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 I'm skeptical that Category:Pages with editnotices is useful, but I really can't understand the purpose of this. It also explicitly excludes pages with an edit notice lacking {{Active editnotice}}, so the vast majority of articles with editnotices aren't categorized here (e.g. Jesus or Illinois (album).) How could this possibly be useful? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 1 November 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.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One subcat. and one article. Eponymous categories are discouraged and this precedent would create thousands of eponymous categories that would essentially replicate the entire scheme at Category:Works by author. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just the main article and a works subcategory doesn't justify the eponymous category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:52, 8 November 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.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arbitrary inclusion criteria, poorly defined (it's not always easy to say precisely when a state came into existence or ceased to exist). If it is kept, it should at least be renamed to something specific like Category:States lasting less than 10 years. Robofish (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've thought a lot about this one over the months, and I can't see any way to avoid this being either subjective (if it is not defined) or arbitrarily defined (if it is defined), both of which would go against guidelines for categories. Probably best dealt with by a list which can list the length of the existence. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:56, 8 November 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.
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 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 includes languages which are more accurately described as specification languages than programming languages. Also see User talk:Ruud Koot#Dependently typed formal languages. —Ruud 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The current category name is too narrow, in terms of how people may use these languages.--greenrd (talk) 17:23, 6 November 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:International albums released by Avex Group in Japan[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:Merge. These are albums released/distributed in Japan by the Avex Group. There is no need to specify it as an international album for its release in Japan. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:54, 1 November 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.
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:Delete The name Kollywood is ambiguous, vague and colloquial. The only member of the category currently is a Nepalese film and is properly categorized in Category:Nepalese films. This category basically has the same scope but is unambiguous, precise and has a more formal name that matches that of similar categories on WP. Pichpich (talk) 16:08, 1 November 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.
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: Per Ezzonids, as "Ezzonen" is the German plural for this German noble family.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:26, 1 November 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.
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 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 as nominated. If the article is renamed, the category can be speedily renamed via C2D.Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - proposal is an improvement, but how about renaming the category and the article to Atom (computing standard)? --Northernhenge (talk) 22:25, 1 November 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Impossibly broad. It seems like any film that takes place between 1963 and 1979 in the United States is categorized here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossibly large to be definingCurb Chain (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I just noticed this, too. But isn't it a category for characters born with a certain date, rather than films that take place within that period? It's for baby boomers (people) in fiction, not films of that period? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too poorly defined and potentially very broad, even if it's limited to 'fiction featuring people of the baby boomer generation' (as an aside, at least a few of the films categorised here, like The Doors (film), W. (film) and Pirates of Silicon Valley, are not strictly fictional). I also note that we have no supercategory Category:Baby boomers, and rightly so - a generation is just too big and vague a concept to serve as the basis for categorisation. Robofish (talk) 19:51, 2 November 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.
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 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: The name of the family is Da Camino, which in Italian pluralization is Caminesi.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:14, 1 November 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.
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 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: Just created it, but realized there is a similar category ([[Category:Artificial mythology]]). Thanks. Ruby2010/2013 03:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per nom by creator
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.
