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: This category contains just one (semi-eponymous) article (and has no parent categories) so is performing little/no purpose. DexDor(talk) 21:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and I'm looking askance at that one article too - David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 3 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:administrative close: merge has already been completed. As noted, in most cases it's best to wait for the discussion to be formally closed before implementing it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant. "Films set in Manhattan" only contains films set in Manhattan, New York and not, say, Manhattan, Nevada. Ich(talk) 20:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, neither to the article Manhattan nor to any of the related Manhattan categories ", New York" has been added. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved all of the pages in the category into Category:Films set in Manhattan and marked the category for speedy deletion.-Ich(talk) 16:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ich: Why so? You should just wait until someone closes this discussion and the closer will take care of the deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that was an option that could be automated. It didn't take that long, anyway.-Ich(talk) 15:24, 9 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: Effectively a duplicate of Category:Anatomy and many of its subcategories, but without subcategorization. —Swpbtalk 19:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
reconsideranatomy category only for articles in anatomy subject, but non-anatomy article contain anatomy term also, so seperate category for articles with anatomical termsMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either it's redundant with the existing anatomical tree or it's WP:TRIVIALCAT for categorizing non-anatomical articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because a page uses the term "trachea" in the page is not a good reason to categorize a page. For Instance: What has a thriller movie where the action star crushes someone's trachea got to do with categorization? ; Otherwise Category:Anatomy and subcategories, should cover it. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing family of anatomy categories are fine and this category is pointless—should Jaws be in this category? Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 6 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: merge, it's not clear how the two categories are different. Note that there wasn't a Holocaust in Sweden, since Sweden hasn't been occupied by the Nazis in World War II. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- There was no holocaust in Sweden, instead Sweden accepted victims as refugees. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 8 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: upmerge since "Norman" is part of "Medieval", adding Norman in the category name is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The contents isn't about Normans in Ireland, it's rather about medieval Ireland since the English started to occupy Ireland. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if this really adds value. About half of the 14 articles can be categorized straight into a century category (or are already categorized so) and for the remainder it doesn't make a lot of difference whether Category:Medieval Ireland has 193 or 200 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The preceding period in Irish history is known as "Early Christian". In other places it might be "early Medieval". The problem is with the scope of the target, which needs the splitting out of Category:Early Christian Ireland. One way of doing that might be ALT2, followed by purging out anything pre-1169 into Early Christian, leaving "Medieval" as a container category, which we can eliminate when empty. Sorry, I do not have the time to implement this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could follow what you were saying about using "Medieval" as a container category for two period categories (pre- and post-1169). But I'm not sure what you mean by "which we can eliminate when empty." Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 9 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 12#Category:Norman and Medieval Ireland
