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. "Famous" is unnecessary. If they have an article on WP, in theory they are notable; i.e., "famous", in a way. (I'm not sure how defining this is for some of those included, though.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename. Makes sense. "Famous" is a subjective term, and any notable person who can verifiably be included should be included, regardless of being "famous" or not.
Jafeluv (
talk)
09:15, 28 August 2009 (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:People from Gulf Province
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.
Comment. I don't necessarily disagree with the proposal, but as far as I am aware there is only one
Gulf Province, meaning disambiguation would be unnecessary. The only place categories that we seem to always disambiguate for, even when it's "unneeded", are those of U.S. cities. The parent category is
Category:Gulf Province. Category has not been tagged.Good Ol’factory(talk)22:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I am not sure. I appreciate the support, but I was not thinking on any such grand scale. I was referring solely to the Papuan Gulf Province for the reasons above. I think any such broad-based change would require extensive discussion at a more appropriate venue.
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose Rename As a matter of standard, we should have category titles directly corresponding to the title of the parent article. As all the geographic points at the provincial level worldwide appear to be adequately cataloged, this appears to be the only
Gulf Province and the category title should be the same. If there is some other Gulf Province and this article is disambiguated in the future, then -- and only then -- should we rename the category.
Alansohn (
talk)
23:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
No, I understand that and as I mentioned earlier I definitely am not suggesting that we start disambiguating foreign countries cities, etc. when it isn't necessary. Also I agree this is certainly not the venue for any such discussion. How does
Category:People from the Papuan Gulf Province sound? Maybe we should consider closing out given the stalemate.
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm confused then. If you are not suggesting we disambiguate when it isn't necessary as a general rule, why do you say disambiguating in this case is appropriate? What is the other "Gulf Province" we are referring to that confusion could result with?
Good Ol’factory(talk)11:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)reply
P.S. Why do you get more aggressive after I suggest we close out, instead of just agreeing? There are not enough votes for my nomination and this is not an important matter, so I just don't get it.
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
14:20, 4 September 2009 (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:Retailers by country
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. To reflect in the name the fact that this is for companies as indicated by it's parent category,
Category:Companies by industry and country and the actual contents of the subcategories. It is possible that some minor cleanup may be needed in the subcategories after this clarification of purpose is implemented.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Retailers are not necessarily companies. They may be sole traders or partnerships. A sole trader with a shop (or a small chain of shops) would probably be NN in that capacity, but might well be notable for other reasons. This will apply particularly historically, when incorporation was less common. For example
Jesse Boot, 1st Baron Trent, founder of
Boots the Chemists was clearly a retailer, though more specifically categorised.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The fact that there will be a few exceptions that will need to be addressed does not mean we should avoid a rename to reflect the vast majority of what is contained. It will be much easier to clean up a few exceptions then to manually move all of the companies.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:38, 31 August 2009 (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:Murasame class destroyers
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:Akatsuki class destroyers
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:LGBT military personnel from the United States
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, for consistency with sibling categories. You're right to bring it here, since moves from country names to adjectives are explicitly
not included in the speedy move criteria.
Jafeluv (
talk)
00:24, 31 August 2009 (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:Kamikaze class destroyers
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:Heroes by characteristics
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 Do people agree that all the articles and sub-categories in the source category are stock heroes in one form or another, and so would be equally at home in the target category (which is currently a parent category for the source)?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:27, 27 August 2009 (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.
Film series by number of entries
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 in all cases. It is easy enough to figure out how many films exist within a film series, as with everything else it is just a matter of careful application. With regards to your Star Wars example, The Clone Wars is considered canon and was released theatrically, so it is clear cut that it would be listed as having 7 entries. Some series, such as Batman, would need seperate consideration, for example Batman-Batman and Robin would be a series of four films, whereas the reboot would be listed seperatley as having two (to date). It's really not that hard.
magnius (
talk)
12:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - but you missed commenting on whether it's over-categorisation: since Star Warswas three, then six, and is now seven, the number of films in the series cannot be one of its defining characteristics. --
RobertG ♬
talk12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
On the fence. It can be subjective as to how many parts a series can have. I disagree with the above editor's comment that Star Wars "is clear cut that it would be listed as having 7 entries". To my mind this is two trilogies, or a series of six films. It depends on how you look at it. And what about the Ewok films? Nominator mentions my Superman edit. It could be seen as a series of 4, 5, 6 or 7 films depending on how you look at it / interpret it. I prefer the categorisation method than the
List of film series method, which is, quite frankly a mess. I think I'd like to see all of these type of articles disappear, but I know that they never will. Therefore maybe best to rationalise.
Robsinden (
talk)
12:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. This category saves time by making any "List of trilogies" unnecessary — and people will be looking for such a list. If the precise number of entries is debatable, it goes in the plain "Film series" category. Compare it with
this horror on the French Wikipedia. It's a much simpler and unobtrusive solution.
Xanthoxyl (
talk)
12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't know. The lists look okay. Ultimately the problem is that the Wikimedia software just doesn't allow sophisticated searches.
Xanthoxyl (
talk)
13:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm of the opinion that lists of film series with x entries is more appropriate than categories for the same purpose because lists can organize better than categories. I disagree that being part of a film series is not a defining characteristic; it's fair to assume that some people will want to know films that are related to each other through the same fictional universe or the same fictional elements. However, categorization is not a good way to accomplish this. If we ever start a discussion on criteria for lists, though, I'll be happy to participate to figure out how to best count and list related films. I'm neutral for now, awaiting other arguments. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
13:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete all that are five and above. Does anyone study films on the basis of their being exactly five, six, seven, etc. in the series? Does anyone even mention it when writing about films?
Query - when you say reverse merge three and fewer to the greek names, that would only be "Trilogy". Personally I'm against using "Trilogy" as it can be subjective as to what forms a trilogy and what is simply a series of three.
Robsinden (
talk)
15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
On the fence regarding tetralogies/four entries as to whether it should be kept but if so reverse merge it to the Greek for consistency.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
agreed. so i think "trilogy" should be avoided, unless it truly is a "trilogy". for consistency, "series of three" should be used.
Robsinden (
talk)
23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment – my reading of this is that
Category:Film trilogies should be populated with articles about deliberate trilogies (eg Lord of the Rings) whereas
Category:Film series with three entries would have films that ended up with 3 entries (due to the unexpected success of the first and relative failure of the 3rd, perhaps). If this is correct then
Category:Film trilogies captures a defining characteristic whereas
Category:Film series with three entries does not. (How is the number of films in the Bond series a 'defining characteristic'?). Also the
French seem to have a greater mastery of the Greek names than the English do (eg 215 seems to be a Dihectopentakaidécalogie).
Occuli (
talk)
16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you offer some examples of "film series with three entries" that are not also "trilogies"? Certainly the examples currently in the category, High School Musical and Shrek, would qualify as trilogies under any reasonable definition.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I'd disagree strongly that either of those were trilogies. A trilogy would have to have an overall purpose: an intent to be a trilogy. I read somewhere that a trilogy could just as easily be seen as a whole as it could its three parts. I think that sums it up. A film and two sequels is NOT a trilogy in my book. Hence my point that "trilogy" is subjective, where "series of three" is not.
Robsinden (
talk)
23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
So when they release the film of The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings will be a trilogy in a series of four films? The Hobbit will not be a trilogy, but will be one of four? And when they make Bridget Jones 3, when exactly will the fact that they made a third film suddenly become a defining characteristic of Bridget Jones's Diary? --
RobertG ♬
talk06:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's correct. Anything more complicated, or debatable, would just be under Series of films. As for the last example, if there is an article called Bridget Jones's Diary film series, which I doubt, the category would change when the film is released. The categories are for series, not individual films.
Xanthoxyl (
talk)
07:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
This is exactly why I think that if these categories are to stay, then "trilogy" should be avoided, and the neutral "series of three" be used instead. i.e. every trilogy is a series of three, but not every series of three is a trilogy. It's subjective as to what forms a "trilogy", but fairly clear (with some exceptions - see superman and star wars comments above) how many form a series.
Robsinden (
talk)
11:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Film series. After reflecting on the points made and what exists in the mainspace, I think categories and lists of film series with x entries are too nebulous. The Star Wars example is a troublesome issue because there are two trilogies, the Clone Wars films, and the earlier, er, tripe... how to count them? Seems better to have
List of Star Wars films in general and not worry much about the number of films (same logic would apply elsewhere). This is not the place to discuss overall handling of listing film series, but when it comes to categories, there seem to be too different interpretations of how to count up films in a series. Discussion should also be had for the lists, but not here. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong delete 1. a non-defining characteristic by all means. 2. a characteristic prone to change. 3. a characteristic not found in sources as a specific characteristic.
Debresser (
talk)
22:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Question. Do we keep the categories in case they help to delete the lists, and do we keep the lists in case they might help delete the categories? --
RobertG ♬
talk22:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Some people want lists instead of arbitrary categories, and some people want categories instead of unmaintainable lists. But which is better, an edit war or a categorization war? If "number of entries" is not of interest -- and it looks that way -- then it would be much better to delete both lists and categories.
Xanthoxyl (
talk)
23:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify. This is not a defining characteristic. It is interesting to have information on these, but not as a category. The fact that this is for many of these a moving target says to me that this is really an arbitrary inclusion criteria. Why do we do 10 or more rather then say 5 or more? Again this is based on arbitrary inclusion criteria. I am not opposed to an outright delete in concept, but if that is the decision I suggest that it be implemented as an upmerge unless we are sure that all of the included articles will remain in this tree from another category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge after 5 films. It is then not defining, to most people. To most users, is difficult to recall just how many are in the series... sometimes even when you have seen them all. While numbers were once added to many sequles, it not normaly stops now by the 4th or 5th. While I am a bit unsure if the best place to stop is after the 4th, 5th, or 6th... ten has to be too many. Carlaude:Talk20:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge [Film series with six entries], [... seven entries], [... eight entries], [... nine entries], [... ten entries], etc. into *
Category:Film series with more than five entries and listify film series by number of entries.
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:Lists of twin towns and sister cities
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.
Comments – The culprit surfaces! I created the category (as an aside from adding to list categories) without realising there was another category containing most of the lists (as it was not named Lists of...), otherwise this discussion wouldn't have been necessary. I would keep and follow steps 1, 2, 3 by the nominator, leaving not too much in the original category (I cant find any other articles which belong) but leaves an article-space category and a list-space category as is usual on the category tree. Of course, I will sort this out if agreed (
Crusoe8181 (
talk)
11:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC))reply
Reverse mergeCategory:Sister cities and twin towns to
Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities. If my understanding is correct, the first "twinning" was between the cities of Coventry and Dresden, both of which suffered terrible bombing in WWII; accordingly the concept of twinning should have priority. If US usage is different, there is no reason why any US category need be renamed. I have never heard of the concept of "sister cities" and presume this is purely US usage.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:26, 31 August 2009 (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:Environment of Cleveland
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 per nom. BUT should not
Cleveland be the disambiguation page, rather than a redirect? As an Englishman, when some one says "Cleveland", I think of the area of the former metropolitan county in northeast England, not of Ohio. The name comes from the
Cleveland hills which are close to there.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:32, 31 August 2009 (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:Gastronomy-related organizations
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.
If the articles exist, rename to
Category:Gastronomical societies - we have
Txoko and
Confrérie de la Chaîne des Rôtisseurs so there's two. Are there other such societies that are notable and have articles? Remove the medical and health parent and the food-related organizations sub-cat. Clearly restaurants should not be categorized either as gastronomical societies or as "gastronomy-related organizations", whatever they may be.
Otto4711 (
talk)
07:17, 27 August 2009 (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:Sports history of the German Democratic Republic
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.
Comment the name of the former country was GDR (or DDR in German), not East Germany, so that I am not clear why the country article was renamed. DDR was notably successful in sport, but (as we now know) due to drug misuse. The subject thus needs to be kept separate from sport in the eastern lander of the present Germany.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:36, 31 August 2009 (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:Yu-Gi-Oh! booster packs
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: Overcategorisation: there is no need to distinguish between the booster packs, cards and the card game.
G.A.Stalk04:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Overcategorisation. I really don't think that every single booster pack deserves an article or that every single card deserves an article. Those overcategorisations implies that to some extend. --
KrebMarkt05:40, 27 August 2009 (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:The Expulsion
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:Delete. The main (catmore) article for this is a dab page. The contents do not match what is normally considered "The Expulsion" in the English world. It is a small category with one article and one subcategory, so is too small to be needed.
76.66.192.144 (
talk)
04:34, 27 August 2009 (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:Permanent Representatives to UNICEF
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:Delete both. I had these
renamed not long ago from "Ambassadors to UNICEF". However, upon further inspection, I have learned that there is no such thing as a Permanent Representative to UNICEF. Countries are represented at UNICEF by their Permanent Representative to the United Nations. As far as I know, only one person was ever contained in this category tree—
Fazlollah Reza—and I just removed him because (as a scientist) he was the Iranian diplomat at UNESCO, not UNICEF. I suspect the tree will remain empty since no one can legitimately be placed in the categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:10, 27 August 2009 (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:Novels set in Roman Gaul
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.
Weakish Keep The
Dark Ages has been for decades a concept historians only handle with long tongs and holding their noses. We should certainly rename that one. I have added one to the category,
Henry Treece wrote at least one. These categories are little used, & we may well have many others.
Johnbod (
talk)
19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The date of Arthur is widely disputed. This series takes Arthur as being at the time towards the end of Roman Britain.
Cjc13 (
talk)
09:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Clothar the Frank sets Lancelot up as a Frankish/Gaulish person growing up in Bern and Roman Gaul, this book is there the second takes him to Britain.
SADADS (
talk)
00:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Novels based on Caesar's Gallic Wars could also go in here. The boundary between Roman Gaul and Merovingian France is inevitably blurred, so that the possiblilty of Clothar appearing in both should not be ruled out.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:49, 31 August 2009 (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:United Nations Secretariat people
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. Nominated category is redundant to the target category because every person who is an official of the United Nations (with the exception of the
Permanent Representatives and Observers that represent states and organizations) is a member of the Secretariat. That's what the Secretariat is—the officials of the UN. Yes, there is
Category:United Nations General Assembly officials and
Category:United Nations Security Council officials for people who hold posts in organizations created by the GA and SC, but all of these individuals are members of the UN Secretariat, so having this category is redundant to the parent category
Category:United Nations officials. [Quotes from
UN Charter: art 97: "The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the [UN] may require."; art 101(2): "Appropriate staffs shall be permanently assigned to the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, and, as required, to other organs of the United Nations [e.g., the GA and SC]. These staffs shall form a part of the Secretariat."]
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I think the broader name is probably more appropriate. No one speaks of "UN Secretariat officials"; it's usually just "UN officials". Also, if we keep the name broad, we can include the Permanent Representatives category, which are the only UN officials that aren't part of the Secretariat.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:55, 29 August 2009 (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:Bay of Plenty Region
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. Per other recent renames of categories concerning New Zealand's regions, and discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand.
Bay of Plenty is about the bay itself, the article on the region is at
Bay of Plenty Region. Including in this nomination several subcategories:
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:HPA axis
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:Technical nomination. Contents apparently moved to new category. Not a speedy criteria. Target category appears to not have been created.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:15, 27 August 2009 (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. "Famous" is unnecessary. If they have an article on WP, in theory they are notable; i.e., "famous", in a way. (I'm not sure how defining this is for some of those included, though.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename. Makes sense. "Famous" is a subjective term, and any notable person who can verifiably be included should be included, regardless of being "famous" or not.
Jafeluv (
talk)
09:15, 28 August 2009 (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:People from Gulf Province
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.
Comment. I don't necessarily disagree with the proposal, but as far as I am aware there is only one
Gulf Province, meaning disambiguation would be unnecessary. The only place categories that we seem to always disambiguate for, even when it's "unneeded", are those of U.S. cities. The parent category is
Category:Gulf Province. Category has not been tagged.Good Ol’factory(talk)22:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I am not sure. I appreciate the support, but I was not thinking on any such grand scale. I was referring solely to the Papuan Gulf Province for the reasons above. I think any such broad-based change would require extensive discussion at a more appropriate venue.
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose Rename As a matter of standard, we should have category titles directly corresponding to the title of the parent article. As all the geographic points at the provincial level worldwide appear to be adequately cataloged, this appears to be the only
Gulf Province and the category title should be the same. If there is some other Gulf Province and this article is disambiguated in the future, then -- and only then -- should we rename the category.
Alansohn (
talk)
23:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
No, I understand that and as I mentioned earlier I definitely am not suggesting that we start disambiguating foreign countries cities, etc. when it isn't necessary. Also I agree this is certainly not the venue for any such discussion. How does
Category:People from the Papuan Gulf Province sound? Maybe we should consider closing out given the stalemate.
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm confused then. If you are not suggesting we disambiguate when it isn't necessary as a general rule, why do you say disambiguating in this case is appropriate? What is the other "Gulf Province" we are referring to that confusion could result with?
Good Ol’factory(talk)11:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)reply
P.S. Why do you get more aggressive after I suggest we close out, instead of just agreeing? There are not enough votes for my nomination and this is not an important matter, so I just don't get it.
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
14:20, 4 September 2009 (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:Retailers by country
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. To reflect in the name the fact that this is for companies as indicated by it's parent category,
Category:Companies by industry and country and the actual contents of the subcategories. It is possible that some minor cleanup may be needed in the subcategories after this clarification of purpose is implemented.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Retailers are not necessarily companies. They may be sole traders or partnerships. A sole trader with a shop (or a small chain of shops) would probably be NN in that capacity, but might well be notable for other reasons. This will apply particularly historically, when incorporation was less common. For example
Jesse Boot, 1st Baron Trent, founder of
Boots the Chemists was clearly a retailer, though more specifically categorised.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The fact that there will be a few exceptions that will need to be addressed does not mean we should avoid a rename to reflect the vast majority of what is contained. It will be much easier to clean up a few exceptions then to manually move all of the companies.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:38, 31 August 2009 (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:Murasame class destroyers
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:Akatsuki class destroyers
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:LGBT military personnel from the United States
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, for consistency with sibling categories. You're right to bring it here, since moves from country names to adjectives are explicitly
not included in the speedy move criteria.
Jafeluv (
talk)
00:24, 31 August 2009 (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:Kamikaze class destroyers
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:Heroes by characteristics
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 Do people agree that all the articles and sub-categories in the source category are stock heroes in one form or another, and so would be equally at home in the target category (which is currently a parent category for the source)?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:27, 27 August 2009 (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.
Film series by number of entries
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 in all cases. It is easy enough to figure out how many films exist within a film series, as with everything else it is just a matter of careful application. With regards to your Star Wars example, The Clone Wars is considered canon and was released theatrically, so it is clear cut that it would be listed as having 7 entries. Some series, such as Batman, would need seperate consideration, for example Batman-Batman and Robin would be a series of four films, whereas the reboot would be listed seperatley as having two (to date). It's really not that hard.
magnius (
talk)
12:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - but you missed commenting on whether it's over-categorisation: since Star Warswas three, then six, and is now seven, the number of films in the series cannot be one of its defining characteristics. --
RobertG ♬
talk12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
On the fence. It can be subjective as to how many parts a series can have. I disagree with the above editor's comment that Star Wars "is clear cut that it would be listed as having 7 entries". To my mind this is two trilogies, or a series of six films. It depends on how you look at it. And what about the Ewok films? Nominator mentions my Superman edit. It could be seen as a series of 4, 5, 6 or 7 films depending on how you look at it / interpret it. I prefer the categorisation method than the
List of film series method, which is, quite frankly a mess. I think I'd like to see all of these type of articles disappear, but I know that they never will. Therefore maybe best to rationalise.
Robsinden (
talk)
12:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. This category saves time by making any "List of trilogies" unnecessary — and people will be looking for such a list. If the precise number of entries is debatable, it goes in the plain "Film series" category. Compare it with
this horror on the French Wikipedia. It's a much simpler and unobtrusive solution.
Xanthoxyl (
talk)
12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't know. The lists look okay. Ultimately the problem is that the Wikimedia software just doesn't allow sophisticated searches.
Xanthoxyl (
talk)
13:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm of the opinion that lists of film series with x entries is more appropriate than categories for the same purpose because lists can organize better than categories. I disagree that being part of a film series is not a defining characteristic; it's fair to assume that some people will want to know films that are related to each other through the same fictional universe or the same fictional elements. However, categorization is not a good way to accomplish this. If we ever start a discussion on criteria for lists, though, I'll be happy to participate to figure out how to best count and list related films. I'm neutral for now, awaiting other arguments. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
13:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete all that are five and above. Does anyone study films on the basis of their being exactly five, six, seven, etc. in the series? Does anyone even mention it when writing about films?
Query - when you say reverse merge three and fewer to the greek names, that would only be "Trilogy". Personally I'm against using "Trilogy" as it can be subjective as to what forms a trilogy and what is simply a series of three.
Robsinden (
talk)
15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
On the fence regarding tetralogies/four entries as to whether it should be kept but if so reverse merge it to the Greek for consistency.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
agreed. so i think "trilogy" should be avoided, unless it truly is a "trilogy". for consistency, "series of three" should be used.
Robsinden (
talk)
23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment – my reading of this is that
Category:Film trilogies should be populated with articles about deliberate trilogies (eg Lord of the Rings) whereas
Category:Film series with three entries would have films that ended up with 3 entries (due to the unexpected success of the first and relative failure of the 3rd, perhaps). If this is correct then
Category:Film trilogies captures a defining characteristic whereas
Category:Film series with three entries does not. (How is the number of films in the Bond series a 'defining characteristic'?). Also the
French seem to have a greater mastery of the Greek names than the English do (eg 215 seems to be a Dihectopentakaidécalogie).
Occuli (
talk)
16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you offer some examples of "film series with three entries" that are not also "trilogies"? Certainly the examples currently in the category, High School Musical and Shrek, would qualify as trilogies under any reasonable definition.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I'd disagree strongly that either of those were trilogies. A trilogy would have to have an overall purpose: an intent to be a trilogy. I read somewhere that a trilogy could just as easily be seen as a whole as it could its three parts. I think that sums it up. A film and two sequels is NOT a trilogy in my book. Hence my point that "trilogy" is subjective, where "series of three" is not.
Robsinden (
talk)
23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
So when they release the film of The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings will be a trilogy in a series of four films? The Hobbit will not be a trilogy, but will be one of four? And when they make Bridget Jones 3, when exactly will the fact that they made a third film suddenly become a defining characteristic of Bridget Jones's Diary? --
RobertG ♬
talk06:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's correct. Anything more complicated, or debatable, would just be under Series of films. As for the last example, if there is an article called Bridget Jones's Diary film series, which I doubt, the category would change when the film is released. The categories are for series, not individual films.
Xanthoxyl (
talk)
07:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
This is exactly why I think that if these categories are to stay, then "trilogy" should be avoided, and the neutral "series of three" be used instead. i.e. every trilogy is a series of three, but not every series of three is a trilogy. It's subjective as to what forms a "trilogy", but fairly clear (with some exceptions - see superman and star wars comments above) how many form a series.
Robsinden (
talk)
11:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Film series. After reflecting on the points made and what exists in the mainspace, I think categories and lists of film series with x entries are too nebulous. The Star Wars example is a troublesome issue because there are two trilogies, the Clone Wars films, and the earlier, er, tripe... how to count them? Seems better to have
List of Star Wars films in general and not worry much about the number of films (same logic would apply elsewhere). This is not the place to discuss overall handling of listing film series, but when it comes to categories, there seem to be too different interpretations of how to count up films in a series. Discussion should also be had for the lists, but not here. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib)
17:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong delete 1. a non-defining characteristic by all means. 2. a characteristic prone to change. 3. a characteristic not found in sources as a specific characteristic.
Debresser (
talk)
22:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Question. Do we keep the categories in case they help to delete the lists, and do we keep the lists in case they might help delete the categories? --
RobertG ♬
talk22:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Some people want lists instead of arbitrary categories, and some people want categories instead of unmaintainable lists. But which is better, an edit war or a categorization war? If "number of entries" is not of interest -- and it looks that way -- then it would be much better to delete both lists and categories.
Xanthoxyl (
talk)
23:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify. This is not a defining characteristic. It is interesting to have information on these, but not as a category. The fact that this is for many of these a moving target says to me that this is really an arbitrary inclusion criteria. Why do we do 10 or more rather then say 5 or more? Again this is based on arbitrary inclusion criteria. I am not opposed to an outright delete in concept, but if that is the decision I suggest that it be implemented as an upmerge unless we are sure that all of the included articles will remain in this tree from another category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge after 5 films. It is then not defining, to most people. To most users, is difficult to recall just how many are in the series... sometimes even when you have seen them all. While numbers were once added to many sequles, it not normaly stops now by the 4th or 5th. While I am a bit unsure if the best place to stop is after the 4th, 5th, or 6th... ten has to be too many. Carlaude:Talk20:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge [Film series with six entries], [... seven entries], [... eight entries], [... nine entries], [... ten entries], etc. into *
Category:Film series with more than five entries and listify film series by number of entries.
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:Lists of twin towns and sister cities
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.
Comments – The culprit surfaces! I created the category (as an aside from adding to list categories) without realising there was another category containing most of the lists (as it was not named Lists of...), otherwise this discussion wouldn't have been necessary. I would keep and follow steps 1, 2, 3 by the nominator, leaving not too much in the original category (I cant find any other articles which belong) but leaves an article-space category and a list-space category as is usual on the category tree. Of course, I will sort this out if agreed (
Crusoe8181 (
talk)
11:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC))reply
Reverse mergeCategory:Sister cities and twin towns to
Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities. If my understanding is correct, the first "twinning" was between the cities of Coventry and Dresden, both of which suffered terrible bombing in WWII; accordingly the concept of twinning should have priority. If US usage is different, there is no reason why any US category need be renamed. I have never heard of the concept of "sister cities" and presume this is purely US usage.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:26, 31 August 2009 (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:Environment of Cleveland
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 per nom. BUT should not
Cleveland be the disambiguation page, rather than a redirect? As an Englishman, when some one says "Cleveland", I think of the area of the former metropolitan county in northeast England, not of Ohio. The name comes from the
Cleveland hills which are close to there.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:32, 31 August 2009 (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:Gastronomy-related organizations
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.
If the articles exist, rename to
Category:Gastronomical societies - we have
Txoko and
Confrérie de la Chaîne des Rôtisseurs so there's two. Are there other such societies that are notable and have articles? Remove the medical and health parent and the food-related organizations sub-cat. Clearly restaurants should not be categorized either as gastronomical societies or as "gastronomy-related organizations", whatever they may be.
Otto4711 (
talk)
07:17, 27 August 2009 (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:Sports history of the German Democratic Republic
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.
Comment the name of the former country was GDR (or DDR in German), not East Germany, so that I am not clear why the country article was renamed. DDR was notably successful in sport, but (as we now know) due to drug misuse. The subject thus needs to be kept separate from sport in the eastern lander of the present Germany.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:36, 31 August 2009 (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:Yu-Gi-Oh! booster packs
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: Overcategorisation: there is no need to distinguish between the booster packs, cards and the card game.
G.A.Stalk04:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Overcategorisation. I really don't think that every single booster pack deserves an article or that every single card deserves an article. Those overcategorisations implies that to some extend. --
KrebMarkt05:40, 27 August 2009 (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:The Expulsion
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:Delete. The main (catmore) article for this is a dab page. The contents do not match what is normally considered "The Expulsion" in the English world. It is a small category with one article and one subcategory, so is too small to be needed.
76.66.192.144 (
talk)
04:34, 27 August 2009 (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:Permanent Representatives to UNICEF
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:Delete both. I had these
renamed not long ago from "Ambassadors to UNICEF". However, upon further inspection, I have learned that there is no such thing as a Permanent Representative to UNICEF. Countries are represented at UNICEF by their Permanent Representative to the United Nations. As far as I know, only one person was ever contained in this category tree—
Fazlollah Reza—and I just removed him because (as a scientist) he was the Iranian diplomat at UNESCO, not UNICEF. I suspect the tree will remain empty since no one can legitimately be placed in the categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:10, 27 August 2009 (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:Novels set in Roman Gaul
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.
Weakish Keep The
Dark Ages has been for decades a concept historians only handle with long tongs and holding their noses. We should certainly rename that one. I have added one to the category,
Henry Treece wrote at least one. These categories are little used, & we may well have many others.
Johnbod (
talk)
19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The date of Arthur is widely disputed. This series takes Arthur as being at the time towards the end of Roman Britain.
Cjc13 (
talk)
09:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Clothar the Frank sets Lancelot up as a Frankish/Gaulish person growing up in Bern and Roman Gaul, this book is there the second takes him to Britain.
SADADS (
talk)
00:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Novels based on Caesar's Gallic Wars could also go in here. The boundary between Roman Gaul and Merovingian France is inevitably blurred, so that the possiblilty of Clothar appearing in both should not be ruled out.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:49, 31 August 2009 (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:United Nations Secretariat people
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. Nominated category is redundant to the target category because every person who is an official of the United Nations (with the exception of the
Permanent Representatives and Observers that represent states and organizations) is a member of the Secretariat. That's what the Secretariat is—the officials of the UN. Yes, there is
Category:United Nations General Assembly officials and
Category:United Nations Security Council officials for people who hold posts in organizations created by the GA and SC, but all of these individuals are members of the UN Secretariat, so having this category is redundant to the parent category
Category:United Nations officials. [Quotes from
UN Charter: art 97: "The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the [UN] may require."; art 101(2): "Appropriate staffs shall be permanently assigned to the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, and, as required, to other organs of the United Nations [e.g., the GA and SC]. These staffs shall form a part of the Secretariat."]
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I think the broader name is probably more appropriate. No one speaks of "UN Secretariat officials"; it's usually just "UN officials". Also, if we keep the name broad, we can include the Permanent Representatives category, which are the only UN officials that aren't part of the Secretariat.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:55, 29 August 2009 (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:Bay of Plenty Region
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. Per other recent renames of categories concerning New Zealand's regions, and discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand.
Bay of Plenty is about the bay itself, the article on the region is at
Bay of Plenty Region. Including in this nomination several subcategories:
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:HPA axis
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:Technical nomination. Contents apparently moved to new category. Not a speedy criteria. Target category appears to not have been created.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:15, 27 August 2009 (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.