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.
Oppose. "FOOian architecture" or "FOO architecture" is the standard across almost all categories for describing architecture of a particular place. Cf. Category:Ottoman architecture. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:45, 17 September 2013 (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.
Upmerge per nom. –Fredddie™ 16:44, 6 September 2013 (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:First Ladies and Gentlemen of North Dakota[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.
Rename Mainly because of the rule against predicting the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would rename the category: Spouses of Governors of North Dakota. It is simple and concise and we don't need about changing the category. Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I guess that the basis of the nominator's concern is that there has not been a "first gentleman" of North Dakota. If so, he should make that clear, and link to the relevant article(s) rather than leaving other editors to guess. Either way, I oppose the proposed change, because the more inclusive form is the convention of Category:Spouses of United States state governors. I also oppose Hmains's proposal. The idea has some merit, but only if applied to all such categories, and that can be done only by a group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the national kind, state-level "first ladies and gentlemen" are not automatically notable enough for their own independent articles. Only one person in the entire list actually has her own article (and one other one just has a redirect to her husband), and few to none of the others are likely to possess any claim of notability that would survive WP:NOTINHERITED — so at this time, this is an WP:OC#SMALL violation with only a theoretical, not a particularly real, prospect of expansion. Delete until such time as we actually have enough content to warrant it. Bearcat (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2013 (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: Changing "routes" to "articles" would globalize this category. Not every instance of where a junction list would be needed can be considered a route. –Fredddie™ 16:21, 29 August 2013 (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: This category does not perform a useful purpose - it contains only one article (that is in plenty of other categories) and the category is itself uncategorized. DexDor (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – very odd. Oculi (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject is a philosopher who founded the "Erlangen School", a philosophic movement. His co-founder has a redlink. The other member of the category was a student of Lorenszen. Erlangen School is currently a redirect to Neo-Lutheranism, presumably as a result of the place having given its name to another movement. One might argue for the category to be renamed Category:Erlangen School, but sicne we do not have an article on the school, we ought not to have a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2013 (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 - Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category does not perform a useful purpose - it contains only one article (that is in plenty of other categories) and the category is itself uncategorized. DexDor (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. DexDor (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2013 (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: I the creator of this category is nominating to delete it because, I originally created the category to help categorize the video gaming templates in... templates, which all of them got deleted. So this category is now useless. Seqqis (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2013 (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 - Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category no longer has any use. TTN (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I forgot about empty categories applying for speedy deletion. This can be closed, and I'll put up the tag later. TTN (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2013 (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.
