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:no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains one member and two categories, "albums by" (1 member) and "songs by" (2 members). There is no apparent navigational need for this eponymous overcategorization. Richhoncho (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse all subcategories into this one. None of the subcategories contain enough pages per category, but together, they have enough for the parent category -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not collapse all subcategories – far better small clearly defined subcats (all part of large established schemes) based on a defining feature than an ill-defined top category collecting anything tangentially related to the Motors. I personally lean towards keeping this one as a container category. (There are now 3 subcats.) Oculi (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for new additions and potential, likely ones - As noted by Oculi, I see that a third subcategory, "members of" (3 members) has been added and another album, Approved By The Motors, has also, recently, been added. I wouldn't be surprised if their third album, Tenement Steps, also gets added at some point. Two of their singles, Forget About You, (a UK No.13) and Tenement Steps (a Netherlands No.17) would also seem likely additions in due course. Given the new and potential additions I would favour keeping the parent category.--Genspeak (talk) 22:44, 8 January 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 for now; not much participation here, but it sounds like there is support for further changes. The nomination makes sense given the state of the tree right now. The other proposals floated would suggest wider changes. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge since Byzantine Greece nearly coincides with medieval Greece, and being a saint is not related to the Byzantine government of Greece. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Byzantine saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the other parent category and this is covering the Byzantine Empire. However I wouldn't encourage a double upmerge, because the proposed merged category can still be used as a valid subcategory of the Byzantine category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm more inclined towards Peterkingiron's alternative. Modern Greece is ahistorical to the people concerned. The territory of Byzantine Greece covered far more than the current territory of Greece. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Byzantine Empire Saints or something like that. Greece is not a sub-division of the Empire, it is an altetnate name (along with Roman, Eastern Roman Empire, etc.).John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 23 January 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. MER-C 12:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As opposed to articles, having multiple redirects to the same category for only capitalization differences is not beneficial. With an article, you're going to the proper target regardless of how it's typed in. Again, as opposed to articles, no one is going to be searching for categories based on capitalization variations. Plus, When one is adding a category using the auto-tool, you only want to see the one likely choice. Before if I wanted to put a discography page into Category:Hip hop discographies, I could type in "Hip hop di", and the one logical choice would come up. But with all these redirects, I get 4 choices popping up. Sure, it won't really matter in the end because a bot will take care of it, but it sure does complicate matters. These aren't common errors when one may inadvertently place something in one of these other categories, making the redirect helpful, they are just a nuisance. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Redirect categories are not much help - with or without bots. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:16, 9 January 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:Ghost towns in Ukraine (Chernobyl disaster)[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:rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I seached for a valid name for this subcategory when I created it, but my choice was not so good. PS: I will provide to fix the commons category, also created by me. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Ghost towns are better defined by their geographic location, not what caused their evacuation. Dimadick (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename for creator's reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that there are also ghost towns in the Polesie State Radioecological Reserve, might it be important to include "Ukrainian" in the title, e.g. "Ghost towns in the Ukrainian Chernobyl Exclusion Zone," otherwise people not familiar with the Belarusian exclusion zone might not be aware of both? There could be a parent category something like "Towns permanently evacuated after the Chernobyl disaster"--Jahaza (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm... It could be a good idea to categorize the Belarusian villages too, in case of creation. Btw, regarding the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ), it is administatively an Ukrainian territory (this map (ruwiki) showing the abandoned settlements is a good example). The Polesie State Radioecological Reserve (PSRER), that is closely related to the CEZ, and contiguous to it, has a different and separated administation. So, there are no other "Chernobyl Exclusion Zones" out of the Ukrainian one, even if the PSRER could be also known as the "Belarusian CEZ". Anyway, an eventual cateogry "Towns permanently evacuated after the Chernobyl disaster" could be a good mother cat for the "Ghost towns in the CEZ" and for the "Ghost towns in the PSRER". By now, no one of the Belarusian villages in the Zapovednik reserve has an article... Huh, just a note: some Wikipedias (not enwiki) describe this file as the "Exclusion Zone map", but it is is wrong: citing the article, this is a 1996 Chernobyl radiation map from CIA - 600 kilometres wide. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but simply as settlements of Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. The exclusion zone is a restricted area and all settlements may they be villages, towns, or cities are abandoned. Jahaza's comment is wrong, Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is a Ukrainian territory and has nothing to do with Belarus. There is no need to specify. Chernobyl is located in Ukraine and the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is Ukrainian by default. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:23, 19 January 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.
