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 and purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: … and purge from all banks with their headquarters outside New Zealand. Being registered in New Zealand doesn't seem a defining feature for international banks. Each country or economic union such as the EU has its own registry, so this would lead to international banks being categorized in dozens of WP:NONDEF categories. New Zealand banks, including domestic branches of international banks (such as Rabobank New Zealand) should be upmerged, the others purged. PanchoS (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I am not sure that headquarters is the only way to define a bank as being of x, but it needs to be a clearly defining place of operation for the bank, so review is in order after merging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2016 (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:Defunct companies of Ukraine by industry[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:merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge right now we have 3 articles in Category:Defunct banks of Ukraine and then 3 layers of categories up with only sub-cats. There may be room for expansion even within our current articles that belong in this tree but have not yet been categorized, but there is no reason to have this level of categorization until we also have Category:Defunct companies of Ukraine by city or something like that, and that would take a lot more development of the tree to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly fine-grained, given it only contains a single, otherwise sufficiently categorized subcategory Category:Defunct banks of Ukraine. PanchoS (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category is not needed as a parent of its sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2016 (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:Aluminium sculptures in the United States[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.
Support. Subcategories should also be renamed. ---Another Believer(Talk) 01:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm handling it this way (I intend to nominate the subcats at the speedy renaming) to minimize the risk of a clash with the New York naming issue. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I just want to make sure the subcategories are also corrected. I am glad this is finally being discussed (I posted a discussion about this title a while back on the category's talk page). ---Another Believer(Talk) 20:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could have proposed this at any time. I just happened to notice it while preparing the category rename list for New York - and being aware of ENGVAR, this name really bothered me. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 04:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, of course. - Brianhe (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2016 (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: I removed the start-class articles. Found no more stub articles. Very undersized stub category. Propose deleting category and upmerging template to Category:occult stubs. Dawynn (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2016 (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:Men's major golf championship stubs[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 respective wikipedia projects have kept this category very small. Most of the tagged articles are borderline start class. Propose deleting this category and migrating the templates into Category:Golf tournament stubs. Dawynn (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2016 (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.
Delete all a non-existent genre cobbling together what someone thinks fits. Everything from Capt. Nemo, to Noah's ark, to the Mutant Ninja Turtles, which without these categories no one would have understood the connection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not that many category members and most are unsupported by sources. On one of the articles I found this self-published blog used to cite a claim, and even that concedes "One thing I’ve discovered by publishing my first work of nautical science fiction is that the field is incredibly small. There just doesn’t seem to be that many SciFi writers taking their stories out to sea." Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator J Milburn, Carlossuarez46 and Betty Logan. Also note that this category was used to justify much edit warring in the lead of several articles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most pages on Wikipedia needs categories to navigate easily. Even stubs.--Taeyebar 04:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Taeyebar is the editor who used this newly-created category to edit war over the lead of several articles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. If we removed the category it would be marked uncategorized, so these are necessary. And a fact to explain that there was no edit war until user:Gothicfilm deliberately ignited one.--Taeyebar 17:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taeyebar, when you put in questionable content, get reverted, and then repeatedly put back that questionable content, you are the one who "deliberately ignited" the situation. See WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overcategorization. Science fiction in x is not a sensible category. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: How may the general theme or setting of science fiction be "trivial"? IMO, it's probably the most defining aspect within the science fiction genre together with medium, but ahead of nationality, year or franchise. --PanchoS (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evdidence that this is a well defined category of science fiction. Merge up the science fiction tree of any article that would be dropped from it by this deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While certainly science fiction set at sea exists in the waterworld 20,000 leagues under Sealab 2021, there's no properly sourced evidence that "maritime science fiction" is recognized by reliable sources as a genre, rather than just a setting. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2016 (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.
Keep A useful category for managing stubs on Welsh articles - was used in recent editathons (Awaken the Dragon and Anglesey-Gwynedd challenge). A few months ago this category had about ~20 members. The editathons brought it down to 2. It's now increasing again. Upmerging would hide the entries in a category of ~200 which is not useful for an important element in the history, architecture and culture of Wales. Robevans123 (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had intended to support the proposal, but I find Rob's rationale compelling. Deb (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for stub categories we have 60 as the minimum size and this category is far off. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT the limit of 60 is a guideline for proposed new stub categories (Guidelines). I don't see any guidelines that say that stub categories should be removed when the number of entries falls below 60. Additionally, categories (in general) for the United Kingdom usually have four sub categories (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales) which is a useful sub-categorization regardless of the number of elements in each sub-category. Robevans123 (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strictly speaking you are right, but it's entirely obvious that stub categories aren't meant to be small. Many stub categories have ~200 articles so that shouldn't be an objection. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2016 (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: Another category that has had some attention. Removing the start-class articles leaves less than 20 stubs. Propose deleting category and upmerging template to Category:Microsoft stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cat; upmerge template per nom. Her Pegship (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both cat and template. Once processed, there are no articles left in the stub. czar 22:27, 1 August 2016 (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 2016 AUG 1 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
