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. Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is entirely based on original research and not supported by reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 22:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the genre does seem to have quite a history, influencing violent, gory Japanese films from 1960s onwards[1]. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether such a classification is workable though. SFB 18:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The current members of this category seem to be completely arbitrary. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2014 (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 have recently moved the article base from the former Far Eastern Games title as most of the sources show the official and common name to be "Far Eastern Championship Games" from 1915 onwards. SFB 21:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless someone plans to change the article back the category should be moved for consistency.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A step too far. "Individual cattle" is plenty sufficient. The six members of this category are also in supercategory "individual cattle" which they shouldn't be in both. "Individual cattle" has 24 members including the six in this category. "Individual cattle" is plenty unique enough to categorize these entities, we don't need "Individual cattle named Dave" and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automatically? Anyway the boy cows are Individuals and (I assume) Category Bulls covers collections of bulls such as breeds. Herostratus (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question What, if anything, was in this category? It's empty now so I can't really evaluate the nomination one way or the other. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've re-populated the category, so we can see what we're dealing with. After doing this, there were 12 articles in it. Let's hope they don't get removed again while this discussion is ongoing. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with 12 members this is now worthwhile for navigation. – FayenaticLondon 10:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep of course, those bulls having their own name are special enough to have their own category. Even fictional bulls belong here. Members of this category need to be removed from the higher level parent categories. Hmains (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the usage of the English language (having completely different names for the males and females) is a good enough reasojn, assuming there's population for the category - and 12 is enough. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 22:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a reasonable diffusion given the current article count, which has grown since the original nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Where there is content, the subject's being a bull doesn't seem to improve the relatedness of the content. In there we have fighting bulls, cloned bulls, breeding bulls, record bulls, and sacred bulls – we have cow variants of those concepts in the cattle parent that are now divorced from that content. The gender of the animal simply isn't helpful to navigation and if we do diffuse it should be by theme (fighting bulls etc.) instead. SFB 02:57, 18 January 2015 (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: Upmerge also to Category:2014 in athletics (track and field). There are very few half marathons which are notable enough to merit a yearly article, making this a case of a small category with little chance of expansion, that also has only one article. SFB 17:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom's arguments. There are no other "YYYY half marathons" categories in the main category. Sionk (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2014 (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:Documentary films about the Gallipoli Campaign[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.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategorization. Only has one entry. The mother category has 4. At this point this category isn't needed. ...William 16:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents per nom. jonkerz ♠talk 22:26, 21 December 2014 (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. Presuming (from the 2008 inclusion criteria) this is not a duplicate category of Category:Barrages (dam), it needs to be renamed to distinguish itself from all the other standard types of dam. As a consequence I'd suggest Category:Tidal barrages becomes a sub-category of Category:Barrages (dam), rather than the existing reverse set-up. Sionk (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Logic of change matches up with usage and description of topics (i.e. Barrage as a type of dam, tidal barrages as a type of barrage). SFB 16:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – nom is correct on all points. Oculi (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The two confuse me, this move makes sense.--NortyNort(Holla) 20:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support barrages are also not restricted to civil engineering, artillery barrages exist in military topics, and stuff like barrage balloons for anti-barrage equipment -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2014 (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:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters[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:do not rename, though a rename discussion for the top parent Category:Transgender and transsexual people could be helpful in establishing the appropriate terminology for categories in this tree. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'Trans' basically covers the extent of the categories. For characters that are merely cross-dressers, the category name as-is doesn't cover them, either. Negative Hippie (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This breaks away from the parent Category:Transgender and transsexual people. It's good to specify the inclusion of both transgender and transexual people in the category (see Trans people for possible narrower interpretations). SFB 16:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text accomplishes that, though. Further, as I said, the description does not cover every article that is in the category. Further yet, the fact that the word transsexual is offensive to some could be potentially problematic, whereas the use of the word trans to cover characters identified as being a transvestite, transsexual, or transgender works. - Negative Hippie (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Negative Hippie: I'm not really aware of transexual being an offensive term. Looking at this source it appears that some people simply do not relate to the term, preferring transgender. This is different from offence and not problematic in the current usage given the presence of both terms. The given source also advises against out of context use of "trans" on the grounds it may not be easily understood, which I agree with. SFB 01:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or Expand I favor the fictional sub-categories matching the real-world parent which, in this case, is Category:Transgender and transsexual people. I'm neutral on the underlying rename being proposed here though. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that renaming the real-world parent would be suitable as well. - Negative Hippie (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2014 (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.
Oppose - I know this category has only one subcategory, but that isn't to say the category cannot be expanded. Gug01 (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]
Also, there is actually a page in the category now, so I think this category should not be deleted but expanded apon by some user. Gug01 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]
Looks like someone (not me) moved it back out again. The question is are there enough non-ski mountain resorts to make a viable sub-category of Category:Resorts in Romania?RevelationDirect (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support since in Europe mountain resorts coincide too much with ski areas and resorts anyway. I've compared it with the resorts categories in Austria and Germany and they only offer ski areas and resorts, spa resorts and sea resorts as three possible resort alternatives, but not mountain resorts. By the way, I would not oppose renaming ski areas and resorts into mountain resorts for all countries, though that should require a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2015 (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.
