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 nom. Ruslik_Zero 18:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per category naming conventions: "the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country". Article is at South Korea and category is Category:South Korea and so forth. There were a bunch of ROK categories newly created which duplicated existing "South Korea" ones that I have merged. If it's named after the country, it should match South Korea. If it's named after South Korea's navy, then it can match Republic of Korea Navy. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any such discussions in the past. But I'm not really sure how that type of categorization would work with ships. For example, U.S. Navy battleship USS Texas (BB-35), has not been a commissioned vessel (i.e. "active") since the late 1940s, but it is still extant as a museum ship. It's not "current" but not really "former", either. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency's sake, rename per nom, but we should probably have the current v. former discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Also, thanks for cleaning up some of the mess that I created with other "Republic of Korea" categories, Good Ol’factory. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not being offended; that was not my intent. I figured it was just a simple mistake to create duplicates, not an attempt to POV fork. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries :) I was more embarrassed than anything else… — Bellhalla (talk) 14:07, 4 September 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:Keep. --Xdamrtalk 08:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: over-cat, emerson7 16:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Exactly why is this OCAT? In reading the main article, I saw at least 5 more articles that could be written about the things in the city. If there were only one or two articles in the category, you might have a point, but that is not the case. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --a small category, but a legitimate one. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category is small, but a quick perusal of what links to Clovis, California suggests many other articles that could be put in there. I created the cat, and put in some articles, but nothing is "finished". Expand, not delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly there is material for this standard category. I have no idea why anyone wanted to empty it. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:42, 4 September 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. Category is redundant. Tassedethe (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All other categories there also use "19..". Debresser (talk) 21:02, 2 September 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:Football in Trinidad and Tobago by club[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 per nom (this is not a nationality cat). Occuli (talk) 14:58, 2 September 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.
Perhaps. Most seem non-notable and I was planning on redirecting them to the appropriate albums per WP:NSONGS. Tassedethe (talk) 12:53, 2 September 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:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 08:37, 10 September 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:Florida International Panthers baseball coaches[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 per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 2 September 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.
