Category:NAIA standings templates by conference[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:speedy delete G7, author's request. BencherliteTalk 21:39, 3 July 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: Category has just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge but also to Mayors of cities in Kentucky: many precedents. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom and Peterkingiron. Every city does not automatically get one of these the moment there's just one past or present mayor with an article to file in it — it gets one when there are five or six mayors to file in it, and until then the mayors just go in the parent "People from [City or County]" and "Mayors of places in [State]" combo. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 5 July 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.
Merge per nom The category only has one article, and the definition of "international" is unclear here. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 3 July 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: Redundant with Category:Star Cinema films and I feel like it's needless. This was created simultaneously with Category:Star Cinema chase films which I also nominated for CfD. Bluesphere 04:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluesphere: Could you please explain why you feel it's needless. Also, it seems that someone prematurely emptied the nominated categories, any idea what articles were here? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Well its creator placed it on the On the Job (2013 film) article but I reverted it; I thought it was needless since, as I said above, there's already a category for Star Cinema films. Why even bother creating separate categories for different genres of films they produce? sphere 01:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've taken the liberty to integrate the nominations and tag the sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 11 July 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.
Support per nom. Note there are at least some 100 more of these categories, perhaps they should be nominated in a batch nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 10 July 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 all except the 3 flora & fauna categories --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not completely desirable. I've been working to sort out the removal of the scheme of Mexican regions. Three of these I would ask to leave alone -- the ones with flora and fauna. "Flora of Central Mexico" is valid and sourced, reflecting one of the seven Mexican regions of the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. (The cat "Flora of Southern Mexico" is empty, not valid, and a candidate for eventual removal.) "Fauna of Central Mexico" and its subcat for birds listed here presents a dilemma about how best to recat. The flora regions don't hold true for the animals. (Makes sense; animals move around.) I'd personally prefer that all the cats for Mexican fauna stay in place for now, unless somebody can volunteer some help or advice. See Category talk:Flora of Mexico for more detail. --Lockley (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
would you provide the citations for the "central mexico" etc. scheme? i only see it at the wikiproject at the moment.68.151.25.115 (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ive struck out the nonpolitical entries. hope that helps, with no prejudice against renomination for future users/editors/nominators.68.151.25.115 (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! sincere thanks. For the seven political entries that are left, 100% support for the proposed deletion. --Lockley (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete revised list per above. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 5 July 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.
