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:2010 in Berkeley, 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: overly narrow categorization. we dont need years in berkeley, history of berkeley is adequate. we dont even have years in san francisco, which is the only city with enough history to justify it in the area.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
19:37, 28 May 2016 (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:2010 in the San Francisco Bay Area
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. There's both consensus here and a good deal of precedent for not having year categories for this type of region. Decades as an end-level category is unusual, and there's no consensus here on any particular merge target. (
non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk05:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Mercurywoodrose: Note that I merged the two former nominations and added the third (2016) category, so we have a single discussion about all of these. I hope you're okay with that. Regards,
PanchoS (
talk)
14:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
keep for now and give some
WP:POTENTIAL. It may be convenient to have a category if you wanted to find out what happened in 20xx in the SF Bay Area. If the category turns out to not have as many articles as I thought it'd have, I guess we can delete at that point.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
00:11, 9 June 2016 (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:Sociocultural globalization
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.
Oppose The original name is derived from the article
Globalization as one of the topmost aspects of Globalization. The downsteam categories also derive from this category name. It is to indicate its relevance to both
social science and
culture studies. Since it is an upper tier category that has now been in place for several years, I do not see how it qualifies for "speedy" rename. There has been no explanation given on the category
talk page.
Meclee (
talk)
05:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose It is opposed here for the same reason: The original name is derived from the article
Globalization as one of the topmost aspects of Globalization. The downsteam categories also derive from this category name. It is to indicate its relevance to both
social science and
culture studies. It is an upper tier category that has now been in place for several years, There has been no explanation given on the category
talk page.
Meclee (
talk)
21:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)reply
There is generally a preference to name categories after articles, if possible. An issue on the side here is that it's not really clear what the difference is between "sociocultural" and "cultural". We have very few articles and categories that start with "sociocultural", and culture seems to be an aspect of society anyway (
Category:Culture is a child category of
Category:Society).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Sociocultural means society+culture, but it is not a well defined term. We have and article on
Sociocultural evolution (which are roughly about "evolution of societies and cultures" that originally tried to apply Darwinian thinking to this), but there is no parent sociocultural category, nor is there a concept of
socioculture or
sociocultural studies or whatsnot in science. (There's some
Sociocultural theory in linguisics, too, through I have little idea what it is about). Bottom line, there's no "socioculture" parent, because sociocultural=society+culture, and is used only in the context of sociocultural evolution or theory - not in globalization. See my rationale for support below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename To match reasonably named main article. If Meclee would like to propose a RM for that article and it passes, we could of course speedily rename this back. Disagreements about the article names should not be rehashed in the category space.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - I switched the <<cat main>> and <<cat more>> tags to address the problem of the linked article name, since that was an objection. The difference between "cultural" and "sociocultural" is the difference between
Humanties and
Social science. Articles contained in the category under discussion could be of interest to both disciplinary areas. The "sociocultural" label is not unusual. A related category is
Category:Sociocultural evolution, which articles address related theory.
Meclee (
talk) 14:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC) P.S.: To my knowledge, there is not now or has there in the past been a discussion in article namespace about renaming article
Culture. That title is good for that article. The current status of
Category:Sociocultural globalization arose due to different editors at different times attaching different <<cat main>> and <<cat more>> tags, thus confusing the two labels. As stated above, those tags have now been changed to an appropriate order.
Meclee (
talk)
15:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. I think
sociocultural globalization is just a synonym for
cultural globalization. We have no redirect for that, we have a section
Globalization#Sociocultural_globalization - but the term is not used elsewhere in the article, the very section talks about cultural globalization. The term is used in some books or academic papers, but I don't see anywhere where it is defined in a clear way as something different from cultural globalization. The best ref and definition I see is for Stephen K. Sanderson (17 November 2015).
Modern Societies: A Comparative Perspective. Routledge. pp. 169–.
ISBN978-1-317-25602-1., but their reference to Georg Krücken; Gili S. Drori (17 June 2010).
World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer. OUP Oxford.
ISBN978-0-19-161565-8. is misleading, at least as far as that source does not use that term at all. With <200 hits on GBooks and <100 on GScholar, I do not think the concept of sociocultural globalization is notable at all. Few scholars use it because it sounds more smartsy then just saying cultural globalization, and one section in one book has tried to define it, not doing a very good job at it. It is as meaningless neologism as
socioeconomic globalization (also <200 GBook hits) or
social globalization, a term which seems to be used on occasion but I cannot even find a definition of it. There are big and well-defined subglobalization concepts:
cultural globalization,
economic globalization,
Political globalization (which badly needs more visibility in our globalization article and a dedicated article - I'll see if I can stub it at least),
Financial globalization has tens of thousands of hits (I just created a disambig for now). But no, sociocultural globalization is nothing but a word few sociologists used to sound more smart. (I say all of that as a sociologist who is interested in globalization - and hates unnecessary neologism some scientists coin to try to add their own brand to what is already a well defined concept). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:44, 30 May 2016 (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:Lawn weeds
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 mostly as per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. While the editors opposing deletion argued that lawn weeds are a regularly covered group of items, they didn't address any of the issues with defining the inclusion criteria for this category. Plants that are weeds in one situation may not be in another. (
non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk06:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Weediness" is a matter of opinion, not a defining characteristic of a plant. It's a potentially sourceable opinion, but I'm not seeing that the entries actually have sources for the categorization.
Pennisetum clandestinum notes that's it's grown as a lawn grass, not a weed in lawns.
Arctium and
Rumex crispus might be considered weeds, but they don't survive repeated mowing, and thus aren't weeds of lawns.
Plantdrew (
talk)
05:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Only 3 of 17 currently in the category even state in their article that they are a "lawn weed," and only one of those has a source. One of the three states it as an opinion by the omnipresent "some people", "considered weeds in North American lawns by some people." One of them, Achillea millefolium is actually sourced as a lawn replacement and some of them are described as beneficial weeds. Many seem simply to be beautiful native flowers that some editor has discovered in their lawn, or more likely, garden.
First Light (
talk)
08:50, 29 May 2016 (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:Roman Catholic dioceses in Réunion
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.
Admittedly, I am not familiar with the technical limits of categories. Placing a redirect for the article "list of dioceses in Reunion" to "Diocese of Reunion" (or its equivalent) in "Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Réunion" would seem to achieve the ends that I propose. --
Zfish118⋉
talk17:58, 31 May 2016 (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:Top lists
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'm not sure about this. The target has lists of things that are or were the top one at a point in time. These "top lists" list selections that were in the top 100 / 500 etc over a period of time. So, the two sets have something different in common. –
FayenaticLondon16:39, 30 May 2016 (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:Weapon used in assassination of an U.S. President
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.
Delete as
not defining of the weapons. If, as in the isolated case of the JFK rifle, we had standalone articles about the individual specimens that were used in the assassinations, then a better-named version of this would be acceptable — but it is in no way a defining characteristic of the general article about a type of weapon. The category system does not exist as a venue for creating lists of every piece of trivia it's possible to create a list for; we categorize on defining characteristics, not on every last historical factoid that a topic can possibly be linked to.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete' Even if there was an article on every individual weapon used in presidential assassinations, this category would still be tiny. Because there have been only four
successful presidential assassinations. I think this is a case
Small with no potential for growth: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
Dimadick (
talk)
20:54, 4 June 2016 (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:Lists of cheapest things
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:Roman Catholic bishops from Réunion
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: Réunionnais seems to be the adjective for a person from Réunion, as the one page in this cat refers to the subject as the "Réunionnais Bishop", and this should be renamed to follow the general pattern of the cat.
MSJapan (
talk)
05:10, 28 May 2016 (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:Glimcher Realty Trust
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.
Discussion, as this is essentially a shopping malls category, should we really categorize shopping malls by owner, while ownership may very easily go from one company to a next? Is this a defining characteristic?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:31, 4 June 2016 (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:Canadian Business Hall of Fame
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:Recipients of the Bulgarian Memorial Medal of the European War 1915-1918
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.
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:2010 in Berkeley, 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: overly narrow categorization. we dont need years in berkeley, history of berkeley is adequate. we dont even have years in san francisco, which is the only city with enough history to justify it in the area.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
19:37, 28 May 2016 (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:2010 in the San Francisco Bay Area
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. There's both consensus here and a good deal of precedent for not having year categories for this type of region. Decades as an end-level category is unusual, and there's no consensus here on any particular merge target. (
non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk05:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Mercurywoodrose: Note that I merged the two former nominations and added the third (2016) category, so we have a single discussion about all of these. I hope you're okay with that. Regards,
PanchoS (
talk)
14:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
keep for now and give some
WP:POTENTIAL. It may be convenient to have a category if you wanted to find out what happened in 20xx in the SF Bay Area. If the category turns out to not have as many articles as I thought it'd have, I guess we can delete at that point.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
00:11, 9 June 2016 (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:Sociocultural globalization
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.
Oppose The original name is derived from the article
Globalization as one of the topmost aspects of Globalization. The downsteam categories also derive from this category name. It is to indicate its relevance to both
social science and
culture studies. Since it is an upper tier category that has now been in place for several years, I do not see how it qualifies for "speedy" rename. There has been no explanation given on the category
talk page.
Meclee (
talk)
05:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose It is opposed here for the same reason: The original name is derived from the article
Globalization as one of the topmost aspects of Globalization. The downsteam categories also derive from this category name. It is to indicate its relevance to both
social science and
culture studies. It is an upper tier category that has now been in place for several years, There has been no explanation given on the category
talk page.
Meclee (
talk)
21:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)reply
There is generally a preference to name categories after articles, if possible. An issue on the side here is that it's not really clear what the difference is between "sociocultural" and "cultural". We have very few articles and categories that start with "sociocultural", and culture seems to be an aspect of society anyway (
Category:Culture is a child category of
Category:Society).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Sociocultural means society+culture, but it is not a well defined term. We have and article on
Sociocultural evolution (which are roughly about "evolution of societies and cultures" that originally tried to apply Darwinian thinking to this), but there is no parent sociocultural category, nor is there a concept of
socioculture or
sociocultural studies or whatsnot in science. (There's some
Sociocultural theory in linguisics, too, through I have little idea what it is about). Bottom line, there's no "socioculture" parent, because sociocultural=society+culture, and is used only in the context of sociocultural evolution or theory - not in globalization. See my rationale for support below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename To match reasonably named main article. If Meclee would like to propose a RM for that article and it passes, we could of course speedily rename this back. Disagreements about the article names should not be rehashed in the category space.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - I switched the <<cat main>> and <<cat more>> tags to address the problem of the linked article name, since that was an objection. The difference between "cultural" and "sociocultural" is the difference between
Humanties and
Social science. Articles contained in the category under discussion could be of interest to both disciplinary areas. The "sociocultural" label is not unusual. A related category is
Category:Sociocultural evolution, which articles address related theory.
Meclee (
talk) 14:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC) P.S.: To my knowledge, there is not now or has there in the past been a discussion in article namespace about renaming article
Culture. That title is good for that article. The current status of
Category:Sociocultural globalization arose due to different editors at different times attaching different <<cat main>> and <<cat more>> tags, thus confusing the two labels. As stated above, those tags have now been changed to an appropriate order.
Meclee (
talk)
15:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. I think
sociocultural globalization is just a synonym for
cultural globalization. We have no redirect for that, we have a section
Globalization#Sociocultural_globalization - but the term is not used elsewhere in the article, the very section talks about cultural globalization. The term is used in some books or academic papers, but I don't see anywhere where it is defined in a clear way as something different from cultural globalization. The best ref and definition I see is for Stephen K. Sanderson (17 November 2015).
Modern Societies: A Comparative Perspective. Routledge. pp. 169–.
ISBN978-1-317-25602-1., but their reference to Georg Krücken; Gili S. Drori (17 June 2010).
World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer. OUP Oxford.
ISBN978-0-19-161565-8. is misleading, at least as far as that source does not use that term at all. With <200 hits on GBooks and <100 on GScholar, I do not think the concept of sociocultural globalization is notable at all. Few scholars use it because it sounds more smartsy then just saying cultural globalization, and one section in one book has tried to define it, not doing a very good job at it. It is as meaningless neologism as
socioeconomic globalization (also <200 GBook hits) or
social globalization, a term which seems to be used on occasion but I cannot even find a definition of it. There are big and well-defined subglobalization concepts:
cultural globalization,
economic globalization,
Political globalization (which badly needs more visibility in our globalization article and a dedicated article - I'll see if I can stub it at least),
Financial globalization has tens of thousands of hits (I just created a disambig for now). But no, sociocultural globalization is nothing but a word few sociologists used to sound more smart. (I say all of that as a sociologist who is interested in globalization - and hates unnecessary neologism some scientists coin to try to add their own brand to what is already a well defined concept). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:44, 30 May 2016 (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:Lawn weeds
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 mostly as per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. While the editors opposing deletion argued that lawn weeds are a regularly covered group of items, they didn't address any of the issues with defining the inclusion criteria for this category. Plants that are weeds in one situation may not be in another. (
non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk06:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Weediness" is a matter of opinion, not a defining characteristic of a plant. It's a potentially sourceable opinion, but I'm not seeing that the entries actually have sources for the categorization.
Pennisetum clandestinum notes that's it's grown as a lawn grass, not a weed in lawns.
Arctium and
Rumex crispus might be considered weeds, but they don't survive repeated mowing, and thus aren't weeds of lawns.
Plantdrew (
talk)
05:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Only 3 of 17 currently in the category even state in their article that they are a "lawn weed," and only one of those has a source. One of the three states it as an opinion by the omnipresent "some people", "considered weeds in North American lawns by some people." One of them, Achillea millefolium is actually sourced as a lawn replacement and some of them are described as beneficial weeds. Many seem simply to be beautiful native flowers that some editor has discovered in their lawn, or more likely, garden.
First Light (
talk)
08:50, 29 May 2016 (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:Roman Catholic dioceses in Réunion
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.
Admittedly, I am not familiar with the technical limits of categories. Placing a redirect for the article "list of dioceses in Reunion" to "Diocese of Reunion" (or its equivalent) in "Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Réunion" would seem to achieve the ends that I propose. --
Zfish118⋉
talk17:58, 31 May 2016 (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:Top lists
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'm not sure about this. The target has lists of things that are or were the top one at a point in time. These "top lists" list selections that were in the top 100 / 500 etc over a period of time. So, the two sets have something different in common. –
FayenaticLondon16:39, 30 May 2016 (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:Weapon used in assassination of an U.S. President
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.
Delete as
not defining of the weapons. If, as in the isolated case of the JFK rifle, we had standalone articles about the individual specimens that were used in the assassinations, then a better-named version of this would be acceptable — but it is in no way a defining characteristic of the general article about a type of weapon. The category system does not exist as a venue for creating lists of every piece of trivia it's possible to create a list for; we categorize on defining characteristics, not on every last historical factoid that a topic can possibly be linked to.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete' Even if there was an article on every individual weapon used in presidential assassinations, this category would still be tiny. Because there have been only four
successful presidential assassinations. I think this is a case
Small with no potential for growth: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
Dimadick (
talk)
20:54, 4 June 2016 (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:Lists of cheapest things
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:Roman Catholic bishops from Réunion
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: Réunionnais seems to be the adjective for a person from Réunion, as the one page in this cat refers to the subject as the "Réunionnais Bishop", and this should be renamed to follow the general pattern of the cat.
MSJapan (
talk)
05:10, 28 May 2016 (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:Glimcher Realty Trust
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.
Discussion, as this is essentially a shopping malls category, should we really categorize shopping malls by owner, while ownership may very easily go from one company to a next? Is this a defining characteristic?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:31, 4 June 2016 (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:Canadian Business Hall of Fame
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:Recipients of the Bulgarian Memorial Medal of the European War 1915-1918
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.