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. Timrollpickering 20:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only five articles and all will be pretty easily interlinked and navigable from a footer. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:44, 8 September 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:keep. ℯxplicit 05:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT, small categories unlikely to grow. Some of these states are served exclusively by one area code, e.g. Area code 701 for North Dakota. All area codes in all states (including those not in this nomination) are already in Category:Area codes in the United States. A category is included here iff there are fewer than four articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helpful category and per above's comments on SmallCat AmericanAir88(talk) 22:09, 25 September 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.
Yes, "films" is more accurate than "film series". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 22 September 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:Delete. Timrollpickering 20:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary small category containing only two articles CallyMc (talk) 15:29, 8 September 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:8th-century disestablishments in Israel[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.
Almost! The earthquake (hence the disestablishment) was in 749 while the Abbasids conquered Syria and Palestina in 750 (see Abbasid Revolution). The correct country category is Category:Umayyad Caliphate but this doesn't have a disestablishments subcat of its own. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will do that. I created the Abbasid Caliphate tree.GreyShark (dibra) 14:19, 9 September 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.
Nominator's rationale:rename since the large amount of this category consists of cities with Lübeck law rather than articles about Lübeck law itself. When this category is renamed, the first three articles may be moved to the two parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The eponymous article can remain the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the remaining Category:Lübeck law would only contain the eponymous article and the subcategory (because the two other topic articles should be moved up anyway). That is not very helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a city having Lübeck law is probably not a defining characteristic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I have been considering too. It is usually mentioned early in the wp articles as if it were very defining, but that may also have been the work of one over-enthusiastic editor. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 11 September 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.
Nominator's rationale: Empty cleanup category with an unclear and possibly misleading scope. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This category is populated by {{Undue precision}}. It is for articles with figures that are more precise than necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or for conversions (e.g. Imperial to metric) that are more precise than the data warrants. That's really what the issue is. If the data is only precise to within 10%, and we (or someone else) convert it into a figure with 1% precision, then we're misrepresenting the source. E.g., if a distance is given as 1km, and we convert that to 0.62mi, then we're claiming a precision of 50ft instead of 500m. Or, sometimes the source itself will have spurious precision, because the journalist reporting on the topic has little understanding of stats. There have been edit wars over keeping undue precision inherited from a supposedly reliable source, and that has required consensus among editors who do know what they're doing to change it. — kwami (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added documentation about the purpose of the category. kwami, please do likewise (if still necessary) with any other similar categories that you set up. – FayenaticLondon 08:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fayenatic. — kwami (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep for the good reasons stated above. Hmains (talk) 02:11, 12 September 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.
Oppose For me, the word "Olympics" should stand as a plural. I think for example "2018 Winter Olympic venues" looks wrong as it contains the familiar name "2018 Winter Olympics" but with the 's' missing, so it just looks unfinished. "2018 Winter Olympics venues" seems correct as it describes venues of the "2018 Winter Olympics". Personally I'd prefer to see all the summer categories changed to "???? Summer Olympics venues". I can see that the singular version matches the idea of an "olympic venue" in which the word 'olympic' is an adjective describing the venue, but I think it's more important to retain the familiar plural word "Olympics" in this case. An alternative suggestion would be renaming to "Olympic venues of the 2018 Winter Olympics" but this might seem too wordy. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment While the possessive "Olympics" applies to events so Category:2018 Winter Olympics events as the events are part of the Olympics; the Olympic venues do not belong to the Olympics, but are associated with a particular Olympics; hence the category Category:2016 Summer Olympic venues (with "Olympic" not "Olympics") for venues associated with that Olympics. Hugo999 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In which case why not just call it "Category:2016 Olympic venues" or "Category:Venues of the 2016 Summer Olympics" Rodney Baggins (talk) 05:43, 17 September 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.
Relisted at 2018 OCT 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
