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. We generally don't group two different things into one category. In the end, most of the content is up for deletion, so this could well end up being thinly populated. It is also a non defining triple intersection.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:32, 15 November 2010 (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 Global Elders
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:Copperheads
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:Antitrust landmarks
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:Upmerge. Category is not neutral and relies on a subjective assessment of the importance of particular cases. It's better to just group these in the neutral parent category and leave discussion of what cases are leading cases to the relevant articles, where such claims can be cited. The more general
"Landmark cases" was deleted in the past.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
This category is distinct from
Category:United States antitrust case law in the same way that
Category:Olympic_gold_medalists and
Category:Olympic_athletes are distinct from one another. Readers will be well-served by a category that is more selective than all antitrust cases satisfying Wikipedia's notability threshold, supplying a whistle-stop tour of the high points (for better and worse). The objection that the category isn't "neutral and relies on a subjective assessment" is also ill-taken, I feel. It takes no particular subtlety to say that Standard Oil and Alcoa were landmarks in the development of antitrust caselaw; nor is it controversial to suggest that Diversified Brokerage Services v. Great Des Moines Bd. of Realtors, 521 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. 1975), doesn't scale those dizzy heights. So it's
hard to see how saying so transgresses
WP:NPOV. Since there are easy cases for inclusion or exclusion, the category itself seems unobjectionable and objections to the inclusion vel non of a given case can be handled on a case-by-case basis.- Simon Dodd {
U·
T·
C·
WP:LAW }
23:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The title is self-explanatory: Cases that articulate a novel test or departure from previous caselaw, or in some other way distinguish themselves. GTE Sylvania and Leegin would be obvious inclusions because they overruled previous cases and articulated an alternative governing test in a discreet area of antitrust doctrine. They changed the legal landscape, and claiming that they aren't milestones is obtuse to the point of being
pointy. If your objection is that the criteria rely to some extent on judgment, that's true, but my answer is "so what?" You can object to the inclusion of particular cases on a case-by-case basis, but it's obvious and indisputable that some cases (again, my example is Standard Oil) obviously fit into this category, and to my mind, that says that the category is fine generally, and individual inclusions can be contested should it become necessary.- Simon Dodd {
U·
T·
C·
WP:LAW }
03:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Since you can't provide a category definition that doesn't rely on a significant amount of judgment and/or skill in determining if an article satisfies the criteria, I'm still inclined to think that categorization on this standard is inappropriate. Categories aren't used when inclusion is a judgment call or requires a particular set of skills to make the decision of whether or not to include them. When there could be debate on the inclusion or exclusion of an article from a category using the "case-by-case" process, it's a sign that categorization is inappropriate. This is a basic principle of
overcategorization and has nothing to do with being "pointy". I am a lawyer and while I understand your intent and what is meant, I disagree that this is a neutral or obvious determination. This is essentially just a subcategory type of the
"landmark cases" category that was deleted a few years ago.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom. That some antitrust cases are more important than others is something to be explained in article text with sources. What constitutes a "landmark" (and conversely, what doesn't) is not something that is objective or clear enough to be addressed by this kind of categorization. So all this will accomplish is arbitrarily splitting the antitrust case law category, with the cases sliding one by one into the "landmark" category as one reader after another decides "no, this case is really important too." But you can urge recreation and dust off the completely inapt gold medal/athlete comparison as soon as an official legal committee starts handing out "landmark" appellations for antitrust opinions. postdlf (talk)
03:15, 16 November 2010 (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:Articles that include images for deletion as of June 2011
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: Weird, a montly cleanup category for a month that is about half a year away. Not needed until that month, only members that could be in this category would be erroneous ones.
Acather96 (
talk)
21:27, 15 November 2010 (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:Triune gods
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:Portland Winter Hawks alumni
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:The American College (Bryn Mawr, PA)
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: Overcategorization. Can be recreated if alumni and faculty subcats are made or if there are more articles to add to this. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose this information is useful and lost if deleted. Lets expand on the content; for example, there are two pages listed on the article as alumni, so an alumni tag can be useful. If they really do have 30,000 enrolled students, I think a category like this is helpful.--
TM16:26, 15 November 2010 (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:Populated places in the Ilia Prefecture
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:Great Basin hydrologic basins in California
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. Based on the introduction, inclusion requires a quadruple intersection of being in California in the Great Basin being hydrologic and an endorheic basin. Again this entire area is better served by creating some list articles.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
08:08, 15 November 2010 (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:Oregon hydrologic regions in the Great Basin
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.
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 IMO, a defining trait of a team's season is the titles it wins. A conference title may be less important than a national title, but both can be categorized.
Resolute17:17, 15 November 2010 (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:Macropods
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.
Weak oppose - If you look in
Category:Diprotodonts and
Category:Marsupials (this category's parentage), all of the categories are pleural, while the main articles are singular. The categories contain members of the group name. Using more common terms, all types of marsupials are located in
Category:Marsupials, yet the main article is the singular
Marsupial. Almost all of the marsupial subcategories are pleural and follow this same scheme. --
Scott Alter (
talk)
02:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Though there are obviously exceptions (including some successful renames listed on this page). I look over the subcats (and subcats of subcats of subcats) of
Category:Mammals, and the english plural seems to be predominant in usage. This really should be discussed among those knowledgable about such things, like at a Wikiproject. I would guess that there is an
WP:MoS related to this somewhere... -
jc3722:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)reply
In general, we have the rule that categories must be named in accordance with their parent article. If the English plural is predominant, that may be because the parent title use the anglicized forms. In this case, however, "macropod" is ambiguous, and we should use the more precise form. There are many other mammals categories using this form: see
Category:Afrosoricida,
Category:Australosphenida, and several subcategories of
Category:Bats.
Ucucha12:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The ambiguity of the disambiguation page would ideally be fixed. I'd do it if I knew the subject.
I didn't think we were discussing keeping/deleting. I thought we were discussing the preservation of latin plural forms in English words of latin origin ("macropod"). --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
02:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how the ambiguity could be "fixed"; the term itself is ambiguous. I used "keep" in opposition to "rename".
Ucucha17:49, 21 November 2010 (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.
Brockville, Ontario 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename both, all of the Brockville related categories are not including the province name. The city's name, Buildings and structures, Education, and Media categories have only include the city's name Brockville, but not include the province name. The last two Brockville categories has to be renamed to match the main article Brockville and other Brockville related categories.
Steam5 (
talk)
03:01, 15 November 2010 (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.
Comedians by religion
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.
Eponymous NZ political party 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Each of these eponymous categories for a political party is unnecessary because all they contain is the main article of the same name and a subcategory for politicians of the party. If the main article is included in
Category:Political parties in New Zealand, nothing is lost by not having the eponymous categories. Each is a relatively small party and three of the four are defunct, so the categories are unlikely to be needed in the future.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:32, 15 November 2010 (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:Delete. We generally don't group two different things into one category. In the end, most of the content is up for deletion, so this could well end up being thinly populated. It is also a non defining triple intersection.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:32, 15 November 2010 (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 Global Elders
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:Copperheads
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:Antitrust landmarks
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:Upmerge. Category is not neutral and relies on a subjective assessment of the importance of particular cases. It's better to just group these in the neutral parent category and leave discussion of what cases are leading cases to the relevant articles, where such claims can be cited. The more general
"Landmark cases" was deleted in the past.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
This category is distinct from
Category:United States antitrust case law in the same way that
Category:Olympic_gold_medalists and
Category:Olympic_athletes are distinct from one another. Readers will be well-served by a category that is more selective than all antitrust cases satisfying Wikipedia's notability threshold, supplying a whistle-stop tour of the high points (for better and worse). The objection that the category isn't "neutral and relies on a subjective assessment" is also ill-taken, I feel. It takes no particular subtlety to say that Standard Oil and Alcoa were landmarks in the development of antitrust caselaw; nor is it controversial to suggest that Diversified Brokerage Services v. Great Des Moines Bd. of Realtors, 521 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. 1975), doesn't scale those dizzy heights. So it's
hard to see how saying so transgresses
WP:NPOV. Since there are easy cases for inclusion or exclusion, the category itself seems unobjectionable and objections to the inclusion vel non of a given case can be handled on a case-by-case basis.- Simon Dodd {
U·
T·
C·
WP:LAW }
23:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The title is self-explanatory: Cases that articulate a novel test or departure from previous caselaw, or in some other way distinguish themselves. GTE Sylvania and Leegin would be obvious inclusions because they overruled previous cases and articulated an alternative governing test in a discreet area of antitrust doctrine. They changed the legal landscape, and claiming that they aren't milestones is obtuse to the point of being
pointy. If your objection is that the criteria rely to some extent on judgment, that's true, but my answer is "so what?" You can object to the inclusion of particular cases on a case-by-case basis, but it's obvious and indisputable that some cases (again, my example is Standard Oil) obviously fit into this category, and to my mind, that says that the category is fine generally, and individual inclusions can be contested should it become necessary.- Simon Dodd {
U·
T·
C·
WP:LAW }
03:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Since you can't provide a category definition that doesn't rely on a significant amount of judgment and/or skill in determining if an article satisfies the criteria, I'm still inclined to think that categorization on this standard is inappropriate. Categories aren't used when inclusion is a judgment call or requires a particular set of skills to make the decision of whether or not to include them. When there could be debate on the inclusion or exclusion of an article from a category using the "case-by-case" process, it's a sign that categorization is inappropriate. This is a basic principle of
overcategorization and has nothing to do with being "pointy". I am a lawyer and while I understand your intent and what is meant, I disagree that this is a neutral or obvious determination. This is essentially just a subcategory type of the
"landmark cases" category that was deleted a few years ago.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom. That some antitrust cases are more important than others is something to be explained in article text with sources. What constitutes a "landmark" (and conversely, what doesn't) is not something that is objective or clear enough to be addressed by this kind of categorization. So all this will accomplish is arbitrarily splitting the antitrust case law category, with the cases sliding one by one into the "landmark" category as one reader after another decides "no, this case is really important too." But you can urge recreation and dust off the completely inapt gold medal/athlete comparison as soon as an official legal committee starts handing out "landmark" appellations for antitrust opinions. postdlf (talk)
03:15, 16 November 2010 (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:Articles that include images for deletion as of June 2011
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: Weird, a montly cleanup category for a month that is about half a year away. Not needed until that month, only members that could be in this category would be erroneous ones.
Acather96 (
talk)
21:27, 15 November 2010 (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:Triune gods
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:Portland Winter Hawks alumni
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:The American College (Bryn Mawr, PA)
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: Overcategorization. Can be recreated if alumni and faculty subcats are made or if there are more articles to add to this. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose this information is useful and lost if deleted. Lets expand on the content; for example, there are two pages listed on the article as alumni, so an alumni tag can be useful. If they really do have 30,000 enrolled students, I think a category like this is helpful.--
TM16:26, 15 November 2010 (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:Populated places in the Ilia Prefecture
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:Great Basin hydrologic basins in California
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. Based on the introduction, inclusion requires a quadruple intersection of being in California in the Great Basin being hydrologic and an endorheic basin. Again this entire area is better served by creating some list articles.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
08:08, 15 November 2010 (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:Oregon hydrologic regions in the Great Basin
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.
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 IMO, a defining trait of a team's season is the titles it wins. A conference title may be less important than a national title, but both can be categorized.
Resolute17:17, 15 November 2010 (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:Macropods
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.
Weak oppose - If you look in
Category:Diprotodonts and
Category:Marsupials (this category's parentage), all of the categories are pleural, while the main articles are singular. The categories contain members of the group name. Using more common terms, all types of marsupials are located in
Category:Marsupials, yet the main article is the singular
Marsupial. Almost all of the marsupial subcategories are pleural and follow this same scheme. --
Scott Alter (
talk)
02:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Though there are obviously exceptions (including some successful renames listed on this page). I look over the subcats (and subcats of subcats of subcats) of
Category:Mammals, and the english plural seems to be predominant in usage. This really should be discussed among those knowledgable about such things, like at a Wikiproject. I would guess that there is an
WP:MoS related to this somewhere... -
jc3722:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)reply
In general, we have the rule that categories must be named in accordance with their parent article. If the English plural is predominant, that may be because the parent title use the anglicized forms. In this case, however, "macropod" is ambiguous, and we should use the more precise form. There are many other mammals categories using this form: see
Category:Afrosoricida,
Category:Australosphenida, and several subcategories of
Category:Bats.
Ucucha12:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The ambiguity of the disambiguation page would ideally be fixed. I'd do it if I knew the subject.
I didn't think we were discussing keeping/deleting. I thought we were discussing the preservation of latin plural forms in English words of latin origin ("macropod"). --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
02:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how the ambiguity could be "fixed"; the term itself is ambiguous. I used "keep" in opposition to "rename".
Ucucha17:49, 21 November 2010 (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.
Brockville, Ontario 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename both, all of the Brockville related categories are not including the province name. The city's name, Buildings and structures, Education, and Media categories have only include the city's name Brockville, but not include the province name. The last two Brockville categories has to be renamed to match the main article Brockville and other Brockville related categories.
Steam5 (
talk)
03:01, 15 November 2010 (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.
Comedians by religion
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.
Eponymous NZ political party 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Each of these eponymous categories for a political party is unnecessary because all they contain is the main article of the same name and a subcategory for politicians of the party. If the main article is included in
Category:Political parties in New Zealand, nothing is lost by not having the eponymous categories. Each is a relatively small party and three of the four are defunct, so the categories are unlikely to be needed in the future.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:32, 15 November 2010 (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.