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.
Upmerge to Category:Internal migration. The category contains internal migration by country (mostly) or continent (incidentally) - but not by region. Since it is too small to split between a country and a continent subcat it seems better to just merge it to the parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 26 September 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this looks like an entirely uncontroversional WP:C2C nomination and should better have been posted at CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In principle support but I would question whether this should be split down to district level. I would have thought that "South Yorkshire" was the lowest level that we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from West Midlands, there are only city categories for bus transport in England. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 23 September 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:Burials in the Royal Pantheon at the Basilica of San Isidoro[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:no consensus. This is not a straight "do not rename", because I think the nominator has an extremely strong argument here: this was a nomination to simply make these category names consistent with all of the other burial categories. There is little reason to have some that use "in" and some that use "at" (unless a distinction is going to be drawn between crypts vs. cemeteries, as discussed – but that distinction is not what exists currently). (Personally, I think it would be easier to just have one standard naming format and apply it to all of these burial categories, but sometimes divergent user opinion makes things more complicated. But I don't think it would be considered "bad" English to say that someone was buried "at a crypt" or "at a cemetery", nor would it be considered "bad" to say that they were buried "in a crypt" or "in a cemetery". YMMV. We should just choose one and go with it rather than having two different standards for no apparent reason, as is the result of this discussion.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories. at cemeteries. in countries Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments regarding the nomination. --Tavix(talk) 05:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidation Suggestion@Rathfelder: Just for ease of other editors, I think this might be an easier conversation if you consolidated this to one nomination or a couple logical groupings. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support RevelationDirect's suggestion. Without consolidation these nominations will probably end up as a procedural keep or no consensus, like this earlier batch of nominations. It makes sense to divide the burials in two groups, one with cemeteries (which look like entirely uncontroversial WP:C2C nominations and could have been posted at CFDS) and one for the remaining burials categories, for which there may be some more discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support above comments about consolidating into groupings - then we can see what is going on, as it is it is not something to make a comment at every nomination JarrahTree 08:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I cannot work out how to nominate a group of categories. But you are quite right that CFDS would have been more appropriate, had I remembered it. I don't think any of these are controversial. There are hundreds of burial in cemeteteries categories, all using "at". I don't think there is anything different about any of these.Rathfelder (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you in the previous discussion, there is no way if you mean an automated way. If you're starting a nomination it just requires typing. If you want to correct it afterwards, which you can still do, it requires that you edit this discussion page and put the nominations together, and you need to adapt the CfD templates on the category pages such that they point to the right section on this discussion page. I agree that it would be nice if batch nominations could become a bit more automated, but that it is not the case yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominations have been bundled. Not sure why everyone needs to complain about it, it only takes about three minutes of work... --Tavix(talk) 05:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't see why we can't oppose or support once here, to include all the similar ones below. I support 'at' for all the cemeteries (per everyting in say Category:Burials in England by cemetery) but 'in' for crypts. One is surely buried in a crypt rather than at one. Oculi (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that people are buried "in" cemeteries. But Wikipedia usage is, for reasons not known to me, "at".Rathfelder (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm neutral here because it concerns linguistics, I'd be fine with "in a cemetery" or "at a cemetery" either way. But I can just imagine that if the noun is not cemetery, that some people more strongly find "in" an appropriate preposition, for example "in the crypt", that's why I suggested to split the discussion in two groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be perfectly happy with a differentiation, but I'm not sure it would work. Some articles using the term cemetery may actually relate to something I would call a crypt. And I'm not sure that the distinction is of much utility. Rathfelder (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Burial takes place in the ground (not at it). One might say that the burial service took place at a church, but "in" is again better. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is for now english is such lovely language because the burial(event) can take place at a cemetery, but one is buried in a cemetery during that event(it probably should be clarified as whether the articles are about the event or about people who were burried in there).. It's an internment in a crypt not a burial so I suggest that the cyrpt categories be renamed to Internments in Foo cryptGnangarra 11:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is regardless of country, cemetery or crypt JarrahTree 01:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have broader concerns that, unless the burial locations is an honor or a battlefield, these aren't defining. I have no opinion on the which pronoun to use though. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
now its relatively easy to bury a person anywhere, but that hasnt always been the case and the fact a person is buried somewhere is a defining characteristic as the place chosen to bury that person is an indication of the persons importance, as to what the persons family/friends felt was where the person had their greatest connection. Gnangarra 05:42, 3 October 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:Bulgarian companies established in 2007[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: in line with other categories Rathfelder (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NARROWCAT, even a much bigger country like Germany has a very underdeveloped company establishment tree. If kept, agree with rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 26 September 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: In line with other categories Rathfelder (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question should we really categorize buildings by "downtown"? Currently we don't even have a category like that for New York or Chicago. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 26 September 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. I was able to add to the single article in the category and place another 12 articles in it and one subcategory, so I assume this takes care of the concern about the category being small. I don't think WP:SMALLCAT ever applied, since unless there was only one building or structure in Barnstaple there is no reason that the category would have ever had "no potential for growth".Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:37, 5 October 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with other similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Or speedy rename per WP:C2C. - Evad37[talk] 08:03, 19 September 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: There seems to be only 1 hospital in Sibu Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 18 September 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: Empty category. There appears to be only one hospital in Miri. Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 18 September 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:Films about marriage, unions and partnerships in the Philippines[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Too small category to be useful. Dimadick (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:33, 18 September 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:delete, traditional is not a useful categorization criterion, if an article belongs in a Vietnamese category then it's pretty likely that it is indeed traditionally Vietnamese. (No need to merge the category, because every article is in another Vietnamese category already.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I also checked. All the Vietnamese items had another Vietnamese category. The other two were not specifically Vietnamese and do not need one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 18 September 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 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 find no requirement for category containing one article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- The one article (spelt differently) is adequately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 18 September 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 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 OCT 5 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
