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 03:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Support for consistency. SFB 19:00, 24 May 2018 (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:speedy delete/merge per WP:G7 and C2E. – FayenaticLondon 07:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I mistakenly created these three new stub templates and related stub categories, while completely forgetting about the new stub proposal process and the minimum 60 article requirement, which none of these stub categories/templates satisfies. I apologise for my mistake, and I hope that this is the best way to rectify it. The proposed category deletions and template upmerges are similar to what happened with {{India-netball-bio-stub}} (see nomination – which ironically I proposed, eight years ago). – Liveste (talk • edits) 17:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy C2E (author's request - with no prejudice against recreation if and when there are 60 stubs - repoint the templates as per nom. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 20 May 2018 (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.
Category:Arundell family (English aristocracy)[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.
Category:Howard family (English aristocracy)[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: There is no reason for disambiguation. The category Category:Howard family is almost empty and it's certain that this family (apparently from Louisiana) is not anywhere near as prominent or notable as the Howard family from Great Britain, that has produced numerous dukes, earls and even a queen (Catherine Howard). —МандичкаYO 😜 08:24, 19 May 2018 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Rising Sun, 1st class[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: The 1st-class degree of the Order of the Rising Sun is known as the Grand Cordon. Maintaining both a 1st-class and Grand Cordon category is redundant; a single category would be more complete. HowlingMadHess (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2018 (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. I note that although this is part of Category:Brahmin communities by language, all the sibling categories contain only articles on communities, not individual biographies. – FayenaticLondon 21:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom - Sitush (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2018 (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:Military units and formations of the Waffen-SS[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: An unnecessary qualifier as Wiki does not have a category for "Non-military units and formations of the Waffen-SS" K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Waffen-SS was a military outfit, so adding "Military" for their units is redundant. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Procedural oppose The presence of identically named neighbours for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe suggests that if this really is an issue, it doesn't exist solely for this one category, but potentially hundreds of categories in the tree Category:Military units and formations. Rename them all, or none at all, that is now a naming convention works. Monkey Bar Freak (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @K.e.coffman and Bishonen: The Category:Military units and formations hierarchy mostly uses the word "military"; the exceptions use a more specific term e.g. "Airborne". Therefore, if "military" was not used on a "units and formations" category in this tree, it could ordinarily be speedily added under WP:C2C. If the SS is counted as paramilitary rather than military, this might be a reason to remove the word "military". However, Bishonen's statement that the SS "was a military outfit" seems to be an argument for keeping the word "military" in common with the rest of the hierarchy. – FayenaticLondon 11:48, 31 May 2018 (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.
