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. Single-entry category. The novel is already appropriately categorized so there is no need to merge. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:40, 13 November 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:keep. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unlike previous UK Parliaments, this one is a fixed term one so, barring some catastrophic event, it is pretty certain that this parliament will end in 2015. See the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 for confirmation. Green Giant (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have no idea but if renamed, the titles should definitely use the dash – not -. –anemoneprojectors– 10:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or just correct dash). It will be much better to leave things as they are until an election is called. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 14 November 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: Capitalization error, useless duplicate. History details show that the creator, immediately after creating this category in 2006 (!), transformed it into a hard redirect (!) and created correct category Muslim generals, obviously realizing their mistake. In the process, the wrong page was never deleted. There is no reason to keep the useless duplicate, even as a redirect. Place Clichy (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete as Category:Muslim generals already exists, is correctly named and well populated. Unless of course this is an article about the Muslim Generals, the basketball team that plays against (and serves as the butt of the antics of) the Mecca Globetrotters. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep. This is precisely what category redirects are for. Retaining the redirect also ensures that users will not mistakenly create it when what they intend is Category:Muslim generals. Good Ol’factory(talk) 18:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm convinced by what Black Falcon has written below. It looks clear to me that the current guidelines don't support this type of redirect. Either way I don't think it's a huge deal, but I can see that if we used category redirects for every single possible capitalization variation, there would be a massive proliferation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 19:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Good Ol’factory. This is an excellent use of a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with the two statements above. In my opinion, this is precisely not what category redirects are for. Category redirects are appropriate in many cases (alternative names, alternative spellings, historical names, hyphen-to-endash, common spelling errors, variants of English, etc.), but I strongly oppose their use for the most basic, run-of-the-mill capitalization or spelling errors. Template:Category redirect. Per WP:CATRED, we generally delete empty categories and use redirects only when "categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally" (not the case) or are "re-created over and over" (again, not the case). -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except, in a case of consensus quietly changing through editing practice , the actual usage of category redirects has marched on from WP:CATRED's quoted description of their use, especially with their usefulness in relation to HotCat. Now, in this case, I agree that the capitalisation tweak isn't needed and is slightly silly, but the overall description indicates that WP:CATRED needs to be updated. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, in theory, but I don't believe that too much thought really has been put into deciding how category redirects should be used. You're probably right that WP:CATRED is in need of updating, but I don't think it's entirely clear yet what changes should take place. -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:26, 20 November 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:delete. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Some sort of disambiguation is needed, since REC is ambiguous. Right now the category contains articles about the four films. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the only contents are the films then there strikes me as no need for a category. The articles on the films are going to link to the other films in the series. No need for a category for them. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:28, 13 November 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:Delete. Single-entry category. While it is possible to expand with articles on the other three seasons, this article was last extensively worked on over a year ago so the likelihood of expansion seems low. Article is already in other appropriate categories so no need to merge anywhere. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 15:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made no argument about whatever effort was put into creating the category. I argued the likelihood of whether the category would expand. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Television seasons, or weak keep on the grounds that this is part of an established structure (Category:Television seasons). In some cases, such as Category:Songs by artist and most by-country schemes, even a single-member category is retained in order to preserve a particular category structure. I'm not sure whether we should apply the same principle to television seasons. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:23, 2 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.
Category:Archaeological discoveries by continent[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:no consensus. This is the top-level category for a number of continent- and country-level 'Archaeological discoveries' categories. If the contention is that they, as a whole, are not useful, then they should be nominated as a group (and all tagged). As it stands now, this discussion affects only one category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Every sub-category/page (as far as I can tell) is far better categorised as a site or an artifact (mostly already - the rest I'm working on!). All the 'Archaeological discoveries in ....' categories seem redundant or confusing. PatHadley (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced of the site/artifact dichotomy. Which is Letoon trilingual, Arch of Hadrian, the Elgin Marbles; also the concept of "discovery" hardly applies to things like the Elgin Marbles, the Colosseum, Cleopatra's Needle, and such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good point: site and artifact are not sufficient. Archaeologists also use monument, landscape and other concepts. However, the point is (and I think you agree, right?) 'discovery' is a pretty unhelpful concept in an encyclopedia. The process of investigation (including discovery) should be within each article. PatHadley (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep no stated problem with the idea of grouping country sub-categories into their continents. As seen in Category:Categories by continent, such categories are quite normal. Hmains (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem isn't with the grouping by continent (or otherwise). This is the top level category for a number of 'Archaeological discoveries' categories. I contend that they are all unhelpful. PatHadley (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this and similarly continental and national sub-cats to Category:Archaeological artefacts by continent and purge of sites. Most of the content seems to be about particularly attractive objects, also treasure trove. Standing monuments (even if in situ) probably belong in this category, but sites found by excavation should belong in a parallel sites tree. I would tend to put landscapes in sites. I am not clear where we ought to put Cleopatra's Needle, as it is an Egyptian artefact, but in London. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 14 November 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.
