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.
MER-C 12:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: User should have a reasonable idea what they're going to find when they go to a category.
(With this, and the below nominations of other periods, I'm realizing the problem is much more widespread than I had imagined. There are other Great Depression arts categories, etc.) –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 22:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Split some of these works have virtually no reference to the Great Depression and are just set at the time they were created. This is needed to make cateorization more logical.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 08:54, 9 July 2015 (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:World War I theatre
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.
MER-C 13:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is just used to categorize musicals and plays at the same level, both as subcats of this (which is a subcat of Works about World War I), but it's better to categorize musicals under plays and to make that a subcat. Category's unnecessary. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 22:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- "Theatre" in relation to war also means an area of operations, so that the title is ptentially ambiguous. Both subcats are adequatly categorised, so that there is no need to upmerge.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete – Per previous, my first inclination was to think this referred to the "theaters of war" in which WWI was fought. Ambiguous and unneeded. General IzationTalk 22:32, 11 July 2015 (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:World War II musicals
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
MER-C 13:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The names are ambiguous as to whether the musicals and plays are from this period, or about this period. Also, consistency with other "works about thing" categories. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 22:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
NB the problem is much more widespread than I thought, so I'm not going to nom the full list. If consensus is reached to rename/split, the others might be able to go through speedy. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 22:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Clearly ambiguous.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support "Works about" is a much better format. Purge if necessary.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per nominator.
...William 21:27, 10 July 2015 (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:Publishing terms
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: These articles are nearly all about concepts, not terms, and they
should be; a quick glance at this list of articles suggests that only
Publish or perish is really a term in the sense that it is primarily a phrase. It's a bad idea to have separate "X terms" or "X terminology" categories, only to fill them with miscellanea that don't fit in other subcategories.
QVVERTYVS (
hm?) 19:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Fgnievinski: not all, but a lot them, yes. I've often wondered why we had these categories. In fact, I was just looking at
Category:Book terminology, and I have absolutely no idea what is the criterion for inclusion in that category. Are you opposing deletion only because it would be a lot of work to do consistently?
QVVERTYVS (
hm?) 19:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Certainly not a delete, perhaps a renaming of "terminology" to "concepts" as in
Category:Concepts by field. Every field has its jargon, call it terminology or not. (BTW: related discussion about
:Category:Nomenclature). Thanks.
Fgnievinski (
talk) 19:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
That seems a reasonable and defensible distinction to me. Some folks prefer to {{
diffuse}} profusely.
Fgnievinski (
talk) 01:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Publishing. These are (with possibly a few exceptions) not articles about the subject of terminology (a subtopic of linguistics), but articles whose title is a term - however, categorization should be on characteristics of the subject, not on characteristics of the article title. If not deleted then add inclusion criteria and heavily purge. Note: many terms/terminology categories have been deleted in the past (e.g.
here and
here). See also
User:DexDor/TermCat.DexDor(talk) 20:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Publishing general concepts so as to avoid confusion with uncategorized articles that often get temporarily dropped in the base
Category:Publishing but actually are awaiting to be diffused into sub-categories. If the present deletion nomination goes through,
Category:Concepts by field and its sub-categories shall go next, which already received some attention in the past (e.g.,
here).
Fgnievinski (
talk)
How can a clear distinction be drawn between "uncategorized articles ... temporarily dropped in the base
Category:Publishing" and articles "awaiting to be diffused into sub-categories"? There are no "general concepts" categories currently in en wp and that looks very much like
WP:OCMISC. I'd support phasing out most/all of
Category:Concepts by field, but not by renaming it to "terminology" as that confuses things even further by (incorrectly) bringing the topic of linguistics into the mix (e.g. probably placing it under
Category:Linguistics). DexDor(talk) 18:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Do not delete -- It should either be merged or renamed. At present, the content of
Category:Publishing is something of a mess. It may be that some of the articlkes there need to be recategorised to the subject here.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Can you clarify what you think this category should be merged to (the upmerge I've proposed?) or renamed to? DexDor(talk) 20:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete or upmerge to
Category:Publishing, no clear inclusion criteria and "miscellaneous things" belong in a parent category,
Category:Publishing in this case. But if most articles are already in another child category of
Category:Publishing as well, it makes sense to delete the category instead of merging it.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:23, 16 July 2015 (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:Salamanca AC
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 all three categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is about a Spanish football club founded as a vanished team's succesor on 2013. However, AC Salamanca hasn't got license from LFP (Spanish Football League), RFEF (Spanish Football Federation) and CSD (Spanish Sports Council) for playing. Therefore the team is not allowed to get new footballers or coaches, neither is registered in La Liga (in this case: 2nd B (Third división into Spanish Football league system)) despite "be founded", so it can't play any official match
Ravave (
talk) 19:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment a CfD template was lacking on all three category pages, I added this now, so this discussion cannot be closed for another week.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:21, 17 July 2015 (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:Extinct lordships of parliament
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.
REnameper nom --
Lorship of Parliament os the Scottish equivalent of an English barony. Accordingly the suggested capitalisation is correct.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
No. The term appears to be "Lordship of Parliament" (so capitalised). My previous comment was missing punctuation (now added). According to the main article, "barony" in Scotland meant what would in England be a
feudal barony. I am not suggesting removing "extinct": if I implied that, it was bad drafting.
Opera hat please move the list back!
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)reply
If you want to move the list back, I assume you will also move
all the other lists of peerages which currently use lower case for the degree of peerage. I suggest you start a move discussion at one of those pages if you think the current standard is wrong.
Opera hat (
talk) 20:16, 10 July 2015 (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:Annie M. G. Schmidt
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:administrative close, it doesn't make sense to keep this discussion open while the category no longer exists.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:32, 10 July 2015 (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:Indian films showing bikini
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.
MER-C 13:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete unless someone can explain why this category is necessary. Bollywood and such are generally less, shall we say, "racy" than Hollywood but I'm not sure it needs to be represented this way. ...discospinstertalk 02:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete also because it's not a genre. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 06:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This is no more defining than nudity in film, but actually probably a little more clear if met.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 08:55, 9 July 2015 (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:Delia Austrian medal recipients
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.
MER-C 12:57, 27 July 2015 (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:Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards
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.
MER-C 12:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I have nominated all articles and the template populating this category for deletion (all in relation to a non notable award mill). Deletion of these articles would render this an empty and deprecated category, so nominating accordingly.
Safiel (
talk) 04:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delay and follow outcome of pending deletion of articles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 08:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Conditional support, if/when the articles disappear (and it's pretty likely they will disappear) the category will become empty.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:27, 17 July 2015 (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:Buildings and structures completed in the 21th century BC
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy rename. –
FayenaticLondon 14:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Change to standard English ordinal 21st SchreiberBike |
⌨ 01:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support, could have been a speedy nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:23, 8 July 2015 (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:21th-century disestablishments in Bhutan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy rename. –
FayenaticLondon 13:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Change to standard English ordinal 21st SchreiberBike |
⌨ 01:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I just changed
Category:2000s disestablishments in Bhutan and moved the category myself (it would be a speedy renaming candidate) [I left the CFD notice up for what it's worth]. I hope no one minds but we can close this. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 03:57, 8 July 2015 (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:Fawad Khan
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Films aren't categorized by its stars.
WP:OCEPON,
WP:PERFCAT. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:03, 8 July 2015 (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:Big Sean
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.
MER-C 13:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. With only song and album subcategories already interlinked, there is no need for an eponymous parent category.
WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:14, 8 July 2015 (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.
The result of the discussion was:split.
MER-C 12:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: User should have a reasonable idea what they're going to find when they go to a category.
(With this, and the below nominations of other periods, I'm realizing the problem is much more widespread than I had imagined. There are other Great Depression arts categories, etc.) –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 22:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Split some of these works have virtually no reference to the Great Depression and are just set at the time they were created. This is needed to make cateorization more logical.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 08:54, 9 July 2015 (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:World War I theatre
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.
MER-C 13:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is just used to categorize musicals and plays at the same level, both as subcats of this (which is a subcat of Works about World War I), but it's better to categorize musicals under plays and to make that a subcat. Category's unnecessary. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 22:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- "Theatre" in relation to war also means an area of operations, so that the title is ptentially ambiguous. Both subcats are adequatly categorised, so that there is no need to upmerge.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete – Per previous, my first inclination was to think this referred to the "theaters of war" in which WWI was fought. Ambiguous and unneeded. General IzationTalk 22:32, 11 July 2015 (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:World War II musicals
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.
MER-C 13:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The names are ambiguous as to whether the musicals and plays are from this period, or about this period. Also, consistency with other "works about thing" categories. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 22:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
NB the problem is much more widespread than I thought, so I'm not going to nom the full list. If consensus is reached to rename/split, the others might be able to go through speedy. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 22:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Clearly ambiguous.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support "Works about" is a much better format. Purge if necessary.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per nominator.
...William 21:27, 10 July 2015 (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:Publishing terms
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: These articles are nearly all about concepts, not terms, and they
should be; a quick glance at this list of articles suggests that only
Publish or perish is really a term in the sense that it is primarily a phrase. It's a bad idea to have separate "X terms" or "X terminology" categories, only to fill them with miscellanea that don't fit in other subcategories.
QVVERTYVS (
hm?) 19:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Fgnievinski: not all, but a lot them, yes. I've often wondered why we had these categories. In fact, I was just looking at
Category:Book terminology, and I have absolutely no idea what is the criterion for inclusion in that category. Are you opposing deletion only because it would be a lot of work to do consistently?
QVVERTYVS (
hm?) 19:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Certainly not a delete, perhaps a renaming of "terminology" to "concepts" as in
Category:Concepts by field. Every field has its jargon, call it terminology or not. (BTW: related discussion about
:Category:Nomenclature). Thanks.
Fgnievinski (
talk) 19:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
That seems a reasonable and defensible distinction to me. Some folks prefer to {{
diffuse}} profusely.
Fgnievinski (
talk) 01:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Publishing. These are (with possibly a few exceptions) not articles about the subject of terminology (a subtopic of linguistics), but articles whose title is a term - however, categorization should be on characteristics of the subject, not on characteristics of the article title. If not deleted then add inclusion criteria and heavily purge. Note: many terms/terminology categories have been deleted in the past (e.g.
here and
here). See also
User:DexDor/TermCat.DexDor(talk) 20:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Publishing general concepts so as to avoid confusion with uncategorized articles that often get temporarily dropped in the base
Category:Publishing but actually are awaiting to be diffused into sub-categories. If the present deletion nomination goes through,
Category:Concepts by field and its sub-categories shall go next, which already received some attention in the past (e.g.,
here).
Fgnievinski (
talk)
How can a clear distinction be drawn between "uncategorized articles ... temporarily dropped in the base
Category:Publishing" and articles "awaiting to be diffused into sub-categories"? There are no "general concepts" categories currently in en wp and that looks very much like
WP:OCMISC. I'd support phasing out most/all of
Category:Concepts by field, but not by renaming it to "terminology" as that confuses things even further by (incorrectly) bringing the topic of linguistics into the mix (e.g. probably placing it under
Category:Linguistics). DexDor(talk) 18:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Do not delete -- It should either be merged or renamed. At present, the content of
Category:Publishing is something of a mess. It may be that some of the articlkes there need to be recategorised to the subject here.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Can you clarify what you think this category should be merged to (the upmerge I've proposed?) or renamed to? DexDor(talk) 20:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete or upmerge to
Category:Publishing, no clear inclusion criteria and "miscellaneous things" belong in a parent category,
Category:Publishing in this case. But if most articles are already in another child category of
Category:Publishing as well, it makes sense to delete the category instead of merging it.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:23, 16 July 2015 (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:Salamanca AC
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 all three categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is about a Spanish football club founded as a vanished team's succesor on 2013. However, AC Salamanca hasn't got license from LFP (Spanish Football League), RFEF (Spanish Football Federation) and CSD (Spanish Sports Council) for playing. Therefore the team is not allowed to get new footballers or coaches, neither is registered in La Liga (in this case: 2nd B (Third división into Spanish Football league system)) despite "be founded", so it can't play any official match
Ravave (
talk) 19:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment a CfD template was lacking on all three category pages, I added this now, so this discussion cannot be closed for another week.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:21, 17 July 2015 (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:Extinct lordships of parliament
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.
REnameper nom --
Lorship of Parliament os the Scottish equivalent of an English barony. Accordingly the suggested capitalisation is correct.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
No. The term appears to be "Lordship of Parliament" (so capitalised). My previous comment was missing punctuation (now added). According to the main article, "barony" in Scotland meant what would in England be a
feudal barony. I am not suggesting removing "extinct": if I implied that, it was bad drafting.
Opera hat please move the list back!
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)reply
If you want to move the list back, I assume you will also move
all the other lists of peerages which currently use lower case for the degree of peerage. I suggest you start a move discussion at one of those pages if you think the current standard is wrong.
Opera hat (
talk) 20:16, 10 July 2015 (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:Annie M. G. Schmidt
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:administrative close, it doesn't make sense to keep this discussion open while the category no longer exists.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:32, 10 July 2015 (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:Indian films showing bikini
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.
MER-C 13:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete unless someone can explain why this category is necessary. Bollywood and such are generally less, shall we say, "racy" than Hollywood but I'm not sure it needs to be represented this way. ...discospinstertalk 02:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete also because it's not a genre. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 06:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This is no more defining than nudity in film, but actually probably a little more clear if met.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 08:55, 9 July 2015 (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:Delia Austrian medal recipients
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.
MER-C 12:57, 27 July 2015 (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:Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards
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.
MER-C 12:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I have nominated all articles and the template populating this category for deletion (all in relation to a non notable award mill). Deletion of these articles would render this an empty and deprecated category, so nominating accordingly.
Safiel (
talk) 04:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delay and follow outcome of pending deletion of articles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 08:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Conditional support, if/when the articles disappear (and it's pretty likely they will disappear) the category will become empty.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:27, 17 July 2015 (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:Buildings and structures completed in the 21th century BC
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy rename. –
FayenaticLondon 14:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Change to standard English ordinal 21st SchreiberBike |
⌨ 01:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support, could have been a speedy nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:23, 8 July 2015 (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:21th-century disestablishments in Bhutan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy rename. –
FayenaticLondon 13:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Change to standard English ordinal 21st SchreiberBike |
⌨ 01:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I just changed
Category:2000s disestablishments in Bhutan and moved the category myself (it would be a speedy renaming candidate) [I left the CFD notice up for what it's worth]. I hope no one minds but we can close this. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 03:57, 8 July 2015 (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:Fawad Khan
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Films aren't categorized by its stars.
WP:OCEPON,
WP:PERFCAT. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:03, 8 July 2015 (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:Big Sean
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.
MER-C 13:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. With only song and album subcategories already interlinked, there is no need for an eponymous parent category.
WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:14, 8 July 2015 (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.