Category:Birds described in the 21st century[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:Merge. Unnecessary extra level of categorization for an underpopulated tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see year of description as defining though so I'd be open to eliminating the tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 10 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The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn by nominator. Redrose64 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep (probably as Category:Prince-Primates). The title was so rare that we do not need a denomination, but it existed, so that there should be a category. I see no indication that there were any of tother denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree that everything that existed deserves a category. The main concern is that the one member of this category remains in the Primates tree, and fortunately that is the case because he was an Archbishops of Mainz, hence a primate. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the rationale to delete is no longer applicable - withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 6 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: Categorization is redundant, the two articles in this category already refer to each other in the text of the article, while the child category does not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 3 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:rename for now, to match the convention. Carlossuarez46 makes a decent argument in favor of deletion, so this is without prejudice to a future nomination to delete the categories in Category:Banned political parties, including this one.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and its siblings are a "current" category. Political parties are banned, unbanned, etc., with remarkable frequency. The Nazi Party is in the German sister category. Banned now, but not in 1920-1945. Where are the all the now-OK parties of Germany that were banned from 1933-1945, like SPD?? Oh, they're not banned now, so we don't categorize them as banned. Thus, these categories are merely "current" and that which is transitory isn't defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:30, 5 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: Award is not significant enough to warrant categorisation on the subject articles. The topic is much better dealt with by the list already at Sheffield Legends. SFB 19:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Local award/honour. Oculi (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN award: list exists already. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 4 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:Delete. Empty except for the loop of the category itself. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Category:Cybersecurity is a recently-created cat which has no obvious delineation from the existing cat Category:Cyberwarfare, to which I believe it is redundant. Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also a potential duplication of Category:Computer security (one of the children of the target category). SFB 19:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
deleteCategory:Cybersecurity since it does nothing but point back to itself and has no content whatsoever. Does anyone actually read and think about the category being nominated or are editors just looking at names and reacting. Hmains (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not look at the history. Please forgive. Hmains (talk) 04:30, 5 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.
