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:Rename. This category refers to a body of work that is frequently called the "Serpent Riders trilogy" per Google. I will call out the fact that there are actually 4 games in this "trilogy", because one of them (
Heretic II) is not directly related to the main plot. However, I see this as being a technicality in much the same way as
The Hobbit is a fourth part of the
The Lord of the Rings, which by and large is thought of as a "trilogy". Alternatively, if the word trilogy is found too offensive, perhaps just clean up this name to
Category:Heretic and Hexen.
Ham Pastrami (
talk)
22:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I've never heard of it referred to as the "Serpent Rider's trilogy" and a Google search only gives a page and a half of results: hardly evidence of it being "frequently called" that. "Heretic and Hexen" would seem like a much more appropriate name.
fraggle (
talk)
11:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)reply
It's "Serpent Riders" (plural) not "Serpent Rider's" (possessive). Google gives 4 pages for that version. However, you're right that this is perhaps still not enough. However I also suggested the rename to "Heretic and Hexen" so why not change your vote to a conditional support?
Ham Pastrami (
talk)
17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Heretic and Hexen would seem the best option. The phrase "Heretic-Hexen" certainly doesn't seem to be used in the articles relating to each game, so some form of rename would be advisable, but "trilogy" is a little misleading in this case –
Ikaratalk →16:26, 14 June 2008 (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.
Palestine categories
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. Supported by other CfD closes that appear to make this the consensus in multiple discussions.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Palestine is not by any means a universally recognized country. Previous discussion (
1,
2a,
2b) led to the conclusion that categories dealing with modern topics should be named "Category: ... Palestinian territories," "Category: ... Palestinian National Authority," or "Category:Palestinian..." These categories have all been created after those discussions. I have arranged them chronologically here. (half are from the past month, the rest are spread out) --
EliyakT·
C21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep at least some of these, "crime", "human death", "terrorism", "terrorism deaths", e.g. Regarding the terrorism categories, there is an outstanding proposal
here to rename some other categories "Terrorism in the Palestinian territories" but to keep
Category:Terrorism in Palestine and
Category:Terrorism deaths in Palestine as parents to the Palestinian territories categories in order to cover pre-1948 terrorism incidents in what is today Israel's territory. I don't see how "terrorism", "terrorism deaths", and much less "crime" and "human death" qualify as "modern" topics only. These things have been going on there since long before 1948. It seems to me we need some sort of name/category for stuff that occurred in present-day Israel prior to 1948, and "Palestine" seems to fit that need well. Nothing to suggest that "Palestinian categories" cannot be created for post-1948 information, but there's no need to delete one to create the other.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename No such place as Palestine - until they are recognised as an independent state it's the Palestinian territories.
пﮟოьεԻ5708:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename Palestine is not actually a country but rather it is known in its current state as the
Category:Palestinian territories. Per norm, similar renamings have occured.
Palestine includes modern day
Israel, making the categories incorrect for the time being. Until such time the PA becomes a state it refers to a larger geographical area.
Epson291 (
talk)
14:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
From
Transjordan: "From that point [Sept. 1922] onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan. Technically they remained one mandate but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. Transjordan remained under British control until 1946."
I think common sense should be used in the naming of the categories. People looking for info concerning the modern Palestinian territories should find it in a category with that name in it. People looking for info concerning historical Palestine should find it in a category with that name. Where a topic concerns both periods it should be in 2 categories. Ease of use should guide the naming in my opinion. --
Timeshifter (
talk)
00:40, 20 June 2008 (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:Vox Humana 8'
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.
Keep as owner of this: I need this category to organise a number of articles which I will be writing in the next little while...--
VoxHumana8'21:22, 2 June 2008 (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:Fictional Femme Fatales
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.
It really isn't arbitrary. It certainly isn't endless since some women are femme fatales and some simply aren't. No one is being libeled because the femmes all are fictional. The category is useful for literary research.
Wlmg (
talk)
16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - While it's undoubtedly true that some women are femme fatales and that some women simply aren't, there's a large spectrum of female characters who may or may not be femme fatales, depending on who's making the call. In other words, this strikes me as a highly subjective term that isn't very well-suited to serving as a category, interesting though it may be.
Cgingold (
talk)
18:32, 1 June 2008 (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:Alpha CVn-type variables
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: User:CarloscomB claims this is a stub-type category, but the stub template does not populate this category, nor would I expect the contents of this category to necessarily be stubs.
70.55.86.37 (
talk)
14:38, 1 June 2008 (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:Eclipsing binary of Algol type
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:Merge, Another User:CarloscomB category requiring cleanup. This time, it replicates an existing category.
70.55.86.37 (
talk)
14:33, 1 June 2008 (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:RS CVn variables
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:Merge, Another
User:CarloscomB category requiring cleanup. This time, it replicates an existing category. When created, it claimed to be a stub-type category, and claimed to be populated by a stub template that didn't use it.
70.55.86.37 (
talk)
14:27, 1 June 2008 (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:QSO objects
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.
Category:Emission-line Star
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 stars have emission lines. This category makes no sense. Further, it was created as a "stub-type" category, which it is patently _not_.
70.55.86.37 (
talk)
13:57, 1 June 2008 (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:Ancient Trojans
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: Only four members which are all members of parent
Category:Trojans. As it isn't name of current inhabitated place all Trojans are ancient. Other parent category irrelevant as Trojans were not Greeks.
Peter cohen (
talk) 11:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Later: This is a Merge proposal--
Peter cohen (
talk)
13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment It was my first proposal. Maybe next time I'll get it right. I had intended delete but I can see that merge is safer as someoen might add a new member while we're discussing this--
Peter cohen (
talk)
13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Not to worry, Peter, you did allright for a first go at CFD. The important thing is that you identified the problem correctly.
Cgingold (
talk)
13:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge as above. The only conceivable distinction might be between Homeric and classical Troy, but I doubt there is enough on the latter to warrant a separate category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:01, 2 June 2008 (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 Price Is Right
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: These Price Is Right categories are proposing for renaming. The proper title was a capital "I" for "Is", not a small "i". The correct proper rename title is "The Price Is Right". These two categories has to be renamed to match the main articles and correcting the proper title.
Steam5 (
talk)
05:35, 1 June 2008 (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:Middle-earth calendars
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.
I thought we had this discussion last month? Though I don't know if anyone got round to implementing what was discussed there?
Carcharoth (
talk)
05:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
When I said discussions last month, I was referring to the discussions about similar categories. There are at least two editors, me and
User:YLSS, who are willing to do a global approach for the category structure under
Category:Middle-earth and
Category:J. R. R. Tolkien. No need to throw up the categories piecemeal in an inefficient fashion. Discussion with us and other editors and populators of the categories will get better results. Also, see
here for a list of redirects associated with
Middle-earth calendar. I am going to note this at
Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects as an alternative way to organise and keep track of redirects.
Carcharoth (
talk)
21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment (Otto4711, what was the need in depopulating the category when it was under CfD? If you have any comments on its inconsistency, please discuss it here.) This is indeed a category with little potential, unlike those for Orcs etc that were temporarily put on hold. The only possibility for its expansion is creating redirects for all month-names, various loende etc. They do have individual entries in
Encyclopedia of Arda, so it is possible that a user will type these names, but I think it is least necessary. So if you want, move the article to Category:Middle-earth, preserve the redirects where they are and move them to a subcat of
Category:Middle-earth redirects.
Súrendil (
talk)
16:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The items removed from the category during the discussion were miscategorized. Fictional days are not "fictional calendars" so whether this cat is under discussion or not they should not have been in the category.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:33, 15 June 2008 (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:Rename. This category refers to a body of work that is frequently called the "Serpent Riders trilogy" per Google. I will call out the fact that there are actually 4 games in this "trilogy", because one of them (
Heretic II) is not directly related to the main plot. However, I see this as being a technicality in much the same way as
The Hobbit is a fourth part of the
The Lord of the Rings, which by and large is thought of as a "trilogy". Alternatively, if the word trilogy is found too offensive, perhaps just clean up this name to
Category:Heretic and Hexen.
Ham Pastrami (
talk)
22:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I've never heard of it referred to as the "Serpent Rider's trilogy" and a Google search only gives a page and a half of results: hardly evidence of it being "frequently called" that. "Heretic and Hexen" would seem like a much more appropriate name.
fraggle (
talk)
11:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)reply
It's "Serpent Riders" (plural) not "Serpent Rider's" (possessive). Google gives 4 pages for that version. However, you're right that this is perhaps still not enough. However I also suggested the rename to "Heretic and Hexen" so why not change your vote to a conditional support?
Ham Pastrami (
talk)
17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Heretic and Hexen would seem the best option. The phrase "Heretic-Hexen" certainly doesn't seem to be used in the articles relating to each game, so some form of rename would be advisable, but "trilogy" is a little misleading in this case –
Ikaratalk →16:26, 14 June 2008 (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.
Palestine categories
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. Supported by other CfD closes that appear to make this the consensus in multiple discussions.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Palestine is not by any means a universally recognized country. Previous discussion (
1,
2a,
2b) led to the conclusion that categories dealing with modern topics should be named "Category: ... Palestinian territories," "Category: ... Palestinian National Authority," or "Category:Palestinian..." These categories have all been created after those discussions. I have arranged them chronologically here. (half are from the past month, the rest are spread out) --
EliyakT·
C21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep at least some of these, "crime", "human death", "terrorism", "terrorism deaths", e.g. Regarding the terrorism categories, there is an outstanding proposal
here to rename some other categories "Terrorism in the Palestinian territories" but to keep
Category:Terrorism in Palestine and
Category:Terrorism deaths in Palestine as parents to the Palestinian territories categories in order to cover pre-1948 terrorism incidents in what is today Israel's territory. I don't see how "terrorism", "terrorism deaths", and much less "crime" and "human death" qualify as "modern" topics only. These things have been going on there since long before 1948. It seems to me we need some sort of name/category for stuff that occurred in present-day Israel prior to 1948, and "Palestine" seems to fit that need well. Nothing to suggest that "Palestinian categories" cannot be created for post-1948 information, but there's no need to delete one to create the other.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename No such place as Palestine - until they are recognised as an independent state it's the Palestinian territories.
пﮟოьεԻ5708:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename Palestine is not actually a country but rather it is known in its current state as the
Category:Palestinian territories. Per norm, similar renamings have occured.
Palestine includes modern day
Israel, making the categories incorrect for the time being. Until such time the PA becomes a state it refers to a larger geographical area.
Epson291 (
talk)
14:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
From
Transjordan: "From that point [Sept. 1922] onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan. Technically they remained one mandate but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. Transjordan remained under British control until 1946."
I think common sense should be used in the naming of the categories. People looking for info concerning the modern Palestinian territories should find it in a category with that name in it. People looking for info concerning historical Palestine should find it in a category with that name. Where a topic concerns both periods it should be in 2 categories. Ease of use should guide the naming in my opinion. --
Timeshifter (
talk)
00:40, 20 June 2008 (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:Vox Humana 8'
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.
Keep as owner of this: I need this category to organise a number of articles which I will be writing in the next little while...--
VoxHumana8'21:22, 2 June 2008 (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:Fictional Femme Fatales
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.
It really isn't arbitrary. It certainly isn't endless since some women are femme fatales and some simply aren't. No one is being libeled because the femmes all are fictional. The category is useful for literary research.
Wlmg (
talk)
16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - While it's undoubtedly true that some women are femme fatales and that some women simply aren't, there's a large spectrum of female characters who may or may not be femme fatales, depending on who's making the call. In other words, this strikes me as a highly subjective term that isn't very well-suited to serving as a category, interesting though it may be.
Cgingold (
talk)
18:32, 1 June 2008 (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:Alpha CVn-type variables
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: User:CarloscomB claims this is a stub-type category, but the stub template does not populate this category, nor would I expect the contents of this category to necessarily be stubs.
70.55.86.37 (
talk)
14:38, 1 June 2008 (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:Eclipsing binary of Algol type
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:Merge, Another User:CarloscomB category requiring cleanup. This time, it replicates an existing category.
70.55.86.37 (
talk)
14:33, 1 June 2008 (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:RS CVn variables
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:Merge, Another
User:CarloscomB category requiring cleanup. This time, it replicates an existing category. When created, it claimed to be a stub-type category, and claimed to be populated by a stub template that didn't use it.
70.55.86.37 (
talk)
14:27, 1 June 2008 (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:QSO objects
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.
Category:Emission-line Star
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 stars have emission lines. This category makes no sense. Further, it was created as a "stub-type" category, which it is patently _not_.
70.55.86.37 (
talk)
13:57, 1 June 2008 (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:Ancient Trojans
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: Only four members which are all members of parent
Category:Trojans. As it isn't name of current inhabitated place all Trojans are ancient. Other parent category irrelevant as Trojans were not Greeks.
Peter cohen (
talk) 11:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Later: This is a Merge proposal--
Peter cohen (
talk)
13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment It was my first proposal. Maybe next time I'll get it right. I had intended delete but I can see that merge is safer as someoen might add a new member while we're discussing this--
Peter cohen (
talk)
13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Not to worry, Peter, you did allright for a first go at CFD. The important thing is that you identified the problem correctly.
Cgingold (
talk)
13:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge as above. The only conceivable distinction might be between Homeric and classical Troy, but I doubt there is enough on the latter to warrant a separate category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:01, 2 June 2008 (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 Price Is Right
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: These Price Is Right categories are proposing for renaming. The proper title was a capital "I" for "Is", not a small "i". The correct proper rename title is "The Price Is Right". These two categories has to be renamed to match the main articles and correcting the proper title.
Steam5 (
talk)
05:35, 1 June 2008 (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:Middle-earth calendars
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.
I thought we had this discussion last month? Though I don't know if anyone got round to implementing what was discussed there?
Carcharoth (
talk)
05:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)reply
When I said discussions last month, I was referring to the discussions about similar categories. There are at least two editors, me and
User:YLSS, who are willing to do a global approach for the category structure under
Category:Middle-earth and
Category:J. R. R. Tolkien. No need to throw up the categories piecemeal in an inefficient fashion. Discussion with us and other editors and populators of the categories will get better results. Also, see
here for a list of redirects associated with
Middle-earth calendar. I am going to note this at
Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects as an alternative way to organise and keep track of redirects.
Carcharoth (
talk)
21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment (Otto4711, what was the need in depopulating the category when it was under CfD? If you have any comments on its inconsistency, please discuss it here.) This is indeed a category with little potential, unlike those for Orcs etc that were temporarily put on hold. The only possibility for its expansion is creating redirects for all month-names, various loende etc. They do have individual entries in
Encyclopedia of Arda, so it is possible that a user will type these names, but I think it is least necessary. So if you want, move the article to Category:Middle-earth, preserve the redirects where they are and move them to a subcat of
Category:Middle-earth redirects.
Súrendil (
talk)
16:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The items removed from the category during the discussion were miscategorized. Fictional days are not "fictional calendars" so whether this cat is under discussion or not they should not have been in the category.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:33, 15 June 2008 (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.