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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per other recent renames of categories for New Zealand regions, and per Hawke's Bay Region. There's also the potential added confusion that people might think of the bay itself (even though that is actually Hawke Bay). I'm also including the following subcategories in the nomination:
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator and similar recent Cfr's. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 8 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:Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per other recent renames of categories for New Zealand regions, and per Taranaki Region. There's also the added confusion with Taranaki that it can be used as a name (by itself) for the prominent mountain in the region. I'm also including the following subcategories in the nomination:
Rename per nom to match main article. Good to bring some consistency to these NZ region categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator and recent Cfr's. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 8 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.
Category:Rides at The Great Escape & Splashwater Kingdom[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category as no other Six Flags parks have a category like this. I suggest upmerging the roller coasters to "Six Flags roller coasters" and then deleting this category. Tavix | Talk 23:47, 6 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:RenameJafeluv (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Probably the line "This category covers the city of Las Vegas, Nevada." on the category page. Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 8 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:Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 10:52, 14 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:result. For the UK, this appears to be the most common form, so a rename is not out of order. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 17 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:Merge. Jafeluv (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge into Category:Euplerids: There is only one article in this category, and there is no potential for growth. Other small genera in the same order do not have their own categories either (see Category:Carnivores and subcategories). Ucucha 19:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Someone needs to describe a second species or a taxonomic revision needs to take place before this category can have a second member. I would assert that this will not be a controversial proposal - the category was bot-created after all - and it might be speedied. --Aranae (talk) 21:48, 6 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.
Category:Serjeants-at-Arms in the United Kingdom[edit]
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.
Rename to match main article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:05, 14 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:Rename all. (This time I'll avoid making an unexpected assignment for Debresser to complete.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match main topic article epic poetry and recently renamed parent category Category:Epic poems. The word "epic" is imprecise and more colloquial than "epic poem". The previous discussion is here. See also related proposal below. Jafeluv (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subcategories should match main categories and main categories should match articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per CfD 2009/Sep/24. - choster 21:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per recent rename of parent. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 8 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. With the parent category at 11 articles and this one at 2, it seems unnecessary to have a separate subcategory for comic epics. Note that the merge target is nominated for renaming above. If there's no consensus to merge, consider renaming to match the above categories. Jafeluv (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, ideally to Category:Ancient Greek mock-heroic poems (changed from "epic"), which I think is most accurate. They should be kept as a sub-cat & part of a wider scheme, as mock-epics are very different from epics (& a lot shorter). Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MergeJohnbod is right, that mock-epics are a separate subgenre, but we have no article on it, nor a category structure, so I think the merge is pretty straightforward and unavoidable. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have mock-epic (as redirect), which mentions one of these. I don't really follow your logic. Slightly ridiculously, MacFlecknoe, among the most famous mock-epics in English, is categorized as an "Epic poem", as is The Rape of the Lock. There could hardly be any objection to setting up a tree - I might do so if I have time. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the main article is Mock-heroic, I see no problem with this. It could be Category:Mock-heroics as well, but considering the above nomination of the sibling categories from "epics" to "epic poems", this is probably a more consistent solution. Jafeluv (talk) 06:54, 13 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.
Rename per nom. If Kmetji... Kmejti... Kmje... the above mentioned newspaper was miscategorized, just remove it from the category and if necessary create a new subcategory under Category:Newspapers by language. Clearly this is meant to be a "by country" category. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 6 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm not 100% sure what this means or is, but it appears to be something about sub-categorizing Beatles songs according to certain recording technology and is overcategorization in my view. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 31 songs in this list is merely a beginning, the full list will be at least twice as long, and all of these songs are in 5.1surround. Mind you, in each article there is a section entitled “Surround version(s)”, where you can read in which Beatles release you will find the surround version. And please stop the nonsense about recording techniques, this has to do with mixing and presenting, and hearing and enjoying. If you can’t do the latter, get yourselves a home theater and the Love album and some Beatles DVDs, and you will know what this is all about. Apanuggpak (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transferred from Oct 7, where this comment had been left as a "new nomination". BencherliteTalk 22:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if I understand Apanuggpak correctly, these aren't to separate songs originally released in surround sound from those that weren't, but rather for songs that were only recently released in a remixed, surround sound version on the album Love in 2006. So this isn't an original or intrinsic feature of the song. Nor is there apparently any other category for songs released in surround sound. Postdlf (talk) 02:57, 8 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:Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent article, Pitbull (rapper), since pitbull leads to a disambiguation page. Also needs to be clarified, as the songs and albums aren't about the terrier. — ξxplicit 04:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And here I thought they were supposed to be categorizing songs and albums by the dogs ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 8 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.
Category:Roller coasters in Los Angeles, California[edit]
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:Upmerge because this category is a pointless branch of the "Roller coasters in California" category. This is also the only "Roller coaster by city" category in California. Tavix | Talk 00:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have looked and added a rename suggestion. Occuli (talk) 10:08, 7 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.
