The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename.
Kbdank71 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The category appears to be more about renting and rentals and the category name should reflect that. I'm not sure exactly what rents is. With this rename, there would be a main article,
renting.
Vegaswikian 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
Johnbod 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete The category covers such a diverse group of topics that grouping them makes it meaningless. It covers at least 3 different types properties: real estate, vehicle, and portable possessions. The normal rental period for those properties are totally different, and yet the category does not cover "
leases" (long-term renting). In addition, the category listed
economic rent, which is a totally different concept (it is about
opportunity cost). --
Voidvector 12:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)reply
That would suggest refining the contents. As pointed out above, with the proposed rename, there would be a main article. That article would in effect define what are valid contents for this category. Those extra articles can be removed after the rename. Also, if there are diverse topics, that would argue for sub categories and not deletion.
Vegaswikian 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:American theatre directors
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Keep.
Vegaswikian 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The template at the bottom bears it out, as far as the names of theatres goes.
Johnbod 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose The evolving practice in American English is that a 'theatre' is a place used for the staging of live plays, musicals and the like, while 'theater' is a place used for showing movie films.
Hmains 23:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - keep this category in conformity with all the other Nationality - theatre directors categories.
DionysosProteus 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Car rental
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Withdrawn.
Vegaswikian 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is basically for the rental companies. 'Car rental' seems to be ambiguous as a category.
Vegaswikian 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep and add subcat of
Category:Car rental companies for the relevant items. Several articles here (Car rental, ACRISS Car Classification Code, Excess Refund, etc.) are not companies, and are of narrow enough focus it's hard to imagine another category for them. I don't see how "car rental" is ambiguous.
Rigadoun (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I can support a split as another option. So I'll withdraw this proposal and create the subcat and see if another change is needed.
Vegaswikian 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Unified Team sportspeople and its subcategories
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete. Merge not needed since empty.
Vegaswikian 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge and delete — the
Unified Team only existed for a single Olympiad (both 1992 Winter Games and Summer Games) and a single category is sufficient for all athlete articles. Subcategorization is unnecessary.
Andrwsc 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
These categories are all currently empty (except having subcategories) after I've made a few edits, so a delete will be sufficient.
Chanheigeorge 19:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Multiple Apparitions
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete.
Kbdank71 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These are mostly one member categories, leading eventually into
Category:Apparitions that will never be expanded, all set up by a prolific editor who misunderstands the purpose and use of categories (and whose other edits could be checked also). Upmerge all to next category up, although many are "city" articles like
Phoenix, Arizona which should not be upmerged, nor should articles on New Testament persons, or theological etc concepts included in these categories. Many valid categories, for Lourdes, Fatima etc, have been left out of this nomination.
Johnbod 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete as over classification. If upmerged, why not simply move them to
Category:Apparitions after removing all of the extra listings in the categories, like the cities where these are minor events.
Vegaswikian 19:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, I also think the church approval/without approval one is due for a rename - approved by what church? Any - that's problematic? or are we talking RCC only? If so, it should read that way.
Carlossuarez46 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I guess the with/without approval ought to be changed for grammar's sake - I don't think that the Mary's appearance is either upon approval or despite disapproval of any church even if that's what (ugh) is meant.
Carlossuarez46 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, these are RCC approved, or not, and a rename would be a good idea (nb these categories are not in this nomination).
Johnbod 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Much of this tree has now been cleared out, and the categories de-layered by
User:History2007, who must be aware of this debate, but has not chosen to take part, or make his own nominations. Leaving former sub-cats of
Category:Apparitions orphaned is no way to achieve anything. Yet again CfD is pre-empted.
Johnbod 12:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete.
Vegaswikian 22:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, spammy single member category, apparently created for
Legatum. -- Prove It(talk) 15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not at all clear what would belong in such a category. Smells like spam.
Rigadoun (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename.
Vegaswikian 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. I seem to recall this being discussed once before somewhere.
Vegaswikian 19:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Merge.
Vegaswikian 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Argentinean singers
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete,
CSD G7 by creator request. -- Prove It(talk) 15:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge as unnecessary duplicate, or delete if still empty at the end of the discussion.
BencherliteTalk 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Towns in Bangladesh
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename both.
Kbdank71 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename, There is little official recognition of the distinction between a city and a town in Bangladesh. What distinction there is (i.e. governance by a municipal corporation or a city corporation) will produce only four entries in the city category. The Cities and Towns of X is not a novel proposition to WP, as already such categories exist. I'm bundling the
Category:Cities in Bangladesh into this. As both can be renamed to Cities and Towns and merged. Otherwise the confusion of two separete categories, neither of which feature a strong enough reason for deletion, and neither can be merged into the other without causing further confusion (like, what is a city doing in a category of towns).
Aditya(
talk •
contribs) 11:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Upmerge both to
Category:Settlements in Bangladesh. This should deal with all of the nominator's appropriate concerns without creating too many layers of categorization. After this merge,
Category:Settlements in Bangladesh would still only have about 30 articles in it, so no reason to subdivide.
LeSnail 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed Yes, that should do it. We can always split categories when there's a lot more articles to be categorized. Thanks for the comment.
Aditya(
talk •
contribs) 19:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. Thirty settlements sounds to me like the area is terribly undercovered. Aren't there villages? I can't find a category for them. I don't know much about Bangladesh but I'm surprised that one of the most populous countries in the world would have so few settlements. If there are other levels, I don't support a big merge in the settlements category, as it will become dauntingly big when filled.
Rigadoun (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
question The article
List of cities and towns in Bangladesh distinguishes between Metropolitan areas (cities) and Municipal areas (towns). If this article is correct, then the change should be opposed; if the article is incorrect, it needs to be corrected. In any case, do not upmerge to
Category:Settlements in Bangladesh. The "Settlements" categories should just have subcategories, as is the common practice for the 190-some categories of this name.
Hmains 00:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The original proposal to merge both cats into
Category:Cities and towns in Bangladesh still may be a valid option.
List of cities and towns in Bangladesh clearly shows that there are only four metropolitan areas (i.e. cities) in Bangladesh, which is too little to populate a separate category. As for villages, there are about 72,000 of them, but not one is represented on WP. The idea is to upmerge all into "settlements", and then split the cat as and when it starts becoming over-populated.
Aditya(
talk •
contribs) 08:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Olympic medalists for Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was No consensus.
Vegaswikian 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. It's a bit counterintuitive, but I think nom is correct about team name used in the Olympics, and category should correspond with that and the daughter categeories.
Snocrates 03:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I wonder then if we should move all of the Taiwanese Olympic categories to
Chinese Taipei, since that is how the country is referred to at the Olympics? It seems to me like that would be a bad move, since it would create non-conformity with all other Taiwan cats, but if we don't always use the team names used in the Olympics, then a lot of the rational for the proposed rename falls away. Certainly, something needs to be done to make the Great Britain Olympic categories consistent, but I'm not sure they shouldn't all be moved to the modern name.
LeSnail 17:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Rename — we need a category name that encompasses all years, and simply using "Great Britain" accomplishes that easily.
Andrwsc 17:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename per BHG.
LeSnail 13:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename.
Kbdank71 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The category appears to be more about renting and rentals and the category name should reflect that. I'm not sure exactly what rents is. With this rename, there would be a main article,
renting.
Vegaswikian 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
Johnbod 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete The category covers such a diverse group of topics that grouping them makes it meaningless. It covers at least 3 different types properties: real estate, vehicle, and portable possessions. The normal rental period for those properties are totally different, and yet the category does not cover "
leases" (long-term renting). In addition, the category listed
economic rent, which is a totally different concept (it is about
opportunity cost). --
Voidvector 12:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)reply
That would suggest refining the contents. As pointed out above, with the proposed rename, there would be a main article. That article would in effect define what are valid contents for this category. Those extra articles can be removed after the rename. Also, if there are diverse topics, that would argue for sub categories and not deletion.
Vegaswikian 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:American theatre directors
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Keep.
Vegaswikian 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The template at the bottom bears it out, as far as the names of theatres goes.
Johnbod 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose The evolving practice in American English is that a 'theatre' is a place used for the staging of live plays, musicals and the like, while 'theater' is a place used for showing movie films.
Hmains 23:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - keep this category in conformity with all the other Nationality - theatre directors categories.
DionysosProteus 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Car rental
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Withdrawn.
Vegaswikian 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is basically for the rental companies. 'Car rental' seems to be ambiguous as a category.
Vegaswikian 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep and add subcat of
Category:Car rental companies for the relevant items. Several articles here (Car rental, ACRISS Car Classification Code, Excess Refund, etc.) are not companies, and are of narrow enough focus it's hard to imagine another category for them. I don't see how "car rental" is ambiguous.
Rigadoun (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I can support a split as another option. So I'll withdraw this proposal and create the subcat and see if another change is needed.
Vegaswikian 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Unified Team sportspeople and its subcategories
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete. Merge not needed since empty.
Vegaswikian 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge and delete — the
Unified Team only existed for a single Olympiad (both 1992 Winter Games and Summer Games) and a single category is sufficient for all athlete articles. Subcategorization is unnecessary.
Andrwsc 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
These categories are all currently empty (except having subcategories) after I've made a few edits, so a delete will be sufficient.
Chanheigeorge 19:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Multiple Apparitions
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete.
Kbdank71 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These are mostly one member categories, leading eventually into
Category:Apparitions that will never be expanded, all set up by a prolific editor who misunderstands the purpose and use of categories (and whose other edits could be checked also). Upmerge all to next category up, although many are "city" articles like
Phoenix, Arizona which should not be upmerged, nor should articles on New Testament persons, or theological etc concepts included in these categories. Many valid categories, for Lourdes, Fatima etc, have been left out of this nomination.
Johnbod 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete as over classification. If upmerged, why not simply move them to
Category:Apparitions after removing all of the extra listings in the categories, like the cities where these are minor events.
Vegaswikian 19:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, I also think the church approval/without approval one is due for a rename - approved by what church? Any - that's problematic? or are we talking RCC only? If so, it should read that way.
Carlossuarez46 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I guess the with/without approval ought to be changed for grammar's sake - I don't think that the Mary's appearance is either upon approval or despite disapproval of any church even if that's what (ugh) is meant.
Carlossuarez46 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, these are RCC approved, or not, and a rename would be a good idea (nb these categories are not in this nomination).
Johnbod 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Much of this tree has now been cleared out, and the categories de-layered by
User:History2007, who must be aware of this debate, but has not chosen to take part, or make his own nominations. Leaving former sub-cats of
Category:Apparitions orphaned is no way to achieve anything. Yet again CfD is pre-empted.
Johnbod 12:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete.
Vegaswikian 22:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, spammy single member category, apparently created for
Legatum. -- Prove It(talk) 15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not at all clear what would belong in such a category. Smells like spam.
Rigadoun (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename.
Vegaswikian 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. I seem to recall this being discussed once before somewhere.
Vegaswikian 19:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Merge.
Vegaswikian 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Argentinean singers
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete,
CSD G7 by creator request. -- Prove It(talk) 15:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge as unnecessary duplicate, or delete if still empty at the end of the discussion.
BencherliteTalk 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Towns in Bangladesh
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename both.
Kbdank71 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename, There is little official recognition of the distinction between a city and a town in Bangladesh. What distinction there is (i.e. governance by a municipal corporation or a city corporation) will produce only four entries in the city category. The Cities and Towns of X is not a novel proposition to WP, as already such categories exist. I'm bundling the
Category:Cities in Bangladesh into this. As both can be renamed to Cities and Towns and merged. Otherwise the confusion of two separete categories, neither of which feature a strong enough reason for deletion, and neither can be merged into the other without causing further confusion (like, what is a city doing in a category of towns).
Aditya(
talk •
contribs) 11:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Upmerge both to
Category:Settlements in Bangladesh. This should deal with all of the nominator's appropriate concerns without creating too many layers of categorization. After this merge,
Category:Settlements in Bangladesh would still only have about 30 articles in it, so no reason to subdivide.
LeSnail 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed Yes, that should do it. We can always split categories when there's a lot more articles to be categorized. Thanks for the comment.
Aditya(
talk •
contribs) 19:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. Thirty settlements sounds to me like the area is terribly undercovered. Aren't there villages? I can't find a category for them. I don't know much about Bangladesh but I'm surprised that one of the most populous countries in the world would have so few settlements. If there are other levels, I don't support a big merge in the settlements category, as it will become dauntingly big when filled.
Rigadoun (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
question The article
List of cities and towns in Bangladesh distinguishes between Metropolitan areas (cities) and Municipal areas (towns). If this article is correct, then the change should be opposed; if the article is incorrect, it needs to be corrected. In any case, do not upmerge to
Category:Settlements in Bangladesh. The "Settlements" categories should just have subcategories, as is the common practice for the 190-some categories of this name.
Hmains 00:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The original proposal to merge both cats into
Category:Cities and towns in Bangladesh still may be a valid option.
List of cities and towns in Bangladesh clearly shows that there are only four metropolitan areas (i.e. cities) in Bangladesh, which is too little to populate a separate category. As for villages, there are about 72,000 of them, but not one is represented on WP. The idea is to upmerge all into "settlements", and then split the cat as and when it starts becoming over-populated.
Aditya(
talk •
contribs) 08:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Olympic medalists for Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was No consensus.
Vegaswikian 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. It's a bit counterintuitive, but I think nom is correct about team name used in the Olympics, and category should correspond with that and the daughter categeories.
Snocrates 03:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I wonder then if we should move all of the Taiwanese Olympic categories to
Chinese Taipei, since that is how the country is referred to at the Olympics? It seems to me like that would be a bad move, since it would create non-conformity with all other Taiwan cats, but if we don't always use the team names used in the Olympics, then a lot of the rational for the proposed rename falls away. Certainly, something needs to be done to make the Great Britain Olympic categories consistent, but I'm not sure they shouldn't all be moved to the modern name.
LeSnail 17:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Rename — we need a category name that encompasses all years, and simply using "Great Britain" accomplishes that easily.
Andrwsc 17:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename per BHG.
LeSnail 13:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.