- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: administrative close: category was deleted per G7. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: That, for example, Homeland includes some references to the ISI is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of that TV series. DexDor (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- Allusions to things in popular culture are trivia that were deleted long since. As far as I can tell the four articles in the category are primarily about American operations, though the Pakistan ISI may well be referred to. If we had an article on a book or film that was primarily about the fictional operations of ISI, my vote would be the reverse. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I put it up for deletion.-- Sacred Falcon ( talk) 12:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (Category was empty by the time of the close and the sole article had been deleted.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category appears to have been created for a single article (about a musician of dubious notability). DexDor (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Phrase seems to have been coined by/for a single individual, who does not appear to be notable. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy delete, naming convention is clear, see e.g. WP:PLURAL. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category looks like a category for articles (except that it should be Category:Rappers - a category that already exists), but contains a Wikipedian's user page. DexDor (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, looks like a mistake, instead of Rappers. Brandmeister talk 19:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete -- Now empty. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The category text and the parent categories indicate that this is a category for articles about fictional characters, but the category doesn't contain any such articles - it contains articles about (real life) actors (who are already in plenty of categories). DexDor (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete WP:OVERCAT: they're notable as actors but not for playing Oompa-Loompas. Someone just added Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, so it's a plaything for vandals as well. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge back to Category:Willy Wonka characters, but I think that may need to be merged back to Category:Willy Wonka. I apply the principle "one franchise, one category". Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The 4 articles in the category are not about Willy Wonka characters, they are about actors. DexDor (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete We don't categorize actors by the type of characters they played. Categories about elves, and dwarves should not include the actors who played them either. Dimadick ( talk) 17:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. We don't group actors that played Othello, we shouldn't group ones that wore green hair. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Another unnecessary category that causes a category loop. DexDor (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- Completely unnecessary. Category:Airlines of Costa Rica is a properly constructed category and that is as much as we need. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category (the one member of this category is already in the parent category). DexDor (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- The one article is adequately parented. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one thing - a category which is also the parent of this category - that's not good categorization. DexDor (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- An unnecessary eponymous category. The bio article is (correctly) the main article of the Works subcat, which is as much as we need. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. (In passing, I note that at this stage, the subcategories of
Category:People from Sicily are not at all consistent in naming format, with many of them using "Sicilian".)
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Sicilian architects to Category:Architects from Sicily
- Nominator's rationale: rename C2C to other regional categories in Category:Italian architects by region. (Note: this hasn't been listed as a speedy nomination because of this earlier discussion.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per the spirit of WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support, as above. -- Cavarrone 07:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ xplicit 06:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category has been set up for articles about locations on prime meridians (not for articles about prime meridians themselves). This is the sort of thing that might work as a list, but is not suitable as a category because for many/most of the places on a prime meridian ( Cleethorpes, Stratford, Mediterranean Sea ...) it's a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: It is used to categorize explicitly designated by an authority landmarks that are prime meridians, for instance International Astronomical Union-designated prime meridians, etc. Cleethorpes is not recognized, Greenwich, Ariadne, Hun Kal, and Airy-0 are recognized for Earth, Venus, Mercury, and Mars, respectively, by EVERY authority.
DN-boards1 (
talk)
20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- A prime meridian is a line, not a single place (although some of them are associated with a place). Have you seen Prime_meridian#List_of_prime_meridians_on_Earth? DexDor (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename -- the nom is being disingenuous. It should be called Category:Places defining prime meridians, or something like that. At present the contents are two of the items identified by DN-boards1 - Greenwich and Ariadne crater. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- That renamed category wouldn't be so bad (it still needs at least one parent category though), but if Greenwich is defined by being a place defining a prime meridian then why not (also) London or Royal Observatory? - i.e. this is attempting to create a list in category space. DexDor (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Added as a sub to Category:Named meridians; it is useful to distinguish primes from local meridians. Several earth prime meridians are listed at Prime meridian - I have added a couple here but more should be in this category. Johnbod ( talk) 18:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as a sub to Category:Named meridians indeed, if only to distinguish between Prime and Principal meridians, which make up half of the category now. Otherwise rename. Sander1453 ( talk) 16:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Named meridians. Not clear why these meridians need to be seperately categorized. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category has no parents and afaics has no pages telling editors to place pages in this category or to check the contents of this category so it is itself a useless category... DexDor (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- It is itself a useless category. The right course of action for useless categories is to bring them to CFD, not to give them this as a parent! Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete recently created category duplicating various cleanup processes (such as CFD) -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete If it lived up to its name, it would have to include itself. Use CfD instead. Double sharp ( talk) 09:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Sequel films. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: For all the same reasons,
Category:Midquels was
deletedmerged. Neologism, not a defining feature, etc... DonIago ( talk) 19:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Come on, there's sequels, prequels and reboots, there's miquels and interquels, that's should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lg16spears ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- The first three terms are significant enough to have their own articles. The same can't be said for the latter two. DonIago ( talk) 19:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Collapse all to Category:Sequel films since all interquels, midquels, prequels, and regular postquels, are all versions of sequels (films released after the original film release). Their status as preceding / succeeding / replacing / parallelling / interceding / etc the original film in the in-universe timeline is an WP:INUNIVERSE consideration which we should not be categorizing under. Indeed we would need to make value judgements as to what is what, since some films have pre-credit scenes that precede events in prequels, and denouement scenes that postdate events in sequels / etc ad infinitum. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support the last person's vote. Sequel has a meaning - derived from the Latin sequor 'I follow'. The rest are invented words, by those lacking a classical education who seem to imagine that the "qu" has some significance on its own. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose We have a sub-article about the term and this seems notable enough. Dimadick ( talk) 17:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Make all sub-cats of Category:Sequel films. Per above anon, they are all sequels; prequels, interquels, et al are special-case subsets of the concept. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 19:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CAT#General conventions, which refers to WP:AT, which says, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." This term is not used in reliable sources and does not warrant being used in a category's name. I can change my stance, but from what I see, the term isn't more than a neologism. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge with Category:Sequel films. Opposed to outright deletion. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge with Category:Sequel films. Kinda reminds you why this organization has this awards category: Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel. — Cirt ( talk) 05:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: And upmerge only entry, which is also in the parent cat anyway. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Plain delete -- The one article is already in the one parent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Only one article, When Heaven Burns, can fit into the category. I cannot see any use to create a category named after this television series. Quest for Truth ( talk) 13:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is about a TV series. If it should gain more articles, we will probably want to merge them back to the main article. This is what usually happen when we start getting articles on characters or episodes. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. If anyone wants to attempt a categorization of these institutions based on a positive rather than a negative characteristic, it could be done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: inappropriate and ill defined category. Shyamsunder ( talk) 13:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Centrally funded Technical Institutions in India and make the categories for IITs and NITs subcategories (whatever these initials stand for) to this. This will achieve the creator's objective without the need to have a category for "other" things, which we normally discourage. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCMISC. These all appear to be grouped elsewhere in the Category:Engineering universities and colleges in India tree, so no upmerge is needed. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ xplicit 06:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: To standardize this with others in Category:Hiking trails by country. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The UK usage is Long-distance footpath, and should be kept - see ENGVAR, but also add a category redirect from Category:Hiking trails in the United Kingdom to give consistency throughout the tree. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 07:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose rename as standard UK usage. Pam D 09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- In fact this category is a subset of Category:Footpaths in the United Kingdom. Possibly that is the category to which a redirect from Category:Hiking trails in the United Kingdom should be provided? Pam D 09:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep – in the UK we have footpaths, not trails (unless we are referring to something disagreeable left by a snail). Oculi ( talk) 09:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom for consistency. Create "Footpaths" as a category re-direct. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This is a WP:ENGVAR issue. It would be just as logical to rename Category:Hiking trails in the United States Category:Long-distance footpaths in the United States.-- Mhockey ( talk) 22:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- The category is named according to UK usage. It would not surprise me in the term does not come from legislation. There are no "hiking trails" in UK, we call them footpaths. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ xplicit 06:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: To standardize this with others in Category:Hiking trails by country. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename ALT to Category:Hiking trails in the Republic of Ireland Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- Local usage should apply. Calling it "hiking" is an Americanism that has no place in Europe. Furthermore, we should not be renaming RoI categories to Ireland, save (exceptionally) where something operates on an all-Ireland basis or it refers to pre-partition Ireland. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ xplicit 06:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: To standardize this with others in Category:Hiking trails by country Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do not rename. "Hiking trails" is generally not used in NZ English. "Tramping tracks" is the usual term. If we purely went with local usage, it would be Category:Tramping tracks in New Zealand, but I think adding the "hiking" is a useful way of making it understandable to readers of other forms of English. So I would say just keep it as is per WP:ENGVAR. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do not rename. New Zealanders only ever talk of hiking trails when they are talking to a foreigner, so that they can be understood. Among themselves, it would only ever be a tramping track. Hence, the category name that we have should work both for New Zealanders, as well well as editors from outside of New Zealand. Schwede 66 09:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom for consistency sake. Create "Tramping" as a re-direct. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose -- It is time that the Americans stopped imposing their usage on the rest of the world. Rename to
Category:Tramping tracks in New Zealand according to local usage.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Easy, Peterkingiron—according to the nominator's user page, he is Polish, not American. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. —
ξ
xplicit
06:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Polish Tourist Trails to Category:Hiking trails in Poland
- Nominator's rationale: To standardize this with others in Category:Hiking trails by country. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Create re-directs as needed for local usage. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
*Oppose -- Hiking trails is an Americanism, which is being applied in places where that is an alien culture. I see no objection to retaining the parent name, but it should not be applied elsewhere. The UK & Ireland items do not confirm to the standard, and with good reason.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- It has been pointed out to me that the nom is Polish. If he thinks this is appropriate usage, I am not going to oppose a change in this case, but that should not apply to English-speaking countries where there is an appropriate local term - GB Ireland and NZ. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- rename per nom The WP category tree is 'hiking trail'; there is no argument that Poland here must keep a separate name--noises to the contrary notwithstanding Hmains ( talk) 18:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: administrative close: category was deleted per G7. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: That, for example, Homeland includes some references to the ISI is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of that TV series. DexDor (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- Allusions to things in popular culture are trivia that were deleted long since. As far as I can tell the four articles in the category are primarily about American operations, though the Pakistan ISI may well be referred to. If we had an article on a book or film that was primarily about the fictional operations of ISI, my vote would be the reverse. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I put it up for deletion.-- Sacred Falcon ( talk) 12:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (Category was empty by the time of the close and the sole article had been deleted.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category appears to have been created for a single article (about a musician of dubious notability). DexDor (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Phrase seems to have been coined by/for a single individual, who does not appear to be notable. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy delete, naming convention is clear, see e.g. WP:PLURAL. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category looks like a category for articles (except that it should be Category:Rappers - a category that already exists), but contains a Wikipedian's user page. DexDor (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, looks like a mistake, instead of Rappers. Brandmeister talk 19:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete -- Now empty. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The category text and the parent categories indicate that this is a category for articles about fictional characters, but the category doesn't contain any such articles - it contains articles about (real life) actors (who are already in plenty of categories). DexDor (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete WP:OVERCAT: they're notable as actors but not for playing Oompa-Loompas. Someone just added Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, so it's a plaything for vandals as well. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge back to Category:Willy Wonka characters, but I think that may need to be merged back to Category:Willy Wonka. I apply the principle "one franchise, one category". Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The 4 articles in the category are not about Willy Wonka characters, they are about actors. DexDor (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete We don't categorize actors by the type of characters they played. Categories about elves, and dwarves should not include the actors who played them either. Dimadick ( talk) 17:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. We don't group actors that played Othello, we shouldn't group ones that wore green hair. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Another unnecessary category that causes a category loop. DexDor (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- Completely unnecessary. Category:Airlines of Costa Rica is a properly constructed category and that is as much as we need. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category (the one member of this category is already in the parent category). DexDor (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- The one article is adequately parented. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one thing - a category which is also the parent of this category - that's not good categorization. DexDor (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- An unnecessary eponymous category. The bio article is (correctly) the main article of the Works subcat, which is as much as we need. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. (In passing, I note that at this stage, the subcategories of
Category:People from Sicily are not at all consistent in naming format, with many of them using "Sicilian".)
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Sicilian architects to Category:Architects from Sicily
- Nominator's rationale: rename C2C to other regional categories in Category:Italian architects by region. (Note: this hasn't been listed as a speedy nomination because of this earlier discussion.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per the spirit of WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support, as above. -- Cavarrone 07:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ xplicit 06:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category has been set up for articles about locations on prime meridians (not for articles about prime meridians themselves). This is the sort of thing that might work as a list, but is not suitable as a category because for many/most of the places on a prime meridian ( Cleethorpes, Stratford, Mediterranean Sea ...) it's a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: It is used to categorize explicitly designated by an authority landmarks that are prime meridians, for instance International Astronomical Union-designated prime meridians, etc. Cleethorpes is not recognized, Greenwich, Ariadne, Hun Kal, and Airy-0 are recognized for Earth, Venus, Mercury, and Mars, respectively, by EVERY authority.
DN-boards1 (
talk)
20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- A prime meridian is a line, not a single place (although some of them are associated with a place). Have you seen Prime_meridian#List_of_prime_meridians_on_Earth? DexDor (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename -- the nom is being disingenuous. It should be called Category:Places defining prime meridians, or something like that. At present the contents are two of the items identified by DN-boards1 - Greenwich and Ariadne crater. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- That renamed category wouldn't be so bad (it still needs at least one parent category though), but if Greenwich is defined by being a place defining a prime meridian then why not (also) London or Royal Observatory? - i.e. this is attempting to create a list in category space. DexDor (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Added as a sub to Category:Named meridians; it is useful to distinguish primes from local meridians. Several earth prime meridians are listed at Prime meridian - I have added a couple here but more should be in this category. Johnbod ( talk) 18:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as a sub to Category:Named meridians indeed, if only to distinguish between Prime and Principal meridians, which make up half of the category now. Otherwise rename. Sander1453 ( talk) 16:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Named meridians. Not clear why these meridians need to be seperately categorized. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category has no parents and afaics has no pages telling editors to place pages in this category or to check the contents of this category so it is itself a useless category... DexDor (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- It is itself a useless category. The right course of action for useless categories is to bring them to CFD, not to give them this as a parent! Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete recently created category duplicating various cleanup processes (such as CFD) -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete If it lived up to its name, it would have to include itself. Use CfD instead. Double sharp ( talk) 09:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Sequel films. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: For all the same reasons,
Category:Midquels was
deletedmerged. Neologism, not a defining feature, etc... DonIago ( talk) 19:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Come on, there's sequels, prequels and reboots, there's miquels and interquels, that's should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lg16spears ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- The first three terms are significant enough to have their own articles. The same can't be said for the latter two. DonIago ( talk) 19:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Collapse all to Category:Sequel films since all interquels, midquels, prequels, and regular postquels, are all versions of sequels (films released after the original film release). Their status as preceding / succeeding / replacing / parallelling / interceding / etc the original film in the in-universe timeline is an WP:INUNIVERSE consideration which we should not be categorizing under. Indeed we would need to make value judgements as to what is what, since some films have pre-credit scenes that precede events in prequels, and denouement scenes that postdate events in sequels / etc ad infinitum. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support the last person's vote. Sequel has a meaning - derived from the Latin sequor 'I follow'. The rest are invented words, by those lacking a classical education who seem to imagine that the "qu" has some significance on its own. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose We have a sub-article about the term and this seems notable enough. Dimadick ( talk) 17:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Make all sub-cats of Category:Sequel films. Per above anon, they are all sequels; prequels, interquels, et al are special-case subsets of the concept. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 19:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CAT#General conventions, which refers to WP:AT, which says, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." This term is not used in reliable sources and does not warrant being used in a category's name. I can change my stance, but from what I see, the term isn't more than a neologism. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge with Category:Sequel films. Opposed to outright deletion. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge with Category:Sequel films. Kinda reminds you why this organization has this awards category: Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel. — Cirt ( talk) 05:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: And upmerge only entry, which is also in the parent cat anyway. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Plain delete -- The one article is already in the one parent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Only one article, When Heaven Burns, can fit into the category. I cannot see any use to create a category named after this television series. Quest for Truth ( talk) 13:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is about a TV series. If it should gain more articles, we will probably want to merge them back to the main article. This is what usually happen when we start getting articles on characters or episodes. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. If anyone wants to attempt a categorization of these institutions based on a positive rather than a negative characteristic, it could be done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: inappropriate and ill defined category. Shyamsunder ( talk) 13:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Centrally funded Technical Institutions in India and make the categories for IITs and NITs subcategories (whatever these initials stand for) to this. This will achieve the creator's objective without the need to have a category for "other" things, which we normally discourage. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCMISC. These all appear to be grouped elsewhere in the Category:Engineering universities and colleges in India tree, so no upmerge is needed. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ xplicit 06:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: To standardize this with others in Category:Hiking trails by country. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The UK usage is Long-distance footpath, and should be kept - see ENGVAR, but also add a category redirect from Category:Hiking trails in the United Kingdom to give consistency throughout the tree. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 07:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose rename as standard UK usage. Pam D 09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- In fact this category is a subset of Category:Footpaths in the United Kingdom. Possibly that is the category to which a redirect from Category:Hiking trails in the United Kingdom should be provided? Pam D 09:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep – in the UK we have footpaths, not trails (unless we are referring to something disagreeable left by a snail). Oculi ( talk) 09:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom for consistency. Create "Footpaths" as a category re-direct. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This is a WP:ENGVAR issue. It would be just as logical to rename Category:Hiking trails in the United States Category:Long-distance footpaths in the United States.-- Mhockey ( talk) 22:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- The category is named according to UK usage. It would not surprise me in the term does not come from legislation. There are no "hiking trails" in UK, we call them footpaths. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ xplicit 06:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: To standardize this with others in Category:Hiking trails by country. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename ALT to Category:Hiking trails in the Republic of Ireland Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- Local usage should apply. Calling it "hiking" is an Americanism that has no place in Europe. Furthermore, we should not be renaming RoI categories to Ireland, save (exceptionally) where something operates on an all-Ireland basis or it refers to pre-partition Ireland. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ xplicit 06:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: To standardize this with others in Category:Hiking trails by country Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do not rename. "Hiking trails" is generally not used in NZ English. "Tramping tracks" is the usual term. If we purely went with local usage, it would be Category:Tramping tracks in New Zealand, but I think adding the "hiking" is a useful way of making it understandable to readers of other forms of English. So I would say just keep it as is per WP:ENGVAR. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do not rename. New Zealanders only ever talk of hiking trails when they are talking to a foreigner, so that they can be understood. Among themselves, it would only ever be a tramping track. Hence, the category name that we have should work both for New Zealanders, as well well as editors from outside of New Zealand. Schwede 66 09:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom for consistency sake. Create "Tramping" as a re-direct. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose -- It is time that the Americans stopped imposing their usage on the rest of the world. Rename to
Category:Tramping tracks in New Zealand according to local usage.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Easy, Peterkingiron—according to the nominator's user page, he is Polish, not American. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. —
ξ
xplicit
06:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Polish Tourist Trails to Category:Hiking trails in Poland
- Nominator's rationale: To standardize this with others in Category:Hiking trails by country. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Create re-directs as needed for local usage. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
*Oppose -- Hiking trails is an Americanism, which is being applied in places where that is an alien culture. I see no objection to retaining the parent name, but it should not be applied elsewhere. The UK & Ireland items do not confirm to the standard, and with good reason.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- It has been pointed out to me that the nom is Polish. If he thinks this is appropriate usage, I am not going to oppose a change in this case, but that should not apply to English-speaking countries where there is an appropriate local term - GB Ireland and NZ. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- rename per nom The WP category tree is 'hiking trail'; there is no argument that Poland here must keep a separate name--noises to the contrary notwithstanding Hmains ( talk) 18:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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.