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: Unnecessary intersection of nationality, sex, sport, and sub-genre of that sport. Upmerge to the women's and expatriates parents. (Note that there is no scheme for
Category:Expatriate women's footballers by nationality.) ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 23:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn I'm making that scheme. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 01:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Hmlarson: You don't understand: they aren't in EG but from there originally. By definition, none of them are in EG. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 01:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Koavf can you clarify what specific categories you want to upmerge to?
Hmlarson (
talk) 15:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The proposal is withdrawn. I'm making that scheme. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 17:56, 10 September 2017 (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:Curaçaon expatriates footballers
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:Gilgit-Baltistan education stubs
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.
GP2 Series rounds
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: C2D, closer to the names of the articles in this category and other series.
Bbb2007 (
talk) 19:11, 7 September 2017 (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:Full Metal Panic! technology
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: Per
WP:SMALLCAT, category is small and unlikely to get any bigger. Seems like a holdover from when there existed a lot more fancruft about the series.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 18:35, 7 September 2017 (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:Naive painters
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. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 15:53, 17 September 2017 (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:Australian stock and station agents
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:merge, because the content of this category is companies only (in contrast to the New Zealand category below) the category is very poorly populated and it is not part of a broader scheme. The second parent category does not look like a very strong merge target, since these organizations deal with agriculture in general.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:55, 7 September 2017 (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:New Zealand stock and station agents
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: "stock and station agent" is not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. People involved are characterized more generally as farmers / land owners, or as merchants / business people. There are also a few companies in this category that can be moved to
Category:Agriculture companies of New Zealand per
WP:SMALLCAT like the Australian nomination above.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (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:Power Snooker
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:WP:SMALLCAT. There are only two articles in the category, and this snooker variant wasn't played competitively since 2011, so there is no room for expansion.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 13:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Snooker competitions. For the second article it's an obvious merge, also the eponymous article contains an elaborate section about the first tournament. By the way why is it called competitions, not tournaments?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Because not all competitions are tournaments. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:06, 23 September 2017 (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:Biomorphic robots
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: According to
biomorphism, it's more of an artistic/design movement than a description of robots. In other words, a way of incorporating natural patterns onto objects, not making them look like natural objects. Per
Category:Biorobots in fiction, it would only make sense to make the category about actual
biorobots called the same thing. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 11:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The apparent main article is currently
Robotic pet, which I suspect is too narrow for the subcategories here. No opinion on what we temporarily call this category as we wait for a main article to appear so we know the correct name going forward.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
@
RevelationDirect:Robotic pet is an incorrect main article, the correct one would be
biorobotics per the category's contents. In fact, robotic pets is so small that it likely merits a merge to
domestic robots.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 05:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
And there is also
bio-inspired robotics, which may merit a new subcategory,
Category:Bio-inspired robots, however, that does not include robots with organic part inside them, which would otherwise not have a parent category. So ultimately, I think it would be less confusing to group everything under the more broad
Category:Biorobots.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 09:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Biomorphic" has a clear meaning, aligned with what this category is about. "Biorobot" is better known as a suicidal euphemism from
Chernobyl.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 09:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - What you say isn't backed up by evidence. A google search for "biorobot" reveals articles like this:
[1][2][3] There is no evidence that there is any sort of popular linking of the term with Chernobyl beyond your claim, as it is not even mentioned in the article on Chernobyl responders. Also, the article for
biomorphic and its Wiktionary definition, state that it is a purely visual aspect and has nothing to do with any sort of mechanical resemblance to biological organisms. The Wiktionary definition of
wiktionary:biorobot doesn't mention Chernobyl anywhere.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 09:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Further google search on "chernobyl biorobot" found predominantly just passing mentions of the term. Seems like more of a candidate for a small disambguation like "This category refers to robots with biological traits. Chernobyl liquidators are listed in
Category:Chernobyl liquidators."ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 10:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - Please note that
Special:Contributions/Marcocapelle seems to be busily engaged in emptying this category during the discussion, against the well-known advisory on the page header. I do wish people wouldn't do this.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
It's not really emptying so much as sorting into a subcategory, so it shouldn't really matter. The discussion is not about the category's suitability for existence, but the fact that the name is incorrect.
Biomorphism is an abstract design philosophy, a biomorphic object wouldn't directly resemble a living thing, just use organic forms. It's the difference between a robot that literally looks like a plant, and one that has a flower pattern on its body, which is clearly not what this category contains.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Support, biomorphic is clearly something different than intended.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename alt. to
Category:Biorobotics, per the actual title of the main article, to better fit within
Category:Biocybernetics, and to better reflect the category's scope—not just individual robots but the larger topic of biorobotics. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 16:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
This sounds reasonable too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't be opposed to that either if you think it's more appropriate.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 20:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep in mind that would cause all the subcategories to also be included in
Category:Robots as it would have to be removed from that category and placed in
Category:Robotics.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 22:23, 17 September 2017 (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:Fictional asterozoa
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:Fictional myriapods
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: The category has only one member, which isn't really pertinent either (the vast, vast, vast majority of
Battle Beasts are not myriapods). I'd be surprised if there are enough notable animated centipedes to justify keeping this category.
Sionk (
talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Per the spirit of
WP:C1, an unpopulated category. The
Battle Beasts article should also be cleaned up to remove most of the other categories but I don't want to take action mid-nomination.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 09:37, 7 September 2017 (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:1461 Trabzon
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: No need for an eponymous cat--just upmerge the footballers category as needed. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 04:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - The main article will make a main article for the footballers, which leaves nothing else for this category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:34, 10 September 2017 (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:Homeless World Cup
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. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 19:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. Upmerge as appropriate. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 00:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, considering the category has good potential for growth. The
Homeless World Cup appears to be an annual event and gets lots of international news coverage for each event.
Sionk (
talk) 05:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Homeless sport. The one year article in the category (2012) doesn't look like it is notable on its own and the appearance of other year articles is therefore unlikely.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intersection of nationality, sex, sport, and sub-genre of that sport. Upmerge to the women's and expatriates parents. (Note that there is no scheme for
Category:Expatriate women's footballers by nationality.) ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 23:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn I'm making that scheme. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 01:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Hmlarson: You don't understand: they aren't in EG but from there originally. By definition, none of them are in EG. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 01:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Koavf can you clarify what specific categories you want to upmerge to?
Hmlarson (
talk) 15:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The proposal is withdrawn. I'm making that scheme. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 17:56, 10 September 2017 (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:Curaçaon expatriates footballers
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:Gilgit-Baltistan education stubs
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.
GP2 Series rounds
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: C2D, closer to the names of the articles in this category and other series.
Bbb2007 (
talk) 19:11, 7 September 2017 (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:Full Metal Panic! technology
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: Per
WP:SMALLCAT, category is small and unlikely to get any bigger. Seems like a holdover from when there existed a lot more fancruft about the series.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 18:35, 7 September 2017 (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:Naive painters
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. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 15:53, 17 September 2017 (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:Australian stock and station agents
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:merge, because the content of this category is companies only (in contrast to the New Zealand category below) the category is very poorly populated and it is not part of a broader scheme. The second parent category does not look like a very strong merge target, since these organizations deal with agriculture in general.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:55, 7 September 2017 (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:New Zealand stock and station agents
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: "stock and station agent" is not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. People involved are characterized more generally as farmers / land owners, or as merchants / business people. There are also a few companies in this category that can be moved to
Category:Agriculture companies of New Zealand per
WP:SMALLCAT like the Australian nomination above.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (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:Power Snooker
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:WP:SMALLCAT. There are only two articles in the category, and this snooker variant wasn't played competitively since 2011, so there is no room for expansion.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 13:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Snooker competitions. For the second article it's an obvious merge, also the eponymous article contains an elaborate section about the first tournament. By the way why is it called competitions, not tournaments?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Because not all competitions are tournaments. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:06, 23 September 2017 (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:Biomorphic robots
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: According to
biomorphism, it's more of an artistic/design movement than a description of robots. In other words, a way of incorporating natural patterns onto objects, not making them look like natural objects. Per
Category:Biorobots in fiction, it would only make sense to make the category about actual
biorobots called the same thing. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 11:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The apparent main article is currently
Robotic pet, which I suspect is too narrow for the subcategories here. No opinion on what we temporarily call this category as we wait for a main article to appear so we know the correct name going forward.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
@
RevelationDirect:Robotic pet is an incorrect main article, the correct one would be
biorobotics per the category's contents. In fact, robotic pets is so small that it likely merits a merge to
domestic robots.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 05:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
And there is also
bio-inspired robotics, which may merit a new subcategory,
Category:Bio-inspired robots, however, that does not include robots with organic part inside them, which would otherwise not have a parent category. So ultimately, I think it would be less confusing to group everything under the more broad
Category:Biorobots.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 09:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Biomorphic" has a clear meaning, aligned with what this category is about. "Biorobot" is better known as a suicidal euphemism from
Chernobyl.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 09:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - What you say isn't backed up by evidence. A google search for "biorobot" reveals articles like this:
[1][2][3] There is no evidence that there is any sort of popular linking of the term with Chernobyl beyond your claim, as it is not even mentioned in the article on Chernobyl responders. Also, the article for
biomorphic and its Wiktionary definition, state that it is a purely visual aspect and has nothing to do with any sort of mechanical resemblance to biological organisms. The Wiktionary definition of
wiktionary:biorobot doesn't mention Chernobyl anywhere.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 09:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Further google search on "chernobyl biorobot" found predominantly just passing mentions of the term. Seems like more of a candidate for a small disambguation like "This category refers to robots with biological traits. Chernobyl liquidators are listed in
Category:Chernobyl liquidators."ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 10:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - Please note that
Special:Contributions/Marcocapelle seems to be busily engaged in emptying this category during the discussion, against the well-known advisory on the page header. I do wish people wouldn't do this.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
It's not really emptying so much as sorting into a subcategory, so it shouldn't really matter. The discussion is not about the category's suitability for existence, but the fact that the name is incorrect.
Biomorphism is an abstract design philosophy, a biomorphic object wouldn't directly resemble a living thing, just use organic forms. It's the difference between a robot that literally looks like a plant, and one that has a flower pattern on its body, which is clearly not what this category contains.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Support, biomorphic is clearly something different than intended.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename alt. to
Category:Biorobotics, per the actual title of the main article, to better fit within
Category:Biocybernetics, and to better reflect the category's scope—not just individual robots but the larger topic of biorobotics. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 16:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
This sounds reasonable too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't be opposed to that either if you think it's more appropriate.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 20:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep in mind that would cause all the subcategories to also be included in
Category:Robots as it would have to be removed from that category and placed in
Category:Robotics.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 22:23, 17 September 2017 (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:Fictional asterozoa
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:Fictional myriapods
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: The category has only one member, which isn't really pertinent either (the vast, vast, vast majority of
Battle Beasts are not myriapods). I'd be surprised if there are enough notable animated centipedes to justify keeping this category.
Sionk (
talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Per the spirit of
WP:C1, an unpopulated category. The
Battle Beasts article should also be cleaned up to remove most of the other categories but I don't want to take action mid-nomination.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 09:37, 7 September 2017 (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:1461 Trabzon
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: No need for an eponymous cat--just upmerge the footballers category as needed. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 04:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - The main article will make a main article for the footballers, which leaves nothing else for this category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:34, 10 September 2017 (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:Homeless World Cup
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. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 19:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. Upmerge as appropriate. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 00:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, considering the category has good potential for growth. The
Homeless World Cup appears to be an annual event and gets lots of international news coverage for each event.
Sionk (
talk) 05:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Homeless sport. The one year article in the category (2012) doesn't look like it is notable on its own and the appearance of other year articles is therefore unlikely.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:10, 17 September 2017 (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.