Category:Partners Harvard Medical International[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.
DElete -- This looks like membership of a research syndicate. We have deleted a lot of such membership categories, including for associations of univeristies. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 13 April 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.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge to Category:Meteorites. I have also added the one image of a meteorite into Astronomy images. – FayenaticLondon 15:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has 3 parent categories that are specifically for images (a subset of files). All the pages (currently) in the category are images (not, for example, videos or sound recordings). If the category is renamed as proposed then "and other media" should be removed from the category text. DexDor(talk) 21:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge. Most of the images are buildings or people or logos which are not images of meteorites per say. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the proposed rename target is not "Images of meteorites". DexDor(talk) 08:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete the images are meteorite related, so good enough for categorization -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a subcategory of "Meteorite", so is good enough for a name, or you could add "-related" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge: Files can live directly in Category:Meteorites; we don't need a separate category for them. --NYKevin 22:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to have a file category tree instead of mixing them with articles/pages -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename There are 5 of these so I think it's a viable sub-category. I am opposed to deletion but do not feel strong against an upmerge.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:10, 13 April 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.
Category:Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards[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:delete. MER-C 12:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is now deprecated due to deletion at AfD of all subject articles. Additionally, the navigation template has been nominated for deletion and will be gone within the week. Safiel (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I hope this has not been emptied out of process. Even if it has, this is a typcial award winners' category, whcih we do not allow. If there was any substantive content, I would have voted to listify in Las Vegas Film Critics Society, but that does not exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 13 April 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: Delete and move Category:Power forwards (basketball) here. There was one member of the category which I moved over to the more-used category above. Other basketball positions don't disambiguate with (basketball) and there's no need for it here. ―Padenton|✉ 16:59, 9 April 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.
The result of the discussion was:see below. MER-C 03:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Declined speedy (G1, G2, C1), on the basis that the page was created by an adminbot. I've already notified the operator, but said operator has been inactive recently and most likely has not had a chance to read my note. Now, can we please zap this thing already? NYKevin 13:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now, I'm not *that* inactive! --Cyde Weys 00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and restore) I think it is a good idea to have a few test categories for editors to get the hang of things, just as we have sandboxes for templates and regular pages, categories should also have a sandbox area, so Category:test, Category:test1, Category:test2 should be restored as sandbox areas. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:23, 10 April 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: That there was once a Roman legions' camp in, for example, Bonn, Cologne or Mainz is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the town/city. DexDor(talk) 05:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if there hadn't have been a Roman legions' camp in these places, they'd be open fields or hamlets, as they were when the Romans arrived. Certainly as notable and defining for the articles and places over their entire history than being on the Rhine or in whatever current district that current government assigns them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Roman camp may have been a factor in forests/fields becoming a city, but many other things (being at an important railway junction, being chosen as an adminstrative centre etc) are also likely to have been significant. Being on a river is much more important (and more permanent) - just look at article leads, guidebooks or how towns/cities are usually disambiguated ("<place>-on-<river>"). Similarly, being in a particular district is more WP:DEFINING (and provides a structure to categorize all populated places) than events of ancient history. DexDor(talk) 06:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Empty the category, then C1 it: These towns are not Roman legions' camps. They are modern-day towns. The articles in this category should be about the former rather than the latter. If any articles about such camps exist or can be written, we can skip the C1. --NYKevin 22:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to the history sections of the articles on Bonn and Mainz, it is clear that they were legionary fortresses. Cologne was promoted to a colony, i.e. settlement of veterans and should be purged out (unless evidence about the legion is added). That they originated as legionary fortresses is highly significant, just as it is for Chester, York and Caerleon. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute that there may have been forts at those locations, but the category has to be for articles about those forts NOT about the subsequent settlements. At the moment there appear to be no articles about the forts/camps so the category is not needed. It can easily be recreated when the articles appear. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:03, 14 April 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.
The result of the discussion was:keep. – FayenaticLondon 16:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough but that still does not explain how being Chechen affects one being an Islamist. There are no Category:Chechen Muslims because the vast majority of Chechens are already Muslims and their ethnicity for the most part does not make them practice their religion any differently. If you or anyone else can provide a source of how being Chechen affects one's Islamist views I'll gladly change my position.Inter&anthro (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never said being an Islamists was the same as being a Muslim, my point was that they are both philosophical viewpoints that are not necessarily effected by ethnicity. Still seams to be a case of WP:OCEGRS to me. Chechnya is not a country so having there own Categories seams a bit iffy. Can't really see any other ethnicity which has its own Categories regarding religious and philosophical viewpoints. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chechen is an ethnicity, not a nationality (they almost got there, like the Confederate States of America, Biafra, etc.), we group these by nationality, not ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The people may be of Russian nationality as regards the rest of the world, but Russia is itself a union, in which people have an internal (ethnic) nationality, such as Tartar, Chechen, Circassian. Volga German, etc. The vast majority of ethnic Chechens are Muslim, just as the Ossetians are largely Christian. However not all are Islamists. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom and Peterkingiron. Also WP:OCLOCATION doesn't really apply here: since Chechens are mostly Muslims (in contrast to most other Russian peoples) they should be allowed to have a more specific subcategorization within Muslims. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many Chechens have the goal of creating a nation indepdent from Russia. This makes them a distict and different group from other Islamists. Looked at from another perspective, their ethnicity is central to how they carry out this activity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 18 June 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.
