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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize. While geographic categories for "general" cardiovascular disease deaths have been deleted earlier in this, this and this discussion, it is still possible to categorize a biography as a "general" cardiovascular disease death by putting the article directly in the nominated category. However that isn't in accordance with the intention of the earlier discussions, since a "general" cardiovascular disease death is too common to categorize. So by this nomination the category Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease will be restricted to subcategories of less frequently occurring varieties of cardiovascular disease deaths, while removing the separate articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support To carry out the spirit of the last nomination. 204.77.161.1 (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not convinced that we need cause of death categories at all, except for rare cases where the cause of death is itself notable, or having the disease was a notable feature of a subject's life. Even the existing subcategories of this one are mostly not all that unusual. If we are to have this category tree at all, I would certainly support nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support to containerize. Which of the sub-cats by type are justified can be considered at another time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 30 December 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:German involvement in the Syrian Civil War[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. As always, users are free to remove articles that do no belong in the category. From my perspective, there are probably only two articles that actually belong in the category right now.Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is purely WP:CRYSTALBALL, trying to hypothesize how and when Germany will intervene against ISIL, based on 4 December 2015 German government announcement that it "would support" Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve. Until we have actual moves by Germany, there is no point in making such a "prophetic" page.GreyShark (dibra) 17:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The military operation will start in 2016. Prophetic, indeed. Stefanomione (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one of the articles is about German involvement in the Syrian Civil War, that doesn't justify a category (yet). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With no prejudice against recreating the category once there are enough articles that discuss this topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, No crystal ball involved or needed; The subjects of the articles currently in the category have all been officially confirmed by the German government to be part of their planned contribution (so far generally limited to the Syrian theatre though a pre-existing Iraq based training camp is involved) to the multinational campaign against ISIS. I'll take the liberty of adding the 'German intervention against ISIL' article to the category now. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Categories follow the content of articles, not the other way around. In this case 2 of the 3 articles don't contain that information (yet). Marcocapelle (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article comprises a main article and those on three military formations. Even if these are deployed, this will be performer by performance categorization, which we do not allow. We would not allow a category for American regiments deployed in the Vietnam war: they all were, or even British battalions deployed to Afghanistan in recent years: they all were. We certainly should not allow German units to be categorised before they arrive and start fighting. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purge of articles for which the Syrian Civil War is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic and then delete if empty (on the basis that it could be created later if there are then any articles that belong in it). DexDor(talk) 07:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, As I have already mentioned, there is dubious rationale for deletion, or indeed for a general purge of related categories. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parts of a "planned contribution" (note the planned) have not been contributed. Many things are planned that do not happen. There is no reason to categorize things based on announced plans that have not yet occurred.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Related aricles in this category. AfD for main article was keep. 46.200.26.239 (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2016 (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:Government Communications Headquarters operations and programs[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 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. MER-C 12:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I appreciate the optimism that the office of Queen's Counsel is going to last at least until 2100, but it's probably best if we just make this open-ended to avoid crystal ball issues. At its worst, it makes it appear as if 2100 has past. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- To avoid people appearing in the categories for two centuries, I would suggest that people should be categorised by date of appointment. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not formally written in the definitions, but I believe that the way these categories have been applied has been by year of appointment. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Should we categorize by decade? Neutralitytalk 18:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support—With the knowledge that at some point in the next 20 years, upon the death of HM, Queen's Counsels will become King's Counsels, this whole tree will need dealing with and decisions made as to which members of this category, and the preceding one for the 20th Century, remain in this category and which will move to the KC version for the 21st Century. At that point we will need to rename this category with an end year. Until we know that year it is best to leave it open ended. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "With the knowledge that at some point in the next 20 years"? Really? What knowledge? More crystal ball gazing. By 2100, a republic is also possible. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another possibility is to rename the categories to Category:20th-century Queen's Counsel and Category:21st-century Queen's Counsel etc. Also that when there is a King Charles (III?) or King George (VII?) there is a bulk change of all the categories from Queen’s Counsel to King’s Counsel. At present with Queen's Counsel but no King's Counsel categories, some lawyers would have been appointed King's Counsel between 1901 and 1951, but are in the Queen's Counse category. Likewise in the early 19th century between 1801 and 1837. Though this would mean splitting Category:Queen's Counsel 1597-1800 into three century categories (and the 16th-century category probably being very small). Note: there are Lawyers by century categories; eg Category:20th-century lawyers or Category:20th-century jurists which should include Category:Queen's Counsel 1901-2000 etc (For the 20th century I have added the law category Category:20th century in law). Hugo999 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to keep it simple, as it is now. Anything more precise would be a bit overzealous, I think, and would lead to confusion. I don't see the King vs. Queen naming issue as being a problem at all—they are not distinct offices, just variations of the name of the same office. For instance, anyone who is a Queen's Counsel when QE2 dies will become a King's Counsel when a king is crowned; there will not have to be a re-appointment or anything of that sort. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:07, 29 December 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. MER-C 13:00, 2 January 2016 (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. MER-C 13:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary listing of obscure and non-notable albums by bands of dubious notability themselves, only claiming notability from the involvement of Damien Moyal, whose sustained notability is itself called into question. Abovethestorm (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Different Reasons We don't categorize Beatles and Wings albums under Paul McCartney. These albums are already categorized by the bands that made them, it's not defining to also define them by each person in each band. (I don't share the nominator's concern about notability.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RevelationDirect. Oculi (talk) 03:20, 20 December 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.
