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, the scope of this category is entirely unclear.
Alienation is a dab page which provides many possible meanings for alienation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Scope insufficiently defined. Fiamh(
talk,
contribs) 23:26, 21 October 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:Pages containing click using deprecated parameters
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 10:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Match renamed lead article
Gannett. This category renaming was opposed on the Speedy page, but there are no other candidates for a category at
Gannett (disambiguation). For the record, there was a
previous discussion which was open to further renaming. –
FayenaticLondon 11:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose at least speedy. The current name was chosed during a
full discussion, which shouldn’t be speedily overturned.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 05:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That CFD was explicitly closed without prejudice to further renames. It is common to have a full discussion when moving to a category name that could be ambiguous, but there is no other candidate for a category at
Gannett (disambiguation). –
FayenaticLondon 12:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that's correct, but that further rename should follow a full discussion.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 10:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support - seems uncontroversial.
Oculi (
talk) 19:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Soft oppose on personal preference that, at least in terms of categories, the parenthetical qualifier is helpful. Alternative proposal would be to delete this category per
WP:TRIVIALCAT and upmerge the pages to a newspaper chains category.
Doug Mehus (
talk) 22:49, 19 October 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:Gaelic poets
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 10:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Agree that the Gaelic categories need to be disambiguated, due to confusion between Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic. —
Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keeping them as dab pages might be a good idea.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep It's a distinct language within the Goidelic tribe of languages like
Category:Basque-language poets. It's also has the majority of speakers / writers within Goideldom.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 09:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: which language are you referring to: Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Old Irish?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:16, 13 October 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:CIS Men's Basketball Championship
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.
MER-C 10:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The CIS Men's Basketball Championship was renamed U Sports Men's Basketball Championship when Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) was renamed
U Sports in 2016.
Jweiss11 (
talk) 23:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – this is the standard convention on how these sorts of changes are handled.
SportsGuy789 (
talk) 15:44, 16 October 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:R.E. Mouscron players
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:do not merge.
MER-C 10:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There have been some bankrupcties and mergers here and there, but the currently existing club, Royal Excel Mouscron, counts its history back to 1922 when R.E. Mouscron was founded (cf. the club logo), they have more or less the same name and the same initials etc. So it would be the commonplace decision to categorize historic players under the existing club.
Geschichte (
talk) 07:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves.
GiantSnowman 08:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - whilst we have separate articles on the clubs (
R.E. Mouscron and
Royal Excel Mouscron) and therefore consider them separate clubs, we should have separate categories accordingly.
GiantSnowman 08:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - it is more accurate to categorise R.E. Mouscron players within
Category:R.E. Mouscron players and Royal Excel Mouscron players within
Category:Royal Excel Mouscron players, and to make the former a subcategory of the latter to denote the historical relationship. Exactly as has been done here.
Oculi (
talk) 12:36, 14 October 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:Combiners (Transformers)
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:listify.
MER-C 10:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Pretty much every article and subcategory of this category are going to get deleted. What we'll end up with is
Dinobots (who aren't a combiner group anyway) and
Transformers technology (which isn't specific to combiners). Therefore this category is pretty much useless. Delete.
JIP |
Talk 23:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)reply
There are several more articles in this category not currently nominated for AfD.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Several? Not counting the redirects, I count all of two:
Predacon and
Motormaster.
JIP |
Talk 07:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
So that makes a total of 4 articles. Admittedly, that is quite small, I'm therefore not opposing the category's removal.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Do count the redirects as well. Categorising redirects is legitimate, see
WP:Categorizing redirects. However, it might well be more use to make a list within an appropriate page on Transformers (cf.
Category:Lists of Transformers characters), incorporating the descriptive text currently on the category page. –
FayenaticLondon 09:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Fayenatic's london proposal, merging information into the list.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:39, 17 October 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:Specific models
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 per the alternative proposal.
MER-C 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Propose upmerge. The name of this category is not very informative, and there seems no point in maintaining it.
Category:Conceptual models is where one would expect to find specific models listed, no?
SpinningSpark 23:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment, it may be useful to distinguish a topic category and a set category, but that distinction should be clarified on the category page.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support renaming them both for a better clarification of the content. Some content needs to be moved manually from one category to the other indeed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support alternative double rename. Admin note: these will have to be listed for the bot to process one at a time!
–
FayenaticLondon 09:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't see that as much of an improvement. The term is just as vague and ambiguous to the general reader. Further, in an engineering context it is positively misleading. It does not mean a particular model; rather, it means a model based on the
finite element method. Or, in electrical engineering, the
lumped element model. This could easily lead people to exclude
continuous models from the category, which shouldn't be our intention here.
SpinningSpark 12:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)reply
If it does not work in the engineering context, I will support Marco Capelle's proposal. I would rather use different roots but maybe this all that works. I come to this problem with a background in several social sciences, i.e. another valid and important modeling perspective. It's important that we develop a categorization system that works from all major perspectives.
gidonb (
talk) 00:40, 22 October 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 subsidiaries of foreign companies