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. – FayenaticLondon 18:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale' this is a one article category. There are not enough articles on earthquakes to justify exemptions to the small-cat rule for one-article categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is part of a larger scheme of Category:Earthquakes by country where a one-article category is supported. Compare the cats for Earthquakes in Laos, Earthquakes in Libya, Earthquakes in Uruguay, etc. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Malta was Malta at the time of the earthquake. Agree that it's a valid exception to the one-article category rule. ≠But also link to Category:Natural disasters in Malta.≠ Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: I'm a little confused by the "link to Natural disasters", do you perhaps mean "support alternative" instead of "keep"? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for confused thinking. My vote is just for "Keep". Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is not was Malta Malta, it is do we need 1 article cats that are unlikely to grow. I think that the overall earthquake system is not big enough to support 1 article cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right. In Category:Earthquakes by country, many countries are entirely missing, or represented with just one or two earthquakes, it does not make sense to consider this a valid larger scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 21 February 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:keep. — ξxplicit 06:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Earthquakes are events that occur in a very specific place at a very specific time, normally for a few minutes of one day, although the impact and aftershocks will last longer. As such we should classify them by what that place was when it occured. In this case, although Slovenia did exist to some extent when the one direct content of this category occured, although not when the one in the sub-category occured, it was part of Yugoslavia. It would seem that Category:Earthquakes in Yugoslavia might make sense. However the first step I think is upmerge to the continent category, because earthquakes that merit articles are not common enough to justify an exemption to the rules against small categories. We do not need earthquake categories for every country we have at least one earthquake that occured in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is part of a larger scheme of Category:Earthquakes by country where a one-article category is supported. Compare the cats for Earthquakes in Laos, Earthquakes in Libya, Earthquakes in Uruguay, etc. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and upmerge per Marcocapelle. Is there a category for earthquakes in former countries? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Endorse the arguments by Lugnuts above. AusLondonder (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. It doesn't matter that Slovenia was not a sovereign state when the earthquake occurred—it still existed as a geographical place, and we don't need to make geology subject to past political divisions. It's easiest and most intuitive to users to just use current borders to divide stuff like this. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:19, 29 February 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) 20:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary small category - it contains just one article and is not part of a wider categorization scheme (e.g. "Withdrawl from the eurozone by country"). I don't think any upmerge is needed (the one article in this category is in 6 other categories including for Greece and Eurozone). Note: One of the parent categories of this category is being discussed below. DexDor(talk) 22:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Functional delete I was going to propose upmerging to the article on the Greek government debt crisis, except I then realized the one article was already in that category, so no merger has to be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's also factually incorrect. There has been no Greek withdrawal from the eurozone. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small with no potential for expansion (a category for one article, really?) and also pure speculation, as Greece did not withdraw from the Eurozone, and has no plan to. Place Clichy (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all or most parents. For the moment, the crisis is over and Greece has stayed in Eurozone. Whether the article should survive is another question, one requiring an AFD, but I suspect that the solution would be to rename or merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Factually incorrect, makes no sense as a category. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:38, 19 February 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:upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Patently not needed, it only contains a redirect and I can't imagine there's much scope for discovering other notable hunting lodges in Wales. Upmerge redirect to the two upper categories. Sionk (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- I am not convinced that the English and Scottish categories (with three members each should survive. One UK category would be quite enough for 6 articles and a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the English and Scottish categories. AusLondonder (talk) 11:42, 22 February 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:merge/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per actual content, there is nothing about international relations in these categories, instead there is just in each category one list with all rulers of that year. So the merge is also being proposed per WP:SMALLCAT. No need to merge to year categories, because each list of rulers is already directly in a year category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Template:SLBY governs the yearly lists of rulers to be automatically categorized in an international relations category. If there is consensus about the above proposal, it would be most helpful if the closer of the nomination would also adapt the template accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- The articles should be in a general annual category and a specific century category. I am dubious of the value of having such annual articles, but while we do, we need to have a category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This category has more to do with political leaders than international relations. Dimadick (talk) 08:14, 25 February 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: Rename to avoid ambiguity. The present name matches sibling Category:Drug raids but may suggest "raids by Islamists". The category was originally tagged by 178.94.166.186(talk·contribs·WHOIS) without starting a discussion, but it seems a good idea. "Law enforcement operations against Islamists" might be a still better name. – FayenaticLondon 15:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead So a police force investigates a group of people. Is that supposed to be a defining event for the police? Is it supposed to be a defining event for the group? This is a ho-hum category that's best deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support to avoid ambiguity, no specific preference for one or the other alternative name. Although the background of the events is very different across the articles, I still think that both suggestions for a new category name adequately describe the common theme of these articles, so don't delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like "Law enforcement operations against Islamist terrorism". DexDor(talk) 22:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Police raids on Islamists. I am doubtful whether the Macedonian item belongs: it looks like Albanian nationalism, by Muslims, rather than by those with an Islamist ideology. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 18 February 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. I have added "see also" navigation links instead. – FayenaticLondon 19:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories only contain the eponymous article as a direct article in the category. Child categories with "people of" can also exist without a category for the institution. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- WP deplores abbreviations. It is not clear what IE stands for, but I would suggest that the first category should become Category:IE University, Spain, since it has campuses in Segovia and Madrid: IE is too anonymous. This should be a parent to all categories relating to the university, which will include staff (the current "people of") and an alumni category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the abbreviation issue is really in question at all here, since the articles are at IE University and IE Business School. Category names follow the article names. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the lack of content, I agree that we can delete both. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:55, 7 April 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:rename. There is no consensus for deletion, but the general sense seems to be that if the category exists, the proposed name is far better.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the articles in this category discuss the dissolution of the European Union as a whole. They discuss individual members who are considering withdrawing from the eurozone or entire EU. TDL (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename orDelete The proposed title is much better. However, the content is still speculation. Place Clichy (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to simply Delete per discussions below. Even with the suggested name, this cat is POV, CRYSTALBALL and simply unnecessary EU-hatred. some articles would go to Politics of the European Union, some to Eurozone crisis, some to United Kingdom and the European Union (where they are already). Place Clichy (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least rename; and preferably delete because withdrawing from the Eurozone (monetary union) and withdrawing from the EU (political union) are rather different topics while they are now merged into this one category. For example, the UK is a member of the EU but not of the Eurozone. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead The category is nothing but an exercise is WP:Crystal. Move all to the Politics of the EU category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether the content is speculation or not, I'm not aware of any policy which says that speculative subjects should not be categorized, ie Category:Ancient astronaut speculation. Given that we have a number of articles on the possibility of member states disengaging from EU integration efforts, it makes sense to categorize them together. TDL (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle, if there are a number of speculative (but notable) articles about the same subject they should be categorized together. Personally I'm rather in doubt if the articles in this category are about the same subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh??? I agree with the comments about speculation etc, and that this category is also misnamed. But simply deleting the category will remove the articles from EU category. The solution is merge to Category:Politics of the European Union. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to ensure WP:NPOV. We can discuss others' speculation but we should not be doing our own, hence WP:CRYSTAL (dissolution is not a significant topic of any of the articles). Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:Withdrawals from the European Union (plural). There should also be an article on the withdrawal of Greenland. The question of whether the articles suffer from POV in their titles requires an AFD or RM discussion. It cannot be addressed here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Few reliable sources consider the prospect of the European Union dissolving to be likely. Articles contained in category do not discuss dissolution in any case. AusLondonder (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per nom. This is obviously a valid and relevant topic, just misworded. --PanchoS (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep. The topic of withdrawal is much discussed on sources and we do have relevant Wikipedia articles. The topic of the dissolution of the Union itself is rarely even discussed. Dimadick (talk) 08:23, 25 February 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.
