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.
Neutral I have no objection, but why this change from plural to singular?--Malconfort (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's grammatically awkward to have it "groups discographies". It sort of implies that more than one group is covered per discography. LazyBastardGuy 23:43, 26 December 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 is the only metro region "cinema" category that I'm aware of. Rename to match X of Y structure, though I prefer "in" to the "of" that we use for country categories, as the SF Bay area is not a national cinema. I'd considered speedying this but my track record there has been less than stellar of late. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont get it. what am i protesting? i think your idea is great, and im not saying someone else should create these other pages/categories. If i cared enough, id create them myself. i do try not to whine here. Of course, i do tend to go on and on at AFD/CFD, in which case, mea culpa:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was meant entirely as a joke to Black Falcon, sorry. And I'm fine with "of" as it does match the cinema parent cat, whereas the culture cats use "in" and "of" (or even fooian culture) rather interchangeably. Thanks! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, got it. This "in" and "of" stuff can be disorienting sometimes, along the lines of angels dancing on the head of a pin. still, we have to try to get it right, right? right!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:54, 28 December 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:no consensus. The nominator should feel free to create the suggested new categories as subcats, and open a new CFd to propose the merger or deletion of this category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Split. The new names would be a better fit within appropriate sub-cats of Category:Christian media. – FayenaticLondon 14:44, 22 December 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:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All other categories in the Category:Medical journals tree are named after their field of medical specialization, except this one. Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, "ageing" comes off as an informal term anyway. LazyBastardGuy 23:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Supportageing journal is ambiguous (are these old journals?) and gerontology is the proper term for the field. --Mark viking (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:55, 27 December 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:no consensus. No clear consensus was reached here, and in any case no categories were tagged with {{subst:cfd}}, so any agreement here would have been invalid. Editors may wish to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds about what to do with these categories before returning to CFD with a valid nomination which lists all the affected categories, tags them, and clarifies the intended effect of the proposal. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following this discussion, there appeared to be a consensus to restrict basic "Birds of a location" categories to continents rather than countries. Birds of Ukraine poses an immediate problem in that it's just been hot-catted on to a huge number of pages (The user concerned participated in the discussion and suggested posting here). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the discussion referred to in this nomination the consensus was declared to be that regional categories would be kept for endemic species (and the nominator seemed to support that). Are we being invited to overrule that discussion? Thincat (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In principle merge. The indigenous birds seems to be used for American countries and Australia. A national category for a species that occur wholly or mainly in a country would be fine. We might have categories based on regions, again where the bird occurs wholly or mainly in that region (such as the Caucasus, Scandinavia, or the Balkans or southern Europe), but there are altogether too many countries in Europe for countries to provide a satisfactory basis for a category scheme. Foobird occurs in Booland may not literally be a performance category, but it is nearly as bad. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 23 December 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 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:58, 30 December 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 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.
