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:Move to Category:Buildings and structures in Montgomeryshire. I've intentionally ignored the Montgomeryshire-Powys issue, because I'm just about to create a separate CFD to consider that issue. I'll notify all participants here. 04:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Relist following a no-consensus closure, due to a split on the question of whether we required a category for the former county as a separate subcategory of the current one. But in its existing form the category is incorrectly named: Montgomeryshire is not a style of architecture, but just a geographic place that has architecture in it, so it has to follow the standard naming convention of "Buildings and structures in Someplace". So I have no strong opinion on whether the someplace should be Montgomeryshire or Powys, but it absolutely, unconditionally must be "Buildings and structures in [either Montgomeryshire or Powys]", and cannot be named "Someplace Architecture" regardless of which someplace we pick. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my view at this point is that if a consensus cannot be clearly established to merge it to Powys, then it should be renamed to "Buildings and structures in Montgomeryshire", on the grounds that although there's no consensus to get rid of it outright the existing name remains problematic. Consensus for a merger, I realize, may not exist — but even if kept, it still has to be renamed for conformity with the proper naming convention for categories of this type. So if there's no consensus to upmerge it into Powys, then the close must be on a rename. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this matter has just been discussed in considerable detail and no consensus could be reached. However in that discussion no objection was raised to the title being renamed to Category:Buildings and structures in Montgomeryshire, so it seems reasonable to stick with that.Tyssil (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there was no reachable consensus on whether the buildings and structures should be filed as in Montgomeryshire or in Powys. But the existing name remains unacceptable regardless of the Montgomery/Powys question, because the overriding issue — the one that must be fixed with no ifs, ands or buts about it — is the "architecture" vs. "buildings and structures" issue. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Object Powys is an enormous part of east Wales. We should be using the former counties of Breconshire, Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire. Category:Buildings and structures in Montgomeryshire is the standard pattern. There is no specific local style. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It ought to be "B&S in Powys", because Wikipedia doesn't categorise generally existing buildings by historic counties. The size of Powys is not relevant, because that category is subdivided by major building types and none of the categories are so large as to need subdividing by former county. But if there is no consensus for that, then yes (very very much my second preference) change it to "B&S in M". Note that there is no "B&S in Breconshire" or "B&S in Radnorshire", nor is there "B&S in Merionethshire" or "B&S in Caernarfonshire" to take historic counties now part of Gwynedd. This category is the odd one out and the oddity should not be maintained. BencherliteTalk 13:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging to Category:Buildings and structures in Powys, on the basis we categorise existing buildings by their current location. The current county name is Powys. There are alternative methods of subcategorising, for example by town. Sionk (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to Buildings and structures which was the primary reason for the nomination. But let's start with renaming to Category:Buildings and structures in Montgomeryshire. It's probably too early to merge to Powys - if needed at all -, since there is also a parent category, numerous siblings and one child category about Montgomeryshire. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category, Category:Montgomeryshire, and its contents (including "sibling" categories of this one, as it's been put) are for matters relating to the historic county of Montgomeryshire so that would be unaffected by this nomination; the child category Category:Churches in Montgomeryshire is in fact another anomalous category of "present buildings by historic county" and all of the churches in it are in fact correctly located in the appropriate sub-category of Category:Listed churches in Powys. So the existence of those other categories is no reason not to deal correctly with this one. BencherliteTalk 17:11, 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.
Category:Film adaptations directed by writers of original works[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 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.
Keep – it is Neighbourhoods which is wrong (for the UK). These were deleted in favour of districts by cfd in 2008 and seem to have been brought back surreptitiously. Or use say 'Areas' per most subcats (renamed to 'Areas' at cfd in 2012). Oculi (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Areas in Scotland (and those fro England and Wales). Districts is inappropriate as it refers to a local government entity. These are areas with no legally defined extent. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Areas in Scotland, considering many of the subcategories take that name. I would consider 'Area' to be a more general, all encompassing description than 'Neighbourhood'. Sionk (talk) 18:40, 30 June 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.
Admin note: there are 2 Wikidata pages,(Strigiformes, Owls) each with many links, but only a few other Wikipedias have both. de seems to have both intentionally, with parallel hierarchies using German and scientific names. fa, ko and pt could quite easily be merged. I suggest the de one using German names should be orphaned, merging all others. – FayenaticLondon 21:54, 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.
Nominator's rationale: Not all of the individuals are Pentecostal. I would suggest merging the contents up to LGBT Protestants or moving it to Category:LGBT Charismatics as it more accurately reflects the members. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see the problem The Lonnie Frisbee is not a Pentecostal, but rather is a Charismatic. The term is linked there twice and I can see how it's a bit confusing. The terms are related but not identical. The move isn't needed and I can see if I can get consensus to change that one article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: I'm familiar with the distinction between the two terms, and looking more closely at the Lonnie Frisbee article, he seems to mostly be associated with Vineyard and Calvary Chapel, so I've edited the article to replace the word Pentecostal and have removed the category. Accordingly, would you be open to withdrawing the CfD? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That was my plan for later in the day. Thanks for working on this. Please withdraw this request. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 28 June 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:rename/merge. – FayenaticLondon 21:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lega Pro/Serie C refer to the league, which was renamed back to Serie C in May 2017 (according to citation provided by other user). While, Serie C1/Lega Pro Prima Divisione and Serie C2/Lega Pro Seconda Divisione refer to the division of the league. As matching with Category:Lega Pro players discussion (in 2015), no need to have three cat for the two divisions and post/pre divided state. Matthew_hktc 03:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Matthew_hktc 04:59, 28 June 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:rename to "crime". – FayenaticLondon 19:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: apart from four exceptions (listed below), the articles of these categories merely contain biographies rather than articles about crimes and that's not really the way crimes categories should be populated. The biographies are already in Category:Medieval criminals and Category:Medieval murder victims so nothing is lost by deleting the nominated categories. The four exceptions that are really about a crime and that thus should be moved to Category:Medieval crimes, are:
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:Macroeconomics and monetary economics[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:delete. – FayenaticLondon 22:42, 26 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.
