- 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: no consensus.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Hacker conventions to Category:Computer security conferences
- Nominator's rationale: Hacker convention redirects to computer security conference, so until that changes, this should be a single category. In any case currently the two categories are being used interchangeably. The merger should be this way around because it's currently the parent, and also because "hacker" is ambiguous. ·· gracefool 💬 22:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Weak agree: I understand what the intent of having two separate categories is, but it's mostly confusing and ambiguous. 'Hacker' is broader than computer security (e.g. electronics hackers), but that isn't taken into account in the current category structure either. Putting these articles in a single pile may not be a good solution, but until somebody comes up with something better (clearer), I personally prefer that situation to the current one. -- DanielPharos ( talk) 11:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, hacker conferences is something separate per Computer security conference#Hacker conference. If kept, a rename to Category:Hacker conferences is appropriate anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems to me that Category:Hacker conventions works as a category of Category:Computer security conferences and that not every computer security conference is a hacker convention. DIY Editor ( talk) 04:49, 23 November 2016 (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)
01:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2004 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2005 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2006 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2007 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2008 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2004 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: I believe these categories should all be deleted as there is no need to categorise contestants by each year. Each contestant is already in Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) participants, and each season is already in Category:Idol (Swedish TV series), as well as the appropriate subcategory of Category:Years in Swedish television. There may also be presenters and/or judges categorised in these, and they shouldn't be included per WP:PERFCAT. I haven't seen any other TV series with categories like these, other than those with several episodes, but certainly not any talent shows. So for those reasons, these categories should be deleted. anemone projectors 18:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- DElete -- These seem to be typical PERFCAT. If there are not articles on each season, they may need listifying before deletion. A parent category for all the series should be kept to house such articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Grouping contestants by season isn't common and, in this case, it seems to make navigation harder by splitting contestants into subcategories that aren't obvious. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:25, 27 November 2016 (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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: A category for one album? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per MOS:ALBUM (a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album ) and WP:SMALLCAT (part of a large overall accepted category scheme). Come on, Walter, I thought you understood this by now. In fact, you only just nominated Category:Waking the Cadaver albums three months ago. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Also earlier noms for Audio Adrenaline songs and Nine Lashes albums. Oculi ( talk) 01:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – part of Category:Albums by artist: "note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded". The artist is the paramount defining characteristic of an album. Oculi ( talk) 00:44, 12 November 2016 (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/rename as proposed. --
Tavix (
talk)
00:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:7th century in Iraq to Category:Iraq under the Umayyad Caliphate
- Propose renaming Category:7th-century Iraqi people to Category:7th-century Umayyad people
- Propose merging Category:8th century in Iraq to Category:Iraq under the Umayyad Caliphate
- Propose merging Category:8th-century Iraqi people to Category:8th-century Umayyad people
- Nominator's rationale: Obviously the "7th century in Iraq" category is a twin of the "Iraq under the Umayyad Caliphate" category and historically speaking we should refrain from anachronism (saying simply Iraq is automatically referring to modern Iraq). The people of Umayyad province of Iraq were obviously Umayyad by nationality. GreyShark ( dibra) 13:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Note that we also have a 4th and 9th to 13th century categories for Iraq. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- I know, but their rename/merger is more complicated due to change of rule over area of what is now Iraq. GreyShark ( dibra) 11:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - in case this is moved/renamed, we should keep the redirects, as various users tend to systematically restore anachronistic categories. Existing redirects would somewhat reduce such tendency. GreyShark ( dibra) 11:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support (with retained redirects). However, I am not sure that Umayyad should be used as a nationality, though I am not sure what to suggest instead. Iraq is grossly anachronistic. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe
Category:8th-century Umayyad Caliphate people (not to confuse with the Umayyad ruling dynasty themselves)?Though considering
Saudi people article, this is not necessary.
GreyShark (
dibra)
16:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- The parent category is Category:People of the Umayyad Caliphate, in line with that Category:8th-century people of the Umayyad Caliphate would make most sense. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe
Category:8th-century Umayyad Caliphate people (not to confuse with the Umayyad ruling dynasty themselves)?Though considering
Saudi people article, this is not necessary.
GreyShark (
dibra)
16:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The proposed categories refer to a part or province (?) of the Umayyad Caliphate which lasted from 661 CE to 750 CE and eventually extended as far as the Iberian Peninsula ( Al-Andalus), North Africa and the Black, Caspian and Aral Seas (but not Tabaristan). Hence it would be better to regard the existing “Iran” categories as subcategories of “Umayyad” categories. There are already categories Category:7th-century Umayyad caliphs and Category:8th-century Umayyad caliphs which chould also be subcategories of 7th-century and 8th-century Umayyad people categories. The same comments would apply to the Abbasid Caliphate (758 CE to 1258 CE) as presumably similar proposals will be made for later centuries. Hugo999 ( talk) 01:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC) PS: My Penguin Atlas of Medieval History by Colin McEvedy says for AD 1028 that "From the peak of success the Umayyad Caliphate of Spain rapidly descended into oblivion. Civil war between Arabs and Berbers became endemic, and though the Caliphate lingered on till 1031 it was an impotent spectator." Later of Córdoba not Spain. The map shows it in the middle of the peninsula, surrounded by the Arab and Berber Emirates and the Kingdoms of Leon and Navarre. Hugo999 ( talk) 11:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- The Ummayad Iraq specifically refers to a province of the Umayyad Caliphate. I'm not sure whether Iran was an Umayyad province as well, or was partitioned between Umayyad Iraq or Umayyad Khurasan. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:52, 17 November 2016 (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 both.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Zenit Boyarka (sports school) players to Category:Zenit Boyarka players
- Propose deleting Category:Zenit Boyarka (sports school)
- Nominator's rationale: Article was recently moved to
Zenit Boyarka, so renaming is not eligible for speedy processing. The parent category is unnecessary as it holds only the players category and a stub article about the team. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
11:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Preserve. The move was not discussed with creator of the article. Zenit Boyarka is a sports school rather than just a football club. The argument about parent category being unnecessary does not make sense to me. It is created for easier navigation and creates link to other related articles. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 13:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support, assuming that the name of the team was simply Zenit Boyarka, without "(sports school)" in brackets, then the category should be named like that as well. That is independent of the name of the sports school. Also support deleting the parent per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- DElete both the main article is now at Sports School Zenit Boyarka. Presumably this is a secondary school, so that we should have an article (but not a category. Since the players appear to be amateurs and pupils, I would question whether the players category should survive. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm also okay with deleting both, per reason stated by Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Both At this point there is only one article that belongs here so these don't aid navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:31, 27 November 2016 (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:Water and the environment.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Water development and sustainability to Category:Water resources management
- Nominator's rationale: merge, it is not clear how the category differentiates from its parent. Water resource management is the main article of both categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Water and the environment, there seems to be a better 'fit' between "sustainability" and "environment". Currently the category contains a hotchpotch of water related articles and some may need further upmerging. Anyway, surely water develops when hydrogen meets oxygen! Sionk ( talk) 15:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with the alternative merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:29, 13 November 2016 (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)
01:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:British anti-capitalists to Category:british socialists
- Nominator's rationale: How does an anti-capitalist differ from a socialist or a marxist? Alligators1974 ( talk) 02:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- do not change The article Anti-capitalism shows what this is about. It is not only socialists who are anti-capitalist so the change is inaccurate. Hmains ( talk) 04:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:NONDEF, these people aren't typically described as anti-capitalist but rather by their occupation e.g. as a politician of a political party, or more specifically as a Trotskyist. No need to merge, these people are in a subcategory of British socialists already, when applicable. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I agree with Marcocapelle. Neutrality talk 19:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, certainly don't merge to Category:British socialists. There are a wide variety of definitions of 'socialist' and few these days are oppose to captitalism. As far as i can see, the contents of this category are already in more appropriate, defining cats. Sionk ( talk) 15:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Plain delete -- All of the people that I checked already has a socialist category, sometimes, English, or Jewish. The two concepts are not identical. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete subjective...most of these folks gladly pocketed the money that capitalism sent their way. Actions speak louder than words. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:18, 15 November 2016 (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: no consensus.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Hacker conventions to Category:Computer security conferences
- Nominator's rationale: Hacker convention redirects to computer security conference, so until that changes, this should be a single category. In any case currently the two categories are being used interchangeably. The merger should be this way around because it's currently the parent, and also because "hacker" is ambiguous. ·· gracefool 💬 22:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Weak agree: I understand what the intent of having two separate categories is, but it's mostly confusing and ambiguous. 'Hacker' is broader than computer security (e.g. electronics hackers), but that isn't taken into account in the current category structure either. Putting these articles in a single pile may not be a good solution, but until somebody comes up with something better (clearer), I personally prefer that situation to the current one. -- DanielPharos ( talk) 11:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, hacker conferences is something separate per Computer security conference#Hacker conference. If kept, a rename to Category:Hacker conferences is appropriate anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems to me that Category:Hacker conventions works as a category of Category:Computer security conferences and that not every computer security conference is a hacker convention. DIY Editor ( talk) 04:49, 23 November 2016 (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)
01:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2004 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2005 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2006 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2007 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2008 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) 2004 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: I believe these categories should all be deleted as there is no need to categorise contestants by each year. Each contestant is already in Category:Idol (Swedish TV series) participants, and each season is already in Category:Idol (Swedish TV series), as well as the appropriate subcategory of Category:Years in Swedish television. There may also be presenters and/or judges categorised in these, and they shouldn't be included per WP:PERFCAT. I haven't seen any other TV series with categories like these, other than those with several episodes, but certainly not any talent shows. So for those reasons, these categories should be deleted. anemone projectors 18:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- DElete -- These seem to be typical PERFCAT. If there are not articles on each season, they may need listifying before deletion. A parent category for all the series should be kept to house such articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Grouping contestants by season isn't common and, in this case, it seems to make navigation harder by splitting contestants into subcategories that aren't obvious. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:25, 27 November 2016 (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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: A category for one album? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per MOS:ALBUM (a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album ) and WP:SMALLCAT (part of a large overall accepted category scheme). Come on, Walter, I thought you understood this by now. In fact, you only just nominated Category:Waking the Cadaver albums three months ago. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Also earlier noms for Audio Adrenaline songs and Nine Lashes albums. Oculi ( talk) 01:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – part of Category:Albums by artist: "note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded". The artist is the paramount defining characteristic of an album. Oculi ( talk) 00:44, 12 November 2016 (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/rename as proposed. --
Tavix (
talk)
00:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:7th century in Iraq to Category:Iraq under the Umayyad Caliphate
- Propose renaming Category:7th-century Iraqi people to Category:7th-century Umayyad people
- Propose merging Category:8th century in Iraq to Category:Iraq under the Umayyad Caliphate
- Propose merging Category:8th-century Iraqi people to Category:8th-century Umayyad people
- Nominator's rationale: Obviously the "7th century in Iraq" category is a twin of the "Iraq under the Umayyad Caliphate" category and historically speaking we should refrain from anachronism (saying simply Iraq is automatically referring to modern Iraq). The people of Umayyad province of Iraq were obviously Umayyad by nationality. GreyShark ( dibra) 13:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Note that we also have a 4th and 9th to 13th century categories for Iraq. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- I know, but their rename/merger is more complicated due to change of rule over area of what is now Iraq. GreyShark ( dibra) 11:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - in case this is moved/renamed, we should keep the redirects, as various users tend to systematically restore anachronistic categories. Existing redirects would somewhat reduce such tendency. GreyShark ( dibra) 11:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support (with retained redirects). However, I am not sure that Umayyad should be used as a nationality, though I am not sure what to suggest instead. Iraq is grossly anachronistic. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe
Category:8th-century Umayyad Caliphate people (not to confuse with the Umayyad ruling dynasty themselves)?Though considering
Saudi people article, this is not necessary.
GreyShark (
dibra)
16:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- The parent category is Category:People of the Umayyad Caliphate, in line with that Category:8th-century people of the Umayyad Caliphate would make most sense. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe
Category:8th-century Umayyad Caliphate people (not to confuse with the Umayyad ruling dynasty themselves)?Though considering
Saudi people article, this is not necessary.
GreyShark (
dibra)
16:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The proposed categories refer to a part or province (?) of the Umayyad Caliphate which lasted from 661 CE to 750 CE and eventually extended as far as the Iberian Peninsula ( Al-Andalus), North Africa and the Black, Caspian and Aral Seas (but not Tabaristan). Hence it would be better to regard the existing “Iran” categories as subcategories of “Umayyad” categories. There are already categories Category:7th-century Umayyad caliphs and Category:8th-century Umayyad caliphs which chould also be subcategories of 7th-century and 8th-century Umayyad people categories. The same comments would apply to the Abbasid Caliphate (758 CE to 1258 CE) as presumably similar proposals will be made for later centuries. Hugo999 ( talk) 01:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC) PS: My Penguin Atlas of Medieval History by Colin McEvedy says for AD 1028 that "From the peak of success the Umayyad Caliphate of Spain rapidly descended into oblivion. Civil war between Arabs and Berbers became endemic, and though the Caliphate lingered on till 1031 it was an impotent spectator." Later of Córdoba not Spain. The map shows it in the middle of the peninsula, surrounded by the Arab and Berber Emirates and the Kingdoms of Leon and Navarre. Hugo999 ( talk) 11:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- The Ummayad Iraq specifically refers to a province of the Umayyad Caliphate. I'm not sure whether Iran was an Umayyad province as well, or was partitioned between Umayyad Iraq or Umayyad Khurasan. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:52, 17 November 2016 (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 both.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Zenit Boyarka (sports school) players to Category:Zenit Boyarka players
- Propose deleting Category:Zenit Boyarka (sports school)
- Nominator's rationale: Article was recently moved to
Zenit Boyarka, so renaming is not eligible for speedy processing. The parent category is unnecessary as it holds only the players category and a stub article about the team. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
11:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Preserve. The move was not discussed with creator of the article. Zenit Boyarka is a sports school rather than just a football club. The argument about parent category being unnecessary does not make sense to me. It is created for easier navigation and creates link to other related articles. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 13:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support, assuming that the name of the team was simply Zenit Boyarka, without "(sports school)" in brackets, then the category should be named like that as well. That is independent of the name of the sports school. Also support deleting the parent per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- DElete both the main article is now at Sports School Zenit Boyarka. Presumably this is a secondary school, so that we should have an article (but not a category. Since the players appear to be amateurs and pupils, I would question whether the players category should survive. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm also okay with deleting both, per reason stated by Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Both At this point there is only one article that belongs here so these don't aid navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:31, 27 November 2016 (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:Water and the environment.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Water development and sustainability to Category:Water resources management
- Nominator's rationale: merge, it is not clear how the category differentiates from its parent. Water resource management is the main article of both categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Water and the environment, there seems to be a better 'fit' between "sustainability" and "environment". Currently the category contains a hotchpotch of water related articles and some may need further upmerging. Anyway, surely water develops when hydrogen meets oxygen! Sionk ( talk) 15:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with the alternative merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:29, 13 November 2016 (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)
01:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:British anti-capitalists to Category:british socialists
- Nominator's rationale: How does an anti-capitalist differ from a socialist or a marxist? Alligators1974 ( talk) 02:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- do not change The article Anti-capitalism shows what this is about. It is not only socialists who are anti-capitalist so the change is inaccurate. Hmains ( talk) 04:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:NONDEF, these people aren't typically described as anti-capitalist but rather by their occupation e.g. as a politician of a political party, or more specifically as a Trotskyist. No need to merge, these people are in a subcategory of British socialists already, when applicable. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I agree with Marcocapelle. Neutrality talk 19:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, certainly don't merge to Category:British socialists. There are a wide variety of definitions of 'socialist' and few these days are oppose to captitalism. As far as i can see, the contents of this category are already in more appropriate, defining cats. Sionk ( talk) 15:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Plain delete -- All of the people that I checked already has a socialist category, sometimes, English, or Jewish. The two concepts are not identical. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete subjective...most of these folks gladly pocketed the money that capitalism sent their way. Actions speak louder than words. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:18, 15 November 2016 (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.