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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2000 comic strip disestablishments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Even though 2000 has some notable comic strip cancellations, the information is already covered sufficiently on the Comic strips ended in the 2000's page and this page counts as a partial duplication of that in my mind; especially considering that no other individual years have pages like this. Thebirdlover (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Partial Duplication. Useless category. --Hydao (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- seems pointless to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 30 December 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Australian pediatricians to Category:Australian paediatricians

Nominator's rationale: WP:ENGVAR Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per the Macquarie Dictionary 4th edition (2005) as recommended by the Australian government Style Manual, 6th edition (2002). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2013 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Introductory physics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We don't have any other "Introductory ..." categories and I don't think it's a defining characteristic. It also doesn't make sense for subjects like Energy to be categorised under Education (energy existed before education). DexDor (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Physics is sufficient. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category Physics is enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• do not delete without doing the work This is an incomplete nomination because it does not tell anyone what to do with the 4 subcats and 93 articles. Instead of trying to push deletions, editors need to spend the time to create proper subcategories for all these. The contents of Outline of physics could be a start. Hmains (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All 5 subcats would still be under Category:Physics after the deletion of the Introductory category. I've checked a sample of the articles and it looks like they're all/most under a physics category (e.g. Category:Gravitation) so an upmerge to Category:Physics is unnecessary. I could do a more thorough check before the Introductory category is deleted. DexDor (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good and thanks for undertaking this work as the nominator. Hmains (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the (initially 93) articles in the cat, recategorised a few (e.g. where the article shouldn't be under Physics at all) and all are now in at least one other physics category (e.g. Category:Concepts in physics). DexDor (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Cleanup this should only store introductory articles (like introduction to special relativity) -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The introduction to special relativity article is in Category:Introduction articles and that cat doesn't contain so many articles that we need "Category:Introduction articles about physics". DexDor (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that category is not part of the physics category tree -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what ? DexDor (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SOFIXIT Hmains. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Physics and be done with it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge (rather than delete) if all these articles are already in categories (e.g. Gravitation) under Category:Physics ? DexDor (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2013 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Military Light Utility Vehicle to Category:Military light utility vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Change capitalisation per WP:MOSCAPS and make plural. DexDor (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

remark Not much difference there.Redhanker (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- obvious correct capitalisation. Speedy? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 30 December 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.