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 03:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not much point having 2 categories on the same subject satusuro 12:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supporty -- They seem to be much the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 29 March 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 C13 and C14, no consensus on others. – FayenaticLondon 11:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Once the content is properly located in a buildings and structure category, there is mostly only the by year article left. So navigation is improved by upmerging to a century category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate I don't think it's appropriate to nominate the 21st century categories with the 12/13/14/15th century ones. The 20th century categories are divided by decade, so the 21st century ones should also be so divided. It is a poor idea to not match the structure of the 20th century category tree for recent categories -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for all the 13th and 14th century decades. Procedural keep for 21st century: this should be a separate discussion. There are also a load of empty annual 13th and 14th century year categories which need to be culled, or will this happen automatically because they are empty. In the long term, I think the buildings and structures tree is the right home for the individual articles, with centiries architecture categories holding annual articles (but no subcategories). Somewhere closer to the present, we are probably going to need decade categories. I note that the earliest annual category with more than a main article is for 1735, and I expect that needs emptying into the buildings and structures tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if you move the building articles to that tree what is left? I wager, with a handful of exceptions, only the decade or year articles. The reason the earlier centuries have content in the year categories is that someone has not review those. So I don't see a reason to keep the current century because it was reviewed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is not really compatible with how we manage the categories of these years-related articles. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:19, 3 May 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. MER-C 03:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Clearly the correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Per WP:C2D, Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:05, 26 March 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:delete as empty. – FayenaticLondon 11:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories (currently) contain just one article. For a maintenance category being empty isn't normally a reason for deletion - and the category text says "This page is emptied and refilled on a regular basis, and should not be considered useless.". However, that does not appear to be the case - the article in this category has been there since 2012[1]. If this form of categorization grew we could end up with a large number of "Uncategorised Foo articles" categories (approximately one for every 2 normal categories). This form of categorization places article pages (not talk pages) under a Wikiproject category. This may be a form of WP:OC#MISC. The normal practice if an article can't be moved to an appropriate lower level category (e.g. because such a category hasn't yet been created) is to leave the article in the higher level category.
Note: There are a dozen or so similar categories (perhaps they should all be under a "Uncategorized articles by topic" category!) but for most topics we do not have a category like this (e.g. only one other country has an "uncategorised geography" category). If this CFD results in delete/merge then the other similar categories should be CFDed. DexDor (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be pretty rare for an article to have a wikiproject banner, but not be in a reader-side category so editors would be unlikely to check such a category regularly (especially for a defunct wikiproject). A database report (Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo/Uncategorized pages) would be better than a category as editors could watchlist it. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presumably someone could just as easily add {{italy-stub}} or Category:Italy to any of these articles and likely it would sorted to where it belongs in good time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez and Dexdor. No reason why this can't be placed in the structure proper through a basic category or stub template, or generated on a page via a database report. Tagging articles with a useless temporary category doesn't seem like an elegant solution here, especially as adding useful categories is such a quick and simple task for anyone with a little knowledge about categorisation (as opposed to, say, prose clean up categories which may be very time-consuming or complex issues). SFB 11:52, 5 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:merge. MER-C 03:25, 5 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The category is sized well for a stub category, but the tags include all three areas. And since the Saint Helena tags can apply to the dependency at large, I propose simply renaming the category. Dawynn (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reorganise -- I am trouble by this one. We have stub templates for Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, but the former is essentially a military base and the latter barely populated. While administratively the other two may be dependencies of St Helena, this is for convenience, becsaue they are too small to have a governor. It would probably be better to put the few stubs for the two in the parent British Atlantic Terrories stubs. Both are hundred of miles from St Helena. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Can someone please close this request? Dawynn (talk) 13:54, 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.
Category:People associated with the British National Party[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:rename. MER-C 03:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is part of a series of categories for people linked closely to a specific British political party who don't qualify for membership of the appropriate politicians category (Category:British people by political party). However all the other categories in the series follow the format of "Party X people" with this being the only exception. For the sake of consistency I reckon this should be moved. Keresaspa (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- "Associated with" is too vague. Since many people regard the party as obnoxious, it is importnat that it cannot be used as an ATTACK category, where the link is ephemeral. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposed choice is more concise and helps discourage bad categorisations of people in the same strain of politics, but not exactly linked to the party. SFB 19:50, 26 March 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 03:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are about the exact same thing. Syriac is just another name for Assyrian. Charles Essie (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Assyrian appears to be the usual name today. Syriac is an obsolete term for their language. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 26 March 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.
