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. –
FayenaticLondon 13:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match contents, which all use a calendar year from 2013 onwards. I accept that the contents and head categories will need pruning slightly, and will do this. –
FayenaticLondon 22:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Question -- Does Indonesia play its football using a season that does not straddle two years? In UK, the fooball season is in the northern winter, which does straddle. If that does not apply to Indonesia, the answer should be to rename; if it does straddle the year-end, we should keep.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:10, 7 September 2014 (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:Sport in Nishapur
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. –
FayenaticLondon 07:19, 20 September 2014 (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:Current ministerial offices in the United Kingdom
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:upmerge. (Deletion would be most unhelpful.) The Defunct category suffices to separate current from former. –
FayenaticLondon 08:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete or upmerge as suggested per no current cats.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 21:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Possibly Keep -- Normally we do not like "current" categories, but in this case, we also have
Category:Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom and there are enough obsolete titles to warrant the existecne of that. Deleting should not be an option, merging per Dexdor might be. If we did that we would have his target with the defunct one as a subcat: would that be a better outcome?
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes - if an article is categorized correctly then it should never (apart from special cases like Living people category), be necessary to remove that article from a category, but the article may become eligible to be "moved" to a subcategory.
DexDor (
talk) 22:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment We actually also do remove people from religious categories are put them in categories like
Category:Former Roman Catholics. It is unclear if Mrs. De Blasio would still fit in an LGBT category despite her having written an essay that asserted being Lesbian, but I can see successful arguments that LGBT should not be applied to people who currently reject that label even if they embraced it in the past. However most categories it is not possible to loose. We also have a few for people who had awards officially revoked from them.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:48, 20 September 2014 (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:Current Indian state and territorial ministries
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.
Comment -- This rasies much the same issues as the UK item - not discussion above.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:18, 7 September 2014 (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:Holy Child College of Davao
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: deleted by another user.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a non-notable article disguised as a category.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 13:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom.--
ukexpat (
talk) 13:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
delete no need for a category for a single article (and that only a draft). --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. An article on a non-notable subject, camouflaged as a category.
Maproom (
talk) 18:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Category is only used for one draft article about a non-notable subject. Creator is trying to disguise an article as a category, which is a misuse of categories.
JIP |
Talk 18:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Close as delete -- It seems to have eben deleted already!
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:20, 7 September 2014 (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:Pro-government people of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
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, as there is no consensus for deletion. –
FayenaticLondon 12:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I wonder if this is the right way of categorizing. I think that for pro-Russian people a category name like
Category:Leaders of Federal State of Novorossiya would me more appropriate, while a pro-Ukrainian category may not be meaningful at all as it can be regarded as just an opinion category to which too many Ukrainian people would belong.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
There are two sides in this unrest/conflict/war: Pro-Russian (DNR, LNR, Russian) and Ukrainian sides. Key people (limited number) from both sides included in article's infoboxes, navboxes etc. They must be categorized under different subcategories, clearly. Subcategory's name are subject for this discussion.
NickSt (
talk) 12:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
It is about a strict definition of key people. From the one side I can imagine that key people are the leaders of Federal State of Novorossiya, so that would be suitable as a category. However, I can't imagine how one would define key people of the other side.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete people by one issue position is usually wrong. Here "pro-government" is doubly problematic, as in people who were pro the government of the president who up and fled were pro-government once too, and if this is defining, changing sides doesn't change their categories... right?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 21:48, 4 September 2014 (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:Companies of the Arab League
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 Arab League is a political organisation that doesn't have companies either belonging to it or registered to it as an entity.
Aviabranding (
talk) 00:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support delete. The same applies to its two childcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete no showing that the Arab League has some process of registering companies that supersedes those of its members.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 21:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)reply
If it comes to a rename, I'd rather make it more specific e.g.
Pan-Arab companies or possibly
Multinational Arab companies, as I imagine it's not desirable to put all companies of all Arab countries in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
This may not be a good idea, since there are hardly any pan-Arab companies in this category, surprisingly enough. So, I would rather stay in support of the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Does anyone find this combination useful (organisation+arab-country-based)?
SFB 23:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per Carlossuarez46's logic. If the Arab League starts getting involved with licensing companies like the EU, then this category makes sense.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:39, 15 September 2014 (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:UFO-related locations
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.
Delete -- I sampled 4 articles. The first two did not even refer to UFOs. The next two were the locations of alleged UFO sightings. In each case there was a main article on the sighting, which was in
Category:UFO sightings. It might be possible to alter this to
Category:Locations of UFO sightings, but if so, it should be purged of all articles that do not mention any sighting.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's not even clear what this category is supposed to mean. Should
Mars be included? How about
Hollywood?
jps (
talk) 02:20, 11 September 2014 (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.