Category:Hispanic and Latino American female models[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: This category includes only female subjects, so the category should be renamed so that it uses "Latina" instead of "Latino". —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. Correct usage neeeded. CravinChillies 11:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I am skeptical if such a category is fully justified, but that is for consideration at another time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose on procedural grounds. I am neutral on the o/a issue, but this category is part of the 'Hispanic and Latino American women' category tree, which consistently uses "Latino" throughout. Renaming as proposed would put this one category out of alignment with the rest of the category tree. This change, if desired, should start at the top-level category and work down, not the other way around. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:41, 17 September 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:keep, with a nod toward consideration of renaming the main article, per Marcocapelle. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems contrived and ill-defined and confused as to whether it regards peoples or languages (I have just removed Scots language but there are numerous similarly ill-fitting inclusions). Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The North Sea Germanic peoples, also known as the Ingaevones, were a group of Germanic tribes sharing a common culture and, possibly, language. Among the tribes assigned by scholars to this group are the Cimbri, Teutons, Chauci, Frisii, Saxons, Jutes and Angles; in fact pretty well all the tribes that are currently included in this category. Read the article and this'll become clear. If you think some of them are "ill-fitting" you should address that in the articles concerned, not delete the entire category. I've now removed the other languages spoken by this people group so that should solve the problem. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Ingaevone factor. CravinChillies 11:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the category stood at my initial encountering of it, many of the now-removed inclusions clearly had no pertinence to the category as it has now been outlined, obscuring its now-purported intention. With the removal of the inappropriate inclusions, the category appears more plausible. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You might just as well call them "Russian steppes Germanic peoples". That's where they originated and spent most of their time. So they dallied for a time around the North Sea. Big deal. They later moved inland. Must we open categories for all their temporary resting places? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments of Bermicourt. Historic grouping. Dimadick (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "North Sea Germanic" is part of a recognised way of classifying Germanic tribes (the others being "North Germanic", "Elbe Germanic", "Weser-Rhine Germanic" and "East Germanic") used by scholars based on archaeological evidence. By contrast the "Ingaevones" were a tribe named by the Romans that may be the same group. For consistency, I'd recommend sticking with North Sea Germanic for now. Bermicourt (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While this sounds fair, it would then also be reasonable to rename the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 16 September 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:Liberal-conservative parties by country[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.
Support move: I forgot about that one. If I hadn't, it would've been included in the previous discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. Consistency. CravinChillies 17:33, 1 September 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.
Wikipedia seems to think it is the primary topic. Otherwise the name of the article would be Co-operative Party (UK). If you feel ambiguity is a problem (and it may very well be) I would recommend starting a move discussion on the article's talk page before we reopen this discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. The Co-operative Party, in alignment with Labour, fulfils an important role in British politics and must remain the primary topic at both article and category level. There are no comparable parties elsewhere so use of (UK) is superfluous. CravinChillies 17:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Unless someone will point to a similarly named party elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, otherwise some day the non-British Co-operative parties will be added to this category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:50, 9 September 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.
Rename as proposed. Name should always be in full when used in a title. CravinChillies 17:12, 1 September 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.
Relisted to CfD 2017 Sep 17. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)