Category:Auto racing organisations in the United Kingdom[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. – FayenaticLondon 12:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Auto racing is primarily an American term - the British equivalent would be motor racing. The use of either term however excludes motorcycle clubs, despite motorcycle racing being included in the parent Category:Motorsport in the United Kingdom, and the fact that many organisations are involved in two and four wheeled sport. It would follow that this category should be renamed Motorsport organisations in the United Kingdom to include them for consistency. QueenCake (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- That is the more usual term here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 11 November 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. – FayenaticLondon 14:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, only 2 unused members remaining in cat after the other 8 were deleted at TfD. AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update The remaining two templates in this category have now been deleted, so the cat qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#C1, or would do if I hadn't started this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:02, 12 November 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: It is unclear why this category exists, when all it contains is Anadyr (town). I can't find anything else that could plausibly go int he category right now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:55, 10 November 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, feel free to renominate after the RM discussion is closed. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there are dozens of Baldwins who had families, so the proposed name is highly ambiguous. Eg there are at least 5 generations of Baldwins (with articles) related to Edward Baldwin, 4th Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, including a British Prime Minister. Oculi (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Favor Renaming Article I normally advocate blindly following the article name because I don't think category names are ever more ambiguous than article ones. But this article name is really vaguely named for the article space. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If anything it is the article that needs renaming. Categories need more careful naming than articles, because editors do not always check that they are adding an appropriate category. I so not think that Stanley Baldwin was related to the actors. Personally if asked what "Baldwin family" was about, I might well have looked for a category on this important dynasty of ironmasters, ending with the Prime Minister. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 11 November 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.
