Category:G-CVIX (aircraft)

IMO it should be a redirect to category:XP924 (aircraft) (which is a super category as for now). Both categories mean the same single aircraft (serial XP924, receiving later a civilian registration), and reasons for being in one or another are unclear. For some time it flew with Red bull livery, but it seems, that luckily it was later repainted into military colors again, still retaining its civilian registration (albeit non visible). Red Bull photos could go into category:De Havilland Sea Vixen (Red Bull livery), which could be nested in XP294 category. Pibwl (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, according to standard conventions, "G-CVIX (aircraft)" should be the main category with "XP924 (aircraft)" nested inside it, since the civilian registry is the current iteration. The images should always be categorised by the specific registry, if they are categorised by one at all. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So what category:XP924 is for, if it is the same aircraft? I won't oppose to leave G-CVIX only, but military (factory) designation makes more sense in this case. Actually, for all its life it's been XP924, and only recently G-CVIX, but I don't know since when and if we have any pre-G-CVIX photos. Pibwl (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, this situation is more confusing that I originally thought. I now understand it received the registry exemption to display XP924 on 24 January 2013, but some of the images in G-CVIX category say that it was flying with XP924 colours well before that date. Do you know when it stopped being XP924 and formally changed registration to G-CVIX? Any photos from before that date should be in the XP924 category (if any). If it turns out there are zero images from when it was XP924, then that category can be easily redirected to the civilian registry category. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, but isn't XP924 a serial number? Anyway, now it flies with original warbird colors (and I assume XP924 number as a part of original look), but I can't see G-CVIX registration on it (although I know, that it formally carries one). Pibwl (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm badly mistaken, XP924 would be its military registration, just as something like "56-01234" might be the military registration of a U.S. warplane. Indeed, our plane is currently registered as G-CVIX, but does not display it under the registry exemption. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pibwl and Huntster: Any resolution to this problem? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know :) I'd still remove this category as redundant. Still reasons for being in one or another are unclear. Pibwl (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Themightyquill, I dunno. The discussion stalled there, and I still stand by my statement of G-CVIX being the prime, since that is the aircraft's current legal registration. Commons convention is that old registrations are subcategorised under the current registration. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic deaneries in Diocese of Pelplin

The subcats are German Polish spelled Dekanat and should be renamed using deanery following the cat naming scheme of other Polish deaneries. Achim (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Dekanat - noch Fragen oder andere Zweifel ? 80.171.36.214 22:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, should be renamed anyway. --Achim (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Support I wouldn't say these are proper names. Move them to "X Deanery" or "Deanery of X" as you would. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Themightyquill, I'm wavering now, because in the meantime many cats have been created newly, so we should unify either in one direction or the other. A different point that requires rewiew are the assignments of deaneries to their dioceses (that's ok) but also to the superior archdioceses as well (that's not ok). --Achim (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)