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 14:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Anachronistic; the country was the Dutch Republic until 1795, then Batavian Republic. Parent categories already contain the necessary sibling categories with those names. – FayenaticLondon 22:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Alternative proposal: Move articles from the former to the latter, but don't delete. All articles in the former category are indeed about the Dutch Republic, not the larger Netherlands (or Low Countries). But there is a use for the former category as the Netherlands can also mean the Low Countries, including the Austrian Netherlands, the Bishopric of Liège and the Batavian Republic. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:00, 9 September 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.
Still, it didn't have its own counts, and all counts included here are counts of Holland and Zeeland, or Flanders and Zeeland. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The principal title was Count of Holland or Count of Flanders. Do we need to convert it to a Dab-category? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 12 September 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 per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the Dutch Golden Age covered the whole 17th century, so there is no need for two categories. No objection against leaving a soft redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The scope is far too wide. There is nothing to indicate that it is confined to Dutch nationals. If it isn't already, then it should be. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:27, 9 September 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: In keeping with the naming scheme of other theme related anime and manga categories. There has been a great deal of confusion about whether the inclusion of this category should be limited to anime and manga where LGBT are a main theme of the work or any anime and manga with one more more LGBT secondary and minor characters. Give the recent outcome of two RfCs at Talk:Sailor Moon that concluded against the later. In my view, this name change will help to clarify the scope of this category. —Farix (t | c) 13:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The works themselves can't be LGBT, they only feature related characters and themes. Dimadick (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So should all the other theme related anime and manga categories also be renamed to "x-theamed anime and manga" for consistency? I still think that "-themed" can still be interpreted too broadly, but it is definitely better than "-related". —Farix (t | c) 12:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Marcocapelle; "-themed" feels and sounds more natural. —烏Γ(kaw), 10:16, 18 September 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: proper, new name of framework Avicennasis @ 09:50, 24 Elul 5775 / 09:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes please. Legoktm (talk) 15:22, 8 September 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. We don't divide categories that categorize by combinations of nationality and occupation into "deceased" and/or "living" subcategories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We don't categorize people as dead or living. Dimadick (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, more precisely—not in combination with other features. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Avicennasis @ 09:53, 24 Elul 5775 / 09:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per longstanding convention. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We do not divide categories between people who once had a postion and those who now have it, or between living and dead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 16 September 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.
Bunraku is a traditional Japanese puppet show that is generally presented either in a Kabuki theater or in a very simple Bunraku theater. That simplicity means that it is difficul to establish notability about the theater buildings themselves and articlez instead focus on the troupes. I made a sincere attempt to populate these categories but I only moved the total article count form 1 to 2 total, the current and former theaters in Osaka. I don't see much room for growth, at least using online sources in English but no objection to recreating later if more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge There is no reason to keep this 2 category structure for 2 articles. In the case of the former theatres we only at present have 10 articles in the whole former thatres in Japan structure. This number of categories is just making finding articles harder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 16 September 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.
