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:Welsh legendary characters
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:split to people and characters. I propose to add descriptions to distinguish the categories of characters as for individuals, and categories of creatures as including articles on what might be called "species". However, this may be arguable, in which case I suggest starting a further discussion at
WT:Folklore. –
FayenaticLondon14:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose While the difference between 'characters' and 'people' remain in the real world, so it should on WP. As User:Pichpich says, not all characters are people.
Adar Rhiannon are Adar Rhiannon; are three magical birds, whose song can "wake the dead and lull the living to sleep" during war etc. But these could be placed under
Category:Welsh legendary creatures. They do speak, they were written in a 10c book, so they are also characters.
Llywelyn2000 (
talk)
04:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)reply
The vast majority are people. Those that aren't would be better in categories for legendary creatures. Those that are people should be connected to the heirarchy of Fooish people as some of them are, or might be, actual people.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Split into creatures and people. I don't understand when or if a person becomes a 'character'. We appear to already have 'legendary people' and 'legendary creatures' category trees. 'Characters' is unnecessary and confusing. I guess this is qualified support, though the whole 'Legendary' and 'Folklore' hierarchy probably needs reorganising.
Sionk (
talk)
08:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose A character isn't the same as either a "person" or "creature". If we take for instance, to use a fictional character,
Hal 9000; they are not a person as most would define a person (as a human being) nor is he a creature, which implies a race of beings (which is a 9000-series computer the same as Hal's sibling SAL 9000), the same goes for the folkloric Puck, who isn't a human being, but also is a singular character rather than a race of creatures, like say elves or goblins (though Puck may be an individual belonging to the race of elves). Aka a character is singular entity like syaing Mr. Zog is a character but as a creature he is an Oompliff.
Sigurd Dragon Slayer (
talk)
12:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)reply
It's important to distinguish fiction from legends in this discussion. The whole point of legends is that some people think, or thought, they were real.
Rathfelder (
talk)
10:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)reply
^De Craemer, Willy. “A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Personhood.” The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, vol. 61, no. 1, 1983, pp. 19–34., www.jstor.org/stable/3349814.
^Christian Smith. 2003. Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture. Oxford University Press
^Carrithers, Michael, Steven Collins, and Steven Lukes, eds. 1985. The category of the person: Anthropology, philosophy, history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
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:Rulers who died as children
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep The present name is clear. They will all be rulers subject to a guardian (or regent), who thus did not actually hold the reins of power.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:29, 5 May 2019 (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:Cars powered by rear-mounted 5-cylinder engines
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:TRIVIALCAT. There certainly are a fair share of atheist and irreligious personalities online, but looking through this category more than half of the subjects of the articles included had very little if anything to do with atheism or secularism on their YouTube channels. They just appear to be atheist/irreligious and have a YouTube channel, both of which are pretty common in the millennial age. It is not uncommon now for individuals and organizations to share their views on YouTube, and categories such as these open a can of worms of what other things can be linked to YouTubers.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
08:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I am OK with cutting this down to YouTubers who make content relating to religion, such as
Aron Ra and
Amos Yee. The YouTube atheist/skeptic community is a notable one, with people from both sides of the political spectrum.
feminist (
talk)
08:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The question is, do they really comment on atheism? Or do they comment on religion? From what I have seen in this category, it is mostly the latter.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
On the fence about:
Cenk Uygur,
Alonso Duralde,
Ana Kasparian, and in general those affiliated with
The Young Turks, as they are all strongly irreligious and/or atheist but the group is more dedicated to journalism and progressivism than anything else,
Amos Yee who is an atheist but is far better known for being a critic of the censhorship laws in Singapore and his more recent defence of pedophilia,
ContraPoints whose intial videos were about atheism but whose channel is now almost entirely dedicated to rebucking alt-right, fascist, libertarian arguements.
Laci Green, whose content is more about gender identity and sex education.
Kyle Kulinski a critic of religion but whose channel is more about promoting liberal arguments.
Others:
Cara Santa Maria, clear conection with atheism, but while she has appeared on YouTube there is not much to suggest that she mantains a regular YouTube channel. Not everyone who has a personal YouTube channel is a "YouTuber" as almost all musicians and politicians usually have some sort of YouTube channel or media outlet associated with them.
These are only my thoughts, I personally still don't think that this category is notable enough to be kept, but if it is as I wrote above I would strongly recomend a rename. Thanks
Inter&anthro (
talk)
12:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
While earlier on I advocated a rename, I would not mind if the category would be deleted either. It appears to be a very problematic category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:26, 3 July 2019 (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:Failed assassination attempt survivors
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 - You might want to reconsider & withdraw this proposal, as it makes no sense at all to conflate assassination with terrorism. [See below for my Rename proposal.]
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
13:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Citation needed - why does it make no sense? The
Terrorism article explicitly cites the Persian Order of
Assassins as one of the earliest examples of terrorism, and
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" as including "[affecting] the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping". Assassination is not just random murder, it is murder designed to intimidate political opponents - to terrorise them.
Le Deluge (
talk)
13:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, I only had time for a short comment, or I would have addressed the issue at greater length. Yes, of course, there is an intersection between assassination and terrorism. But that does not mean that they are one and the same thing. If we followed your line of thought to its logical conclusion it would lead to merging the master/parent categories for assassination and terrorism. Surely you're not proposing that.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
20:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - only because I disagree with the proposed redirect. Renaming this category something like Political office-holders who survived attempted assassination (as a Subcategory of Political office-holders) would be a more suitable change.
Drdpw (
talk)
13:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose as per Anomalous+0. Not all assassinations are terrorism, and I note that "terrorism" is a very problematic term where you can find quite a range of definitions.
Bondegezou (
talk)
16:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-defining and subjective (see previous CFD linked above). Note: I was notified of this discussion, but would probably have commented anyway. DexDor(talk)17:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose The category is problematic, but the proposed merge target is very inappropriate, because assassination attempts are not always terrorist in nature. (e.g.
John Hinckley's attempt to impress Jodie Foster) –
Jason A. Quest (
talk)
17:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I had not spotted that, but I do not think it makes a difference. I am far from sure whether some of the content merits inclusion, but that is a matter for pruning not deleting. For example Dreyfus is notable for suffered unjust imprisonment, rather than an assassination attempt. However I continue to maintain that assassination is something more specific than plain terrorism, thought that may have grown out of it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge and Rename. Oppose merge because terrorism can be quite different from assassination. Rename because how is "Failed assassination attempt survivors" different from "Assassination attempt survivors"? "Failed" is redundant with "attempt survivor", and sounds like a joke title. They tried to survive, but failed, so accidentally died even though the assassination was only attempted? --
A D Monroe III(
talk)00:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Agree with
A D Monroe III, the current name begs the question: how many people did not survive failed assassination attempts? Right after they were given the antidote to the poison, they tripped on an electrical cord and fell out the window... Or they were wannabe assassination attempt survivors, but failed because nobody would agree to attempt to assassinate them? I would definitely be in that category then! If only there was a Wikipedia article about me. Damn. --
IamNotU (
talk)
02:36, 19 May 2019 (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:BNP Members of the London Assembly
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.
Full upmerge This is usually the best way of dealing with miniscule categories incapable of expansion. It will result in an article in what would normally be a container category, but does that really matter?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:36, 5 May 2019 (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.
Parishes of Latvia by district
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: delete, subdividing current second level administrative subdivisions by former first level administrative subdivisions is just weird. The
districts of Latvia were abolished in 2009.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete top one, merge the rest per nom. The districts were subdivided into municipalities, so there is no scope to rename/merge to categories for the new divisions. However, if any editor is willing to manually set up the new hierarchy, I would give them time to work from this set, and then manually delete these when empty. –
FayenaticLondon19:07, 4 May 2019 (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 Football 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.
No conceptual objection to a museum/organisational category but this category contains nothing but the the main article (
Canadian Football Hall of Fame) and the inductees subcategory (
Category:Canadian Football Hall of Fame inductees). I can't think of another potential direct article so growth potential seems limited but no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so direct articles. (Note that this nomination does not impact the biography articles in the "inductees" subcategory.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete (or upmerge) -- I am not sure that we need the inductees subcat, as if offends OCAWARD, but we certainly do not need this parent for it. The main article will make a good one for the subcat and so will not be orphaned.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:39, 5 May 2019 (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:Scottish Football 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.
No conceptual objection to a museum/organisational category but this category contains nothing but the the main article (
Scottish Football Hall of Fame) and the inductees subcategory (
Category:Scottish Football Hall of Fame inductees). I can't think of another potential direct article so growth potential seems limited but no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so direct articles. (Note that this nomination does not impact the biography articles in the "inductees" subcategory.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete (or upmerge) -- I am not sure that we need the inductees subcat, as if offends OCAWARD, but we certainly do not need this parent for it. The main article will make a good one for the subcat and so will not be orphaned.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:40, 5 May 2019 (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:São José dos Campos Futebol Clube
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:Welsh legendary characters
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:split to people and characters. I propose to add descriptions to distinguish the categories of characters as for individuals, and categories of creatures as including articles on what might be called "species". However, this may be arguable, in which case I suggest starting a further discussion at
WT:Folklore. –
FayenaticLondon14:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose While the difference between 'characters' and 'people' remain in the real world, so it should on WP. As User:Pichpich says, not all characters are people.
Adar Rhiannon are Adar Rhiannon; are three magical birds, whose song can "wake the dead and lull the living to sleep" during war etc. But these could be placed under
Category:Welsh legendary creatures. They do speak, they were written in a 10c book, so they are also characters.
Llywelyn2000 (
talk)
04:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)reply
The vast majority are people. Those that aren't would be better in categories for legendary creatures. Those that are people should be connected to the heirarchy of Fooish people as some of them are, or might be, actual people.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Split into creatures and people. I don't understand when or if a person becomes a 'character'. We appear to already have 'legendary people' and 'legendary creatures' category trees. 'Characters' is unnecessary and confusing. I guess this is qualified support, though the whole 'Legendary' and 'Folklore' hierarchy probably needs reorganising.
Sionk (
talk)
08:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose A character isn't the same as either a "person" or "creature". If we take for instance, to use a fictional character,
Hal 9000; they are not a person as most would define a person (as a human being) nor is he a creature, which implies a race of beings (which is a 9000-series computer the same as Hal's sibling SAL 9000), the same goes for the folkloric Puck, who isn't a human being, but also is a singular character rather than a race of creatures, like say elves or goblins (though Puck may be an individual belonging to the race of elves). Aka a character is singular entity like syaing Mr. Zog is a character but as a creature he is an Oompliff.
Sigurd Dragon Slayer (
talk)
12:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)reply
It's important to distinguish fiction from legends in this discussion. The whole point of legends is that some people think, or thought, they were real.
Rathfelder (
talk)
10:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)reply
^De Craemer, Willy. “A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Personhood.” The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, vol. 61, no. 1, 1983, pp. 19–34., www.jstor.org/stable/3349814.
^Christian Smith. 2003. Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture. Oxford University Press
^Carrithers, Michael, Steven Collins, and Steven Lukes, eds. 1985. The category of the person: Anthropology, philosophy, history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
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:Rulers who died as children
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep The present name is clear. They will all be rulers subject to a guardian (or regent), who thus did not actually hold the reins of power.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:29, 5 May 2019 (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:Cars powered by rear-mounted 5-cylinder engines
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:TRIVIALCAT. There certainly are a fair share of atheist and irreligious personalities online, but looking through this category more than half of the subjects of the articles included had very little if anything to do with atheism or secularism on their YouTube channels. They just appear to be atheist/irreligious and have a YouTube channel, both of which are pretty common in the millennial age. It is not uncommon now for individuals and organizations to share their views on YouTube, and categories such as these open a can of worms of what other things can be linked to YouTubers.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
08:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I am OK with cutting this down to YouTubers who make content relating to religion, such as
Aron Ra and
Amos Yee. The YouTube atheist/skeptic community is a notable one, with people from both sides of the political spectrum.
feminist (
talk)
08:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The question is, do they really comment on atheism? Or do they comment on religion? From what I have seen in this category, it is mostly the latter.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
On the fence about:
Cenk Uygur,
Alonso Duralde,
Ana Kasparian, and in general those affiliated with
The Young Turks, as they are all strongly irreligious and/or atheist but the group is more dedicated to journalism and progressivism than anything else,
Amos Yee who is an atheist but is far better known for being a critic of the censhorship laws in Singapore and his more recent defence of pedophilia,
ContraPoints whose intial videos were about atheism but whose channel is now almost entirely dedicated to rebucking alt-right, fascist, libertarian arguements.
Laci Green, whose content is more about gender identity and sex education.
Kyle Kulinski a critic of religion but whose channel is more about promoting liberal arguments.
Others:
Cara Santa Maria, clear conection with atheism, but while she has appeared on YouTube there is not much to suggest that she mantains a regular YouTube channel. Not everyone who has a personal YouTube channel is a "YouTuber" as almost all musicians and politicians usually have some sort of YouTube channel or media outlet associated with them.
These are only my thoughts, I personally still don't think that this category is notable enough to be kept, but if it is as I wrote above I would strongly recomend a rename. Thanks
Inter&anthro (
talk)
12:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
While earlier on I advocated a rename, I would not mind if the category would be deleted either. It appears to be a very problematic category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:26, 3 July 2019 (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:Failed assassination attempt survivors
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 - You might want to reconsider & withdraw this proposal, as it makes no sense at all to conflate assassination with terrorism. [See below for my Rename proposal.]
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
13:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Citation needed - why does it make no sense? The
Terrorism article explicitly cites the Persian Order of
Assassins as one of the earliest examples of terrorism, and
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" as including "[affecting] the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping". Assassination is not just random murder, it is murder designed to intimidate political opponents - to terrorise them.
Le Deluge (
talk)
13:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, I only had time for a short comment, or I would have addressed the issue at greater length. Yes, of course, there is an intersection between assassination and terrorism. But that does not mean that they are one and the same thing. If we followed your line of thought to its logical conclusion it would lead to merging the master/parent categories for assassination and terrorism. Surely you're not proposing that.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
20:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - only because I disagree with the proposed redirect. Renaming this category something like Political office-holders who survived attempted assassination (as a Subcategory of Political office-holders) would be a more suitable change.
Drdpw (
talk)
13:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose as per Anomalous+0. Not all assassinations are terrorism, and I note that "terrorism" is a very problematic term where you can find quite a range of definitions.
Bondegezou (
talk)
16:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-defining and subjective (see previous CFD linked above). Note: I was notified of this discussion, but would probably have commented anyway. DexDor(talk)17:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose The category is problematic, but the proposed merge target is very inappropriate, because assassination attempts are not always terrorist in nature. (e.g.
John Hinckley's attempt to impress Jodie Foster) –
Jason A. Quest (
talk)
17:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I had not spotted that, but I do not think it makes a difference. I am far from sure whether some of the content merits inclusion, but that is a matter for pruning not deleting. For example Dreyfus is notable for suffered unjust imprisonment, rather than an assassination attempt. However I continue to maintain that assassination is something more specific than plain terrorism, thought that may have grown out of it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge and Rename. Oppose merge because terrorism can be quite different from assassination. Rename because how is "Failed assassination attempt survivors" different from "Assassination attempt survivors"? "Failed" is redundant with "attempt survivor", and sounds like a joke title. They tried to survive, but failed, so accidentally died even though the assassination was only attempted? --
A D Monroe III(
talk)00:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Agree with
A D Monroe III, the current name begs the question: how many people did not survive failed assassination attempts? Right after they were given the antidote to the poison, they tripped on an electrical cord and fell out the window... Or they were wannabe assassination attempt survivors, but failed because nobody would agree to attempt to assassinate them? I would definitely be in that category then! If only there was a Wikipedia article about me. Damn. --
IamNotU (
talk)
02:36, 19 May 2019 (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:BNP Members of the London Assembly
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.
Full upmerge This is usually the best way of dealing with miniscule categories incapable of expansion. It will result in an article in what would normally be a container category, but does that really matter?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:36, 5 May 2019 (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.
Parishes of Latvia by district
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: delete, subdividing current second level administrative subdivisions by former first level administrative subdivisions is just weird. The
districts of Latvia were abolished in 2009.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete top one, merge the rest per nom. The districts were subdivided into municipalities, so there is no scope to rename/merge to categories for the new divisions. However, if any editor is willing to manually set up the new hierarchy, I would give them time to work from this set, and then manually delete these when empty. –
FayenaticLondon19:07, 4 May 2019 (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 Football 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.
No conceptual objection to a museum/organisational category but this category contains nothing but the the main article (
Canadian Football Hall of Fame) and the inductees subcategory (
Category:Canadian Football Hall of Fame inductees). I can't think of another potential direct article so growth potential seems limited but no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so direct articles. (Note that this nomination does not impact the biography articles in the "inductees" subcategory.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete (or upmerge) -- I am not sure that we need the inductees subcat, as if offends OCAWARD, but we certainly do not need this parent for it. The main article will make a good one for the subcat and so will not be orphaned.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:39, 5 May 2019 (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:Scottish Football 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.
No conceptual objection to a museum/organisational category but this category contains nothing but the the main article (
Scottish Football Hall of Fame) and the inductees subcategory (
Category:Scottish Football Hall of Fame inductees). I can't think of another potential direct article so growth potential seems limited but no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so direct articles. (Note that this nomination does not impact the biography articles in the "inductees" subcategory.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete (or upmerge) -- I am not sure that we need the inductees subcat, as if offends OCAWARD, but we certainly do not need this parent for it. The main article will make a good one for the subcat and so will not be orphaned.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:40, 5 May 2019 (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:São José dos Campos Futebol Clube
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.