Category:Temporary National Hockey League venues[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:Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Several problems here. First the name, these are not temporary, but rather based on occasional use. Second, this is probably not defining. Finally, holding an event here once is a questionable reason for categorization. If being a venue is important them upmerge to Category:National Hockey League venues or Category:Defunct National Hockey League venues. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I love the Winter Classic, one game does not make Wrigley Field or Fenway Park an NHL venue of any sort.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify as List of venues used by the NHL on temporary or occassional bases or somesuch. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is the arena equivalent of performer by performance and is not defining. Resolute 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Upmerge A building playing host to a top level major league sport is a defining aspect of that building. The naming might be better, but the purpose of the category is valid. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but are we going to delete categories about the World Cup, Super Bowl and Olympic venues? Otherwise, what is the difference? I don't want to keep this just because other stuff exists, but want to know if there is a objective, rather than subjective difference between those cases and this one. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would !vote to delete for the same reason, but I can't speak for others. Olympic Venues might be a special case since a lot of those venues are built specifically for the Olympics. But no stadium was ever built specifically for the Super Bowl, and not many specifically for the World Cup. Resolute 20:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, I also think arenas/theaters etc are defined by the type of concerts they are able to attract. Maybe not specifically Cher but in general concerts of a certain level of music. Just like this would be a hockey game of the National Hockey League level. You can't compare a specific artists concert with a general type of event. The two are distinct. This is no different than Category:Music venues in Alberta. -DJSasso (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The type of event in this case would be hockey. In that case, your comparable would then be Category:Ice hockey venues. Incidentally, as I type this, the Senators and Sabres are playing a game in a community rink in Dundas, Ontario. The rink was not notable before, and it is still not notable, even for having hosted an NHL game. Resolute 23:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this one is just a subcategory of that one.... As for the game, its only a pre-season game. These rinks are all rinks that played regular season games. And isn't it actually happening in Hamilton at Copps Colliseum? That's what they said on the radio today. -DJSasso (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hosting one special NHL game is not defining for these venues. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:06, 5 October 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:Terrorism templates in category namespace[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:Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Appears to be deprecated with no links. Can anyone speak to its usefulness? Bsherr (talk) 15:35, 24 September 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 first, merge and delete second. Dana boomer (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. First virtually duplicates Category:Pokémon species apart from three humans who could easily be placed in the supercategory Category:Pokémon characters, the second just has two of the humans. Salix (talk): 14:37, 24 September 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:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Enciclopedia Libre Universal[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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 3 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Totally random inclusion criteria. Statuses include being a child, having made a pact with the devil, and being an undersea character. These should be upmerged into something more appropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - I believe this category was created in an attempt to better organize the subcategories of Category:Fictional characters. When nominator suggests upmerging into something more appropriate, is nominator referring to Category:Fictional characters, or to something else? --Bsherr (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the title is strange, but it's better to have these grouped together the way we group "characters by occupation," "characters by narrative role," etc. together. Roscelese (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per comments by Roscelese. Unless there is a better place to upmerge or recategorize the sub-categories, I think this one should not be deleted. --LoЯd۞pεth 11:52, 28 September 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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 3 October 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/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Definitely an improvement.--NortyNort(Holla) 11:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Valid rationale. --Pjacobi (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional entities, or maybe Category:Elements of fiction, etc. While the rationale of renaming the current category name is valid, this category is not for fictional topics-- the topics theirin are actual topics covered in actual Wikipedia articles. Rather, they are topics related to elements of fiction. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:τᴀʟĸ 06:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No action - Hold on! Some of the contents are topics relating to fiction, like storylines in fiction. Some of the contents are things that are fictional, like fictional beverages. None of the renames successfully encompass both. So the category either needs to be split, or the name kept. --Bsherr (talk) 07:02, 28 September 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:Progressive Reform Party politicians[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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Propose disambiguating. The South African party is defunct and was a short-lived and relatively minor party. The Surinamese party of the same name is a currently existing major party in Suriname. Its category is currently named Category:Progressive Reform Party (Suriname) politicians. I propose that the nominated category be converted into a disambiguation category for these two categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:30, 24 September 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.
