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 the battle against the tyranny of demonyms. Down with this sort of thing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2019 (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: Small category (2 articles) of a defunct, one-season minor league basketball team. Highly unlikely that the category will grow in near future. TM 17:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with the rationale of the nominator. I would also add that the last article in the category doesn't seem to be about the basketball team, so perhaps it doesn't belong in the category at all. A really paranoid android (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SMALLCAT for a defunct sports team that only played a single season and has never been revived since, and thus has virtually no prospect of future expansion. The erroneous inclusion of SLĀV (which I've already removed) also clearly indicates that the category is prone to misuse due to ambiguity — despite being intended for a basketball team, it's plainly vulnerable to the misfiling of articles about jazz music with Montreal connections, such as the Montreal International Jazz Festival and Oscar Peterson and Daisy Sweeney and Oliver Jones. So even if this were to be kept, it would be necessary to rename it for clarity. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2019 (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:Archaeological sites of medieval Anatolia[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.
That is an excellent point, I overlooked that Upper Mesopotamia is also partly Turkish. So there are two options: merge but keep Category:Byzantine sites in Turkey as the category name; or merge and then split into Anatolia and Upper Mesopotamia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Medieval Anatolia is not only Byzantine (Seljuks, Turkish beyliks, Armenian Cilicia & Crusaders), and Anatolia is not Turkey (there's Eastern Thrace in addition to parts of Upper Mesopotamia and northern Syria, as well as large swathes of the Armenian highlands). Constantine ✍ 10:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nom per Constantine. The Byzantine monuments in Istanbul are in Turkey but not in Anatolia. Place Clichy (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nomination has become pretty moot with the subsequent creation of the intersection category Category:Byzantine sites in Anatolia, which is a very good solution. @Marcocapelle: do you think withdrawal is in order? Place Clichy (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, this is now withdrawn. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2019 (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. Unopposed after 11 days. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2019 (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 Haakon VII 70th Anniversary Medal[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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background We deleted similar anniversary categories for other countries here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A military award that was presented to every single person who happened to be serving in the military on one particular day is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic for the purposes of justifying a category. It's not even really a notability-maker in the first place, in that if a person did not have additional notability claims besides this, they would not get a Wikipedia article on this basis in and of itself. No objection to listifying if desired — although such a list might be vulnerable to the inclusion of names of non-notable recipients as well, so we'd have to think carefully about whether a list was really justified or not — but it's not a useful basis for categorizing them. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2019 (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.
Both the gang article and Category:Gangs refer to criminal organizations and none of the articles here are about organized crime groups. 2 of the 6 articles do use the term but there is no main article on a Bicycle gang to provide context and it's unclear what objective criteria would exist. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I completely agree with the nominator's description of the content and rationale for the proposed change. The content is valuable but currently mis-categorized. A really paranoid android (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2019 (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.
