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. Unnecesary doubling, there's been a bit of chaos. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 21:36, 31 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:Southern Football feeder league team stubs[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:Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After substantial work on improving the articles, there are now less than 60 stub articles in the stub cat. Should be upmerged to its parent category. Del♉sion23(talk) 17:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom - I notice the parent cat is also under 60 itself. --Qetuth (talk) 07:56, 1 September 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:Sub-Antarctic island geography stubs[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. No need for redirected stub categories. Dawynn (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 07:52, 1 September 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 I think you've tagged the wrong category. LugnutsAnd the horse 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Yes. This discussion may be marked as withdrawn. Dawynn (talk) 01:55, 5 September 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: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose La Jolla is not a township, it is a community in the city of San Diego. The WP:OSE argument is problematic. If somebody decides to create, say, a "La Jolla, Mexico," it is easy to rename the existing La Jolla article to fit. Categories are much harder to rename. We cannot let how articles are named be the guide to how categories should be named, since category names are pretty much frozen in place once enough entries are added to them. La Jolla, California is a possibility, but La Jolla, San Diego is the more accurate name. Churn and change (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CFDS exists, your rationaile is invalid. Seriously though, category names are hardly set in stone - as mentioned, if the article name changes, the C2D criterion is just a few clicks and 48 hours away. - The BushrangerOne ping only 09:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response But moving to match the main article is a speedy rename criterion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom per C2D, main article name, and naming conventions and standards. - The BushrangerOne ping only 09:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold I have initiated a discussion on naming for the article itself here: Talk:La Jolla#Suggest renaming to La Jolla, California The convention is to use what secondary sources commonly use; the article's last move discussion has no data on what secondary sources do use. We can get back to the category renaming after that discussion closes, or if it stays open for more than a few weeks. Churn and change (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current form is also the form the article itself should use, as I have advocated on the article talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No longer opposing or asking for a hold; agreement based on the narrow procedural reason category should match article name. The discussion on the article name seems unlikely to get anywhere; those resisting adding "San Diego" produce no data to support the contention La Jolla is special and so there is nothing to discuss. Churn and change (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The fact that the article is not correctly named, does not mean that the category needs to follow. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 7 September 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:Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Upmerge, rather. A small category that doesn't seem to need diffusion plus there doesn't appear to be a scheme of Fooian progressive rock songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:59, 6 September 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:Rename. Consistency (and correct English). Plural is "queens consort" not "queen consorts". And no need for an extra capital letter. Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the category names are not utterly regular (one guesses because some consorts are not queens) but the form is generally "Fooian queens consort". Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Most categories are fooian consorts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 4 September 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:People from Lithia Springs, Georgia[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:Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. Only two possible articles to be placed in it, and one is already categorised at the merge target, leaving it a single-article category with virtually no chance of expansion. The BushrangerOne ping only 04:55, 31 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:delete per WP:SMALLCAT, without prejudice against recreation if more contents come to exist. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT - contains only the main article on the former city and the People from... category, with only one article. Little to no chance of expansion. Contents already appropriately categorised elsewhere. The BushrangerOne ping only 04:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I was going to say that the article on the place would do very well as the main article for the "people from ...", but I see that is up for deletion too. I assume the place article will go inot a county category, if it is not already there. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although there are few articles currently, I believe the category serves its purpose. Eventualism. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what is that purpose, aside from being a category with two articles and zero hope of expansion? 'Eventualism' only works if there is anything, at all, to 'eventually' include in it. - The BushrangerOne ping only 14:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation if more contents come to exist. For now there is no reason to subdivide the Douglas County category in this way. I want to be an eventualist, but I have doubts of this category ever being large enough, but I will leave the door opened to that possibility.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 10 September 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:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be an epononymous categry that is, primarly, categorisation by shared name, which we do not do, and I'm not sure we categorise by "named after Foo so goes in Category:Foo" either. The BushrangerOne ping only 04:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is presumably already adequately covered by a dab-page. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dellete this basically amounts to a categorization by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 4 September 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:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be borderline defining for categorisation, particluary as there is {{NASCARROTY}}, which interlinks all of the top three series' Rookies of the Year along with listing the series and year, being a significantly more useful navigation aid. (Note that all drivers here are already in Category:NASCAR drivers and therefore no upmerge is necessary. The BushrangerOne ping only 00:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This essentilaly an awards category, which we do not allow. It is unnecessary to listify first as there is already a very full list article, giving not only the winner in three categories but also the runners up. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in general we discorage awards categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 4 September 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.
Seriously though, category names are hardly set in stone - as mentioned, if the article name changes, the C2D criterion is just a few clicks and 48 hours away. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- The Bushranger One ping only 18:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)