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. ℯxplicit 01:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More accurate title OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now because the main article is currently named Non-coordinating anions. If the article is renamed after an RM request, the category may be speedily renamed per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 27 August 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:merge. ℯxplicit 01:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the games in the category aren't actually "mecha simulation" or "computer games", and it's unclear what the title actually means. I think it's needlessly confusing and all the contents could be brought together under the umbrella of "games with mecha" as it's rare for games to have mecha and not have the player able to control them in some capacity. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think I created the category during a period in which I was over-categorizing. In particular, what I did was combine a theme and a genre. As we now have a mecha theme category, and simulation genre category, it is not needed. Marasmusine (talk) 17:16, 22 August 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. ℯxplicit 01:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:OCEPON, there is too little content to populate this category decently. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 19 August 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:Non-defining category, grouping accused criminals by the location of their trial. While certainly the people here would be defined by the crime they went on trial for, they are not defined by where their trial took place. Categories are not simply a way of creating lists of every single characteristic that happens to be shared by two or more topics — they're a classification system that groups topics by their defining characteristics. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Besides being non-defining, it's largely redundant to the geography of where crimes were committed. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep For three reasons: 1: The Old Bailey was and is the most important court in England and Wales, holding exceptional trials of national importance. 2: It is not redundant to the geography of the crimes, the majority of cases it heard coming from its domain of London and Middlesex. 3: It relates to the canonical source for records of the trials, 1674 to 1913, Old Bailey Online https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/ --Technolalia (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how this is defining for the people, who after all are what is being categorized. Mangoe (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of those reasons actually address what Wikipedia requires to support a category: namely, that the people filed in the category are defined by the fact. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete it seems to be the court that is notable, rather than relationship to the 'people' tried there. Better alternatives could include having a list of 'notable people tried' on the Old Bailey article, or a 'List of ...' article, though whether it would itself be suitable for a separate article is debatable. Otherwise, you're going one degree beyond a list of people by some attribute that could be in their infobox.Cander0000 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 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 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. ℯxplicit 01:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename to align with main article Hegira. The spelling is controversial (see the article's talk page) but nevertheless categories should follow article names. If not renamed to Hegira it should get a disambiguator like Category:Hijra (Islam) in order to differentiate from Category:Hijra (South Asia). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hijra is the more commonly used term (656 results for Hijra vs 128 results for Hegira on Brill Online Books and Journals). Keep current name or else rename to Hijra (Islam). Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that "hijra" also has other meanings, are you sure that all 656 of those Brill hits for "hijra" are using it in the Muslim sense of the word? Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat:, The results that I see are overwhelmingly Islam-related. The point is, Hijra in the Islamic sense is the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, no doubt about that. Other usages like in South Asian culture, are the ones that should be qualified, not Muhammad's hijra. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the controversy is whether Hijra in the Islamic sense is the primary usage or not. Having said that, I have no objections against either spelling or primary usage designation, the only objective of this nomination is to avoid that different names are used in the article versus the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The core problem here is that the "hijra" spelling conflicts with things, such as a South Asian term for transgender people, that we don't want Muhammad's desert trek to Yathrib colliding with. So this does need to be renamed for clarity — and while I'll acknowledge that there are multiple options to choose from, the determining factor in a decision like this should be what name the head article is located at, and it is at hegira. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. It's occasionally good to have category and main article at different titles, but that's almost always when the category name is confusing in isolation (for example, when the article's at an acronym that has other common uses), and when it's merely a matter of different spelling/different transliteration/entirely different name, I can't immediately a reason not to have the two at the same title. It's in the spirit of WP:CFDS point D, "Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related page's name". Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS, whether or not "Hijra" is the most common name for this concept is irrelevant here. Your arguments are relevant to the idea of moving the article, which if it were to happen, would be immediate grounds for having the category at Category:Hijra, but until/unless that happens, arguments on Hijra/Hegira aren't really helpful for this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to blindly follow the decision in the article space no matter how flawed it might be. CFD should not be a place to try and reach a different consensus on naming/spelling. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 26 August 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.
