Category:Albums produced by Rick Dutch Cousin[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry which isn't an album Fixuture (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it's not an album, RDC is not mentioned in the text, RDC has been added in the infobox as about the 6th producer, and Rick Dutch Cousin is a red-link. Oculi (talk) 13:40, 2 August 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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 06:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Koya is another name for Koy Sanjaq (and Erbil Province is another name for Arbil Province). Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 1 August 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:rename. – FayenaticLondon 20:51, 21 August 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:merge/rename without prejudice to a different name proposal for the by-century ones. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We shoudl follow the consensus. In my view, Category:Baptist congregations established in the 19th century etc. should also be merged into the 19th century category. At one time (some years back) we had all the churches categorisied as congregations, but the categories were renamed to church builings. I thought that format was ridiculous, because a congregation has no continuity: it is the people who mgather for worship on each occasion. Now we have settled on "churches", a church can be regarded as founded in 1805, even if its building was rebuilt in 1900, because it was dilapidated or too small. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be merged, just a subcategory. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be a subcategory, but have "see also" links instead. It would have been clearer to keep "church buildings" category names for the century categories, as I had argued at the CfD, but now we just have to use category explanations to distinguish them. – FayenaticLondon 06:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Following consensus ingand common sense that a church is a building. Dimadick (talk) 13:30, 29 August 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. There are only two entries in this category, both list articles, so can be accommodated in the parent category. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: IMHO it's useful and valid for such categories to contain lists as well as sub-categories, especially for lists where there is no corresponding category (because episodes would not be sufficiently notable to have their own articles). – FayenaticLondon 20:49, 21 August 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.
