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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete, all of its contents have been redirected per this WikiProject Comics discussion. "Minicomics" were small little bonus publications included in action figure packages; they fail to merit stand-alone articles and so this category will not be repopulated. Postdlf (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the articles have been rightly redirected and the category is now empty and will presumably stay ;empty. (Emperor (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
delete all redirected as per consensus. Un-needed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2009 (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The result of the discussion was:WITHDRAWN. Postdlf (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category with one entry does not a category make. Please add more quickly or don't build a category at all. My advice is to have at least three pages for the category before making it. Nezzadar (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has three already and will have more. You have to actually give a person more than two minutes to build and populate a category, you know. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retraction: Well now, I guess this can be removed. See it from my POV though, most categories I see made never get populated. That, and I've seen categories filled with multiple enteries by the time I see them, even though they are new. Sorry. Nezzadar (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2009 (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 user 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 result of the discussion was:Merge. Jafeluv (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Tollywood is refered to as Telugu Cinema. Hence should be merged to the more general Category:Telugu cinema. Moreover, Category:Tollywood is present as a subcategory of Category:Telugu cinema having most of the subcategories of Telugu cinema which is incorrect. -- Thaejas (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Category:Bollywood exists, despite being synonymous with Category:Hindi-language films (Hindi film redirects to Bollywood). Maybe that should be merged as well? But a bigger issue with Tollywood is that (per that page) it may refer to two different film industries, so it should be merged (possibly to two separate targets?) to avoid ambiguity. Finally, Telugu cinema currently redirects to Cinema of Andhra Pradesh, so the category does not match the name of its parent article at present. Postdlf (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Bollywood is a well-known term from the ellision of Bombay and Hollywood, though presumably it should now be Mollywood since the city is now Mumbai. However we should not encourage similar terms, which are likely to fail WP:NEO. Delete after merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Tollywood" predates "Bollywood" by a few decades, so I don't think WP:NEO applies here.-- choster 05:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
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:No consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "military" is unnecessary- since the Royal Navy is a military organisation, it goes without saying that its ranks would be "military" ranks- one would hardly expect to find a category named "civilian ranks of the Royal Navy". HJMitchellYou rang? 00:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Royal Navy have civilian employees, and civilian organizations do have ranks, are you sure there are no ranks for non-military in the Royal Navy? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They would be likely to be military ranks anyhow. Debresser (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they might be civil service ranks instead... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. No naval personnel in the Royal Navy (except Royal Marine officers) have military ranks: they have naval ranks. Civilan employees are not naval personnel at all: they are civil servants. "Military" is derived from the Latin miles, militis -- a soldier. In Britain we have three "armed services" - Army, Navy, and Air Force, and only the army has "military" personnel. It would not surprise me if the American call their sailors "military personnel", but in UK we do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in Rome, the Roman Legion served on the Roman galleys, and therefore the armed naval personnel of armed forces service in Rome are "military", if we go by your derivation, since they were soldiers of the Legions. Therefore, it is still correct to apply military to the UK. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I've explained earlier,[1] the dictionary definition of "military" does include the navy. Some people do use the term differently, but I think we should stick to verifiable definitions if we're going to base our decisions on semantics. Furthermore, we use the same naming scheme for all military rank categories, including Category:Military ranks of the United States Navy. Renaming this one would make it inconsistent for no compelling reason. Jafeluv (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2009 (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.
