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: Current title is misspelt and inappropriately capitalised. But in any case I think the new title I am proposing is better language for an encyclopedia. — Smjg (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2017 (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 (non-admin closure). Re the edit-a-thon, it's nearly end of April and not a single article has been added to this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: Can we hold off until the end of the Cannabis edit-a-thon at end-April? I also want to let WPVG know we're looking to populate the cat. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a discussion at WT:VG, linked in the nom czar 00:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial category. We don't organize games by topic unless there is a significant amount of games where the topic is a defining characteristic. I have nothing against the topical edit-a-thon, but it does not appear there are enough notable games to fill this cat at this time. I don't mind if the closure waits until the end of it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:49, 13 April 2017 (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: Articles in the category cover The Boat Race and the Women's Boat Race. The combined event of both races is now also commonly known as The Boat Races. Whizz40 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this alternative proposal, it better represents the separate races/topics with long histories and multiple articles which have recently been organised and branded under one event, The Boat Races. Whizz40 (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest this is closed as we are preserving all existing categories and simply creating new ones. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn in favour of the solution above. Whizz40 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2017 (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:Dutch Brazil existed for only two centuriesdecades and Category:Dutch Brazil has too little content for a granular subcategorization by period. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – it existed from 1630 to 1654 acc to the article. Oculi (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support also salt -- I thought we dealt with this miniscule tree sometime back. Has some one re-created them or did some twigs get missed? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right about an earlier discussion, in which it was decided to merge years to decades, apparently not realizing how small even the decade category would remain. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep decade cats, but merge history of Dutch Brazil (into Dutch Brazil). Furthermore, rename or merge all anachronistic years in Brazil categories into proper entities (Dutch Brazil for 1630-1654, State of Brazil of 1549-1815, Viceroyalty of Peru of 1542-1824, Kingdom of Brazil of 1815-1822, Empire of Brazil of 1822-1889). I cannot believe we still have cases like category:1648 in Brazil, while modern (Republic of) Brazil exists from 1889.GreyShark (dibra) 19:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(voted above) I would not oppose Greyshark's suggestion, but the amount of content is perhaps too small for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2017 (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.
