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: Or somesuch. Just calling it "Brands of the World" implies that this category is just about that web site itself, but this is a collection of images and logos from that site. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 27 December 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.
Delete, to the extent that the category is relevant to the book it just duplicates Category:Books critical of Scientology, and it's otherwise trivial if it's not related. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 27 December 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:rename; may be deleted when all images have been moved to Commons. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Name of state should be attached to category ----DanTD (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename C.2.B.ii.- choster (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons and Delete. Could simply be deleted as OC small. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I didn't feel like searching through all the images simply categorized Category:Images of Indiana for those strictly in Porter County, I'd almost agree with you. ----DanTD (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the notion that Category:Images of Indiana might have images specifically in Porter County, Indiana either now or in the future, not much. If you can rush the existing image in the commons and kill the category as is, go ahead and do it. ----DanTD (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE -- All three images that were previously in this category are now in the commons, although two of the duplicates are still there, and I've found others. ----DanTD (talk) 14:36, 31 December 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to specify a well defined region (the Florida Keys) in which hundreds of shipwrecks occurred. "Near Key West" is not well defined; some of the shipwrecks currently in this category occurred more than 100 miles from Key West. Donald Albury 02:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Near" gives rise to a subjective i.e. POV category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. The wrecks in question are found throughout the Keys, which is a much more natural geographic division anyway. Mangoe (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to widen the scope of the category and attract more entries. Hmains (talk) 03:49, 30 December 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category is populated by a template that serves all namespaces, not just articles, and the category should be renamed to reflect its actual scope. Bsherr (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be inaccurate. It's the deletion process decision, not the page, that's under discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could add the implied "that are", if that addresses your concern. Either is grammatically correct. --Bsherr (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia pages that are the subjects of deletion reviews reads better to me. I assume present tense is intended (at the DRV close, the page is removed from the category?). Why "deletion reviews" plural? If it is only for current discussions, it should usually, if not always, be singular? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, present only; the category is populated by Template:Delrev. My take is that plural is correct to distinguish that the contents of the category are each the subject of a deletion review, as opposed to the contents of the category being the subject of a single deletion review. --Bsherr (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because, again, that would be inaccurate. It's the deletion process discussion for the page that's under review, not the page itself. Saying "subjects of" doesn't fully communicate this, but it's better than further omission. --Bsherr (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2011 (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:Parliamentary constituencies in Dublin[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:Rename to clarify that the scope of the category includes the whole of County Dublin, not just the area of Dublin city, and per convention of the sub-categories of Category:County Dublin, which take the form Foo in/of County Dublin.
Note: the category was created by me, three years ago, so I take all the blame for the inaccurate name. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator's rationale. Q: Will it contain city constituencies too or will they be in a subcat? Snappy (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't propose to create a city subcat, for two reasons:
I'm not sure that there are enough current constituencies to justify a split, and since some of the current ones straddle the city boundary, we'd end up with a lot of duplicate categorisation.
If we split this one, then we'd logically need to split the subcat Category:Historic constituencies in County Dublin, and that would cause great confusion, since the city boundaries have been expanded at least twice in the last hundred years (in the 1930s and 1990s). I can't see any way of doing such a split without causing a lot of duplicate categorisation and confusion as we try to reconcile the various ancahronisms involved. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 29 December 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.
Relisted at 2011 JAN 11 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)