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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 04:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I (the original creator) strongly agree. --z33k (talk) 14:26, 1 July 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. — ξxplicit 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization by shared name. We don't categorize things by who or what they are named after. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:24, 29 June 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. — ξxplicit 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename - per a number of other CFRs in the past and to clarify that this is for programs that originate on HGTV and not shows it may air in syndication. Otto4711 (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I haven't seen the other CfRs but it's the only way this category or any like it could be defining or even workable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 30 June 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. — ξxplicit 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization by shared name. We don't categorize things by who or what they are named after. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:59, 29 June 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.
Rename and repurpose to Category:MEPs who changed party. This should not be limited by nationanlity or party only to the Parliament. The definition should indicate that they changed parties while an MEP. In UK, this is a rare phenomenon, it therefore surprises me that the Canadian category should have been deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Grouping MEPs who changed party seems like a topic that could best be tackled in a good list. I think MEPs can be defined by their party or parties, but not by the fact that they happened to have changed parties at some point. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:59, 7 July 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. — ξxplicit 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom. Parties are national and fight elections under the party labels of their national Parliamentary party. The Conservatives switched groups at the last Euro-election, so that it is appropriate to categories MEPs by their national party, not their Euro-group. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 4 July 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, but refine the categories of the category's contents, while merging what's left over to Category:Scottish Borders. — ξxplicit 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Places" are not defined, but the content of the category includes villages, hamlets, buildings, rivers, nature reserves, etc, all of which have their own, more specific, categories. This category is therefore superfluous. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The contents appear to be already included in Category:Scottish Borders and/or its subcats. Not sure how to deal with it. Delete might lose content; merge might create duplication. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not familiar with the conventions for categories, but I'd have thought the logical structure would be to make all of the more specific categories (e.g. buildings, settlements, rivers) into subcategories of this, move all of the pages into the appropriate subcategory where is one, and only leave pages which can be considered a place but don't fit into any of the other categories. But I'll leave this up to someone who knows more about category management. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Manually delete per User:BrownHairedGirl. BenMacDui 07:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just been through all 44 pages in this category, and put each one into at least one other Scottish-Borders-related category. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Manually distribute contents to appropriate categories, then upmerge what is left to Category:Scottish Borders. However as Jonathan Oldenbuck says that he has done the distribution, then all that is needed is a plian delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 4 July 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:withdrawn by nominator. — ξxplicit 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wikispecies lists this, but under family Erebidae. Please disregard this request. Dawynn (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – as you have emptied the category it is likely to be deleted automatically. A more complete solution would be to put the articles back. Same goes for the similar ones below. Occuli (talk) 00:07, 30 June 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:withdrawn by nominator. — ξxplicit 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wikispecies lists Sarrothripina under family Nolidae. Please disregard this request. Dawynn (talk) 15:02, 29 June 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:withdrawn by nominator. — ξxplicit 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wikispecies lists this, but under family Erebidae. Please disregard this request. Dawynn (talk) 14:56, 29 June 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:withdrawn by nominator. — ξxplicit 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wikispecies lists this, but under family Erebidae. Please disregard this request. Dawynn (talk) 14:56, 29 June 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:withdrawn by nominator. — ξxplicit 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wikispecies lists this, but under family Erebidae. Please disregard this request. Dawynn (talk) 14:56, 29 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I propose renaming this category to match the name of the main article Okotoks. There is no Okotoks (disambiguation) and there is no other place by this name as far as I know. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, shouldn't be a problem since the article was moved without opposition. 117Avenue (talk) 14:02, 29 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, shouldn't be a problem since the article was moved without opposition. 117Avenue (talk) 14:02, 29 June 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:Seems to have been done out of process. Courcelles (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I propose renaming these categories to match the name of the article Temagami. There is no Temagami (disambiguation) and there is no other place of the same name as far as I know. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename. When I created Category:Temagami, Ontario, I thought it would have been better to title it Category:Temagami. But I chose the current title because all communities I knew that had categories at the time were XXXX, Ontario and the former article title was Temagami, Ontario. BT (talk) 21:41, 30 June 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 all. Courcelles (talk) 11:05, 6 July 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 with no prejudice against a deletion discussion after the bot runs. Courcelles (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is not too many articles in this one, could more be rounded up, or should deletion be considered? A category on the county shouldn't be a sub of the town. 117Avenue (talk) 14:07, 29 June 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 all. Courcelles (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. This should be the standard for all non-disambiguated populated places. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 29 June 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 all. Courcelles (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Steam5 (talk) 03:31, 1 July 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 all. Courcelles (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per Alansohn. Steam5 (talk) 03:28, 1 July 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.
Category:People from Grande Prairie, Alberta[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. Courcelles (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, shouldn't be a problem since the article was moved without opposition. 117Avenue (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per Alansohn and 117Avenue. Steam5 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 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 with no prejudice against a renomination towards deletion after the bot goes through. Courcelles (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I propose renaming this category to match the name of the article Héctor Delgado. "Hector El Father" is a one of his stage names. Or delete, due to sparse contents (main article + 1 article + 2 subcategories)—I'm not sure what would be best. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - material is not so vast or complex that a category is necessitated per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Articles serve for navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept. In Otto's absence we have been keeping this sort of category but it seems borderline to me. Occuli (talk) 00:11, 30 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- There are other places called Broome, for example a village down the road from me here in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom. -- Longhair\talk 05:26, 5 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I propose renaming this category to the article name Colac, Victoria. Colac is ambiguous and is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom. Steam5 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom. -- Longhair\talk 05:25, 5 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. as explained. Mayumashu (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Steam5 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 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: Banned user Nopetro created these two underpopulated categories, as was his want. And he put the Off-the-grid parent article in what would appear to be the wrong category. But I think an upmerge would give us the makings of a small but useful category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 29 June 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.
