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 two subcategories are the only by state barn categories for barns with more then 4 sides (other then the one listed below). Since this tree is not likely to be populated in the near future and since the names of the articles usually makes this feature clear, it would be better to upmerge to the appropriate parent categories.Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Barns in Iowa is not needed as a second merge target since all of the articles are included in another subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2012 (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:Merge. One of two by state subcategories with only one entry and limited growth potential. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2012 (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:no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is it notable that a person who commits suicide is female? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a million categories where such questions might be asked. In short, yes, as is explained by the existence of Gender and suicide. I don't remember creating the article, but it must have been in connection with a literary woman, and any student of Greek drama will tell you that this is relevant, yes. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the policy-based rationale for this nomination, and I ask Justin to explicate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In the absence of any further explanation from nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as men are much more likely to be successful at suicide, it is useful to separate out female suicides. See Gender and suicide as Drmies as suggested above. (If if needs specifying beyond what I've already said: keep the cat.) LadyofShalott 02:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close No policy based rationale given by the nom. Lugnuts (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-defining characteristic and an insignificant intersection. There is no parent article, and the article (which covers both of the most popular genders) Gender and suicide merely points out that there are differing rates of successful suicides by men and women around the world, and notes that the suicide rate is higher among women in some countries. As that article points out women are three times more likely to attempt suicide and some of them are bound to achieve their goals. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think those differences make it a very significant intersection. I have no idea how you come to the opposite conclusion. LadyofShalott 17:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One is tempted to say "ask the girls". It doesn't matter to me that there's no main article yet: there probably should be. Alansohn, just to give a quick indication of how this is important: it's the Ophelia's in the literary world who kill themselves, not the Hamlets. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The gender of somebody who commits suicide is insufficiently defining to the fact they committed suicide to have a split-off category. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep a proper subcategory of its parent Category:Women and death which covers a wide range of articles on the junction of women and death. It would make no sense to have to upmerge the articles in this category to Category:Women and death. All categories are 'split-off categories' from the single category of 'articles in Wikipedia' or whatever it is called. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to assume gender is a good way to subdivide suicide victims seems to be to assume more than we really now. Other schemas for subdividing suicide victims seems more useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2012 (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:List of films on Cinemassacre's Monster Madness[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:speedy delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as promotional spam. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam for a non-notable YouTube channel. The category's creator also said "go ahead" in response to being told of the category's proposed deletion. --McGeddon (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2012 (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. i.e. do not merge. The consensus is that the titles and the domain are distinct entities. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This new category seems to duplicate the intent of the pre-existing category. Goustien (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but into "Former duchies". "Extinct dukedoms" is an exceedingly odd turn of phrase. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment The entire category tree starting with Category:Dukedoms seems very mixed up in calling some entities and categories 'dukedoms' and some 'duchies'. A larger discussion is needed. Hmains (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge Actually, it is even worse. It seeems that 'duchy' refers to a land area while 'dukedom' refer refers to the person (duke) and the title. See Duke for a discussion. Our categories conflate these together and this nomination will make it worse. Hmains (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge It's a duchy, a county, a barony. Kingdom and Empire are the odd ones out. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The Duchies (or most of them) were former sovereign states or quasi sovereign polities. The dukedoms are mere titles, usually without any governmental power over the place from which they take their name. This is a significant distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose these are two distinct things, as multiple people have pointed out. The Duchies are real domains while the dukedoms are just titles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2012 (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:Merge. There is no explanation of what is meant by "companion media" and there are no other parents of this category. Tim! (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Doctor Who-related media. I would have fallen for the same misunderstanding as Vegaswikian. I don't support Category:Doctor Who media, as books & TV series are "media" but clearly they are primary sub-topics here and should not be moved lower down the hierarchy. I don't know of a very clear precedent for this sort of thing; Trekkies have Category:Star Trek in other media but that's not quite right either. It's spin-off media, but we can't use that term because it's not media about the spinoff series from Doctor Who! The strong point of Tim's original suggestion is that this is a sub-cat for "other media", and we don't do categories for "other"; but it's well-enough populated to separate it from the top category, and I think using "DW-related media" might just work. – FayenaticLondon 22:19, 20 August 2012 (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. While there are other transport timeline categories, this one is not really used and may not be needed. Category:Transport infrastructure by year of completion is better populated and includes most material that would be included in this category. If there is a reason to retain this, then fine, but if not it should go. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fell the whole tree. The tree appears also cover articles on vehicles introduced in 19xx. Some one needs to ensure that nothing will be orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2012 (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.
Comment. It should most likely be named, if not now at some point, to Category:Russian people of Tatar ethnicity or descent, to avoid having to differientiate, given a general lack of sources, between someone with Tatar ancestry but not Tatar ethnically (i.e. who doesn't speak Tatar and/or isn't Muslim), and someone who is ethnically Tatar. Of course, someone ethnically Tatar has by default Tatar ancestry (i.e. descent), but the suggested rename, for such a person, would be quite misleading. Merging and renaming the whole ethnicity and ethnic descent category trees is really in order, at some point. Mayumashu (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without any stated rationale, this category was actually relinked, in May, 2011: Before then it had been a subcategory of Category:Tatar people and not Category:People of Tatar descent; most bios linked appear (next to no sources) to be of people of Tatar ethnicity and not just Tatar ancestry. (I won't revert the change so long as this discussion is in progress.) Mayumashu (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but not as nom -- The Tatars are an ethnicity within Russia. Republic of Tatarstan is an autonomous republic within the Russian Federation. USSR had a series of internal nationalities; I presume Russia still does. Thus these people have Tatar nationality; they are not merely "of Tartar descent". We have articles on Chinese Tartars and the Tatars of Kazakhstan. I would accordingly suggest that the category name might be Category:Tatar people of Russia, with a headnote explaining that it is for Tartars living outside Tatarstan. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is similar to Category:Russian Armenians. The people here involved are Tatar by ethnicity, not descent. The Tatar homeland is within the borders of Russia. What next we will get rid of Category:Cherokee people and make them all just classed as of Cherokee descent. The target category might be a legitimate descriptor for some people, but there are lots of ethnic Tatars in Russia and it is the main base of Tatar ethnicity. This rename would misconstue who these Tatars are and how they conceive of themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2012 (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.
