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 with no objection to creating new child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are external link templates, but all are specifically used for citations from specific sources. – FayenaticLondon 22:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, diffuse & recategorise. I've had a good look at the contents of this category: some of these templates are used for citations while others are more for external links. To satisfy what I think the nom is trying to achieve I suggest the following:
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 20:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Boy, I'm all for categories on doc films that are squarely "about" a topic. But in this case I think this is WP:TRIVIALCAT. These films use telephones as a key narrative element but they are not "about phones" from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost per WP:SHAREDNAME. It looks like the category is based on the movie titles rather than the substance of the plot. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- obviously a trivial element of many films. If it were only about documentaries on phones, it might be worth keeping, but I doubt there are many. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers the same problems as all "films about" categories: how much about telephones must it be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a valid subcategory of Category:Works about phones. Dimadick (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Phones are not the subject of any of these films, they are merely used as plot devices. PC78 (talk) 12:39, 15 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:support for upmerging the four categories, no consensus on deleting the Roman Catholics by period category. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:SMALLCAT, every of the nominated categories has one child category (or two in case of Roman Catholic), so it's a redundant category layer. The Roman Catholic category doesn't need to be upmerged because the the both subcategories are already elsewhere in the tree of Category:Roman Catholics. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 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.
Category:Northern Irish association footballers who played for an FAI XI[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.
Nominator's rationale: The people in question might object to being called "Northern Irish" (James McClean, for example, in on record doing so); changing to "from Northern Ireland" might be a better way to wording it. A lot of people may not be aware what the "FAI" is, so it might be worth expanding this to "Football Association of Ireland". It might even be worth changing "XI" to "team". —Cliftonian(talk) 17:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's note: I have changed my proposed name as explained below. —Cliftonian(talk) 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somehow but I think there ought to be something better, perhaps Category:Association footballers from Northern Ireland who played for Ireland. "Association" is necessary to distinguish from Rugby and Gaelic football. "From NI" is necessary, because they may be eligible for other nations. However, RoI does not have multiple teams. The fact that the category encompass all the post-1922 names for the state can be dealt with in a head note. There should be a "see also" item for the Northern Ireland team, since this looks like an all-Ireland category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cliftonian: please comment on Peterkingiron's alternative suggestion, N.B. whether "played for Ireland" matches the criteria here. – FayenaticLondon 14:49, 20 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.
