1 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.
Category:Former Arjen Anthony Lucassen bands or projects[edit]
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. The nomination is incomprehensible without guesswork. The suggested action is "delete", but the rationale talk of upmerger without listing what the merge target is. Editors cannot meaningfully comment on a proposal which contradicts itself. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent's parent--no need to subcategorize at all, let alone by time period. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to what, exactly? Note also that you selected 'delete', not 'merge', when nominating... - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:04, 1 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.
Category:Arjen Anthony Lucassen bands or projects[edit]
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. The nomination is incomprehensible without guesswork. The suggested action is "delete", but the rationale talk of upmerger without listing what the merge target is. Editors cannot meaningfully comment on a proposal which contradicts itself. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge...to where? Note that your proposed action does not match your selection for action, as the header says "propose deleting". - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:04, 1 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'. WaggersTALK 10:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason i created a new category is there is some articles that relate to rangers like Old firmGlasgow green but there not a direct rangers article like rangers f.c. i have not had time to add the new category to other pages, ive got nothing against the merge but i think it might be better in the reverse order as this category covers far more whereas the rangers one only covers rangers articles by name as far as i am awareAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in that case renaming it to sometihng that covers other things would be more appiorateAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:02, 3 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalle: Current name is ambiguous, as is clear both from the text of Category:Water transport itself (otherwise, why would it need to say "This category does not include articles on the tranport of water for the purpose of consuming the water"?), as well as a comment from an anon at this recent discussion. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
problem According to WP, maritime (as well as marine) only applies to seas or oceans. While this category is said to include "process of moving people, goods, etc. by barge, boat, ship or sailboat over a sea, ocean, lake, canal, river, etc." which is more extensive. I believe we have concluded there is no Englsh word that includes "sea, ocean, lake, canal, river, etc" Hmains (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:watNautical transport "nautical" is fairly common, and would cover things that travel in water as well as on water, and in the ground-effect above the water (IMO recognized Ekranoplanes) -- 76.65.131.79 (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Water transport is more generic with a purpose: it includes river and lake transport, whereas using the term nautical or maritime might seem to preclude that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Ship transport to reflect current name of main article. This would also get rid of issues with "nautical", "maritime", "marine", etc. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would exclude boats and barges though. --101.108.227.92 (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as meantioned by Hmains is no Englsh word that includes "sea, ocean, lake, canal, river, etc" expect one WATER so teh caterogy name is fine but i dnt disagree it is ambiogious, unless a new english word to cover the terms used then it would have to remain water.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If i am readin git (edit i mistype it and put git, i never inteneded to insult anyone this was honest mistake) right the caterogy is about transport on water, in that case another alternative could be Water Transportation.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Water transportation also means the transportation of water. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it means other things to but is a little ambgious in my mind than the current one but i dnt think neutrical transport worksAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Nautical transport" is a neologism that appears to be utterly unused in any industry, government, or financial usage. Rather, "water transport" or "water transportation" is the umbrella term for moving freight or passenger over water, like air transport[ation] or "ground transport[ation]. This is the best available term for reasons already covered: "marine" or "maritime" is that subset of water transportation on the oceans, excluding inland water services; shipping is vague (and much water transport is done via barge and not ship); and frankly I don't believe a reasonably well-read person will think this to be about the transportation of water any more than rail transport is about the transport of rails or ground transportation about topsoil.- choster (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I defy you to find any trade association, industry publication, government regulator, investment guide, news agency, or other authoritative source using "nautical transport" as the preferred name for this industry. The existence of the words "nautical" and "transport" does not mean that WP can wrap a rubber band around them and declare it a term of art.- choster (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Nautical transport. Neologism? Far from it. Simple - gets the job done and respects the distinction between marine and Nautical per Bushranger. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is or rename to ship transport yuck. What is so wrong with Category:Water transport again? Maybe not much. No so much as to get into these other odd and contrived names. Category:Ship transport might work though. Hmains (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All the alternatives either narrow the scope or are neologisms. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone can find a problem with this suggestion, I'm willing to Support this alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Nautical transport" is made-up; a quick google shows a few companies with that in their trade names, and the ads that it served up all had to do with moving boats, not boats moving stuff. Moving water around is usually part of "water distribution", because it usually is being moved to be distributed and consumed elsewhere. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose -- This is not just about sea transport; it is also about transport on rivers and canals. It is cognate with road transport and rail transport. "Transport on water" might be a possibility, but would exclude the use of submarines for carriage, which has happened though rarely. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that submarines transport sailors, so is a form of transport through water... -- 70.24.247.121 (talk) 23:07, 6 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.
Rename, and commend the nominator. My initial thoughts were against renaming from Goldilocks, but on investigation it's the right thing to do. – FayenaticLondon 18:44, 1 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.
