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. Note tjhat I do not consider pointing out that the category was not empty as having participated in this discussion in a way that would prevent me closing this. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category: It is NOT possible for an editor to have reached this level of service award before 1/15/2011 WuhWuzDat 21:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not really empty since it lists the templates that will be used for the various awards. For the record, this may be the last one a human can get since 500,000 edits seems to be reserved for bots. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already contains 6 items. This cat is an integral part of of a Service Award Scheme. Discussions elsewhere indicated an opposition to a strict entitlement policy for these awards. Recent attempts to delete one the containing templates failed. Mootros (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mootros and per awards are for decoration, inspiration and aspiration. Editors use them to decorate their pages, get inspired to contribute more and aspire to get the next one and the one after that and so on. If we delete them, what do we have to remind us of what to aspire to? And why delete perfectly fine decorations? Should we also delete Christmas cards, barnstars and other ornaments? Please let's focus our energies on more productive topics. Additionally why not start awarding these awards to bots? It would be very nice to see a robotic Kipzoc. Imagine what such a policy would do for non-discrimination based on the origin of edits. Dr.K.λogosπraxis 00:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basically similar nom just recently failed here. Part of the Service Award scheme which has been discussed and worked on over many years. No need to truncate the Service Award ladder. Aspirational. 2011 will come around, eventually, so should we delete the level now to recreate it then? Seems silly to have a level where we basically say "there is an award for this this level but we aren't allowed to show it yet. Harmless. Herostratus (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons already given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as we would be deleting it simply to recreate it in a few months time. SilkTork *YES! 09:50, 17 August 2010 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category: It is NOT possible for an editor to have earned this level of service award before the year 2013. WuhWuzDat 21:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above statement. Mootros (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same rationale as my comment above for level 15. Herostratus (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons already given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though there is more rationale for removing this one, there is no advantage to removing it, as it is already there, is not causing any problems or confusion, and will be created one day. SilkTork *YES! 09:52, 17 August 2010 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category: It is NOT possible for an editor to have earned this level of service award before the year 2016. WuhWuzDat 21:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above statement. Mootros (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same rationale as my comment above for level 15. Herostratus (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons already given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2010 (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. Courcelles 08:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a significant characteristic. While we do have 'contributor' categories for certain types of media (e.g. Category:New York Times writers, Category:CNN people), we don't have them for blogs and other online media, and with good reason. This might be acceptable as a list, but not as a category. Robofish (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have nothing to add to my remarks in the previous CFD, except to opine that it was only kept because the show has a lot of highly-motivated fans. Cgingold (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category:New York Times writers is (I hope) for people who have been employed on a regular basis by NYT and excludes those who have written the occasional article or letter. I await a swarm of contrary views by 'highly-motivated fans'. Occuli (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If I am right in understanding this is about people contributing to blogs, it will generally be a NN activity. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fans notwithstanding. My opinions haven't changed since the last discussion, where pretty much everything I said was misunderstood, so that's all I'll say. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:34, 17 August 2010 (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, with no prejudice against a nomination to standardize these to one form going either direction.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is not much of distinction between the categories. Currently it appears that articles are added randomly to either of the two Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, unless anyone can explain to me the difference between a 'noble house' and a 'noble family'. I can't see any difference myself. Robofish (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or reverse merge -- no strong view on which, but we do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and all "noble houses" should go the same way; it is not really English usage. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2010 (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. Courcelles 08:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. My first thought was that this was for the Stations Casino's hotels. But it is apparently for hotels that are either in a railway station or adjacent to one, at least based on the contents. Since this fact is mentioned in passing in these articles it does not appear to contribute any type of notability. The articles pretty much have ample categories so deletion is better then an up merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Railway hotels, which appears to cover the exact same subject (only subdivided by country). I think this actually is a significant characteristic of the hotels in question, being the reason they were built; it's noted prominently in all their articles. However, we don't need two separate categories for it, and 'railway hotels' is a clearer name. Robofish (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Robofish. We do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2010 (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.
