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. MER-C 15:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE, "There is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there." Toohool (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as with category:(entertainer's concert tours) venues AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete venues should not be categorized by hosting a specific event. This is the nightmare of cat clutter to the extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCVENUE generates as much category clutter as WP:OC#PERF, which is equally forbidden. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 22 September 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:merge. MER-C 15:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, consistent with many earlier deletions of so-called terminology categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my recollection about why I created this category 11 years ago(!) is that I was setting up a category structure for the Arctic. I am glad to see that Portal:Arctic is still here! :-) I think what I was trying to do was separate out the articles about places from the articles about physical geography concepts (the sort of stuff you would be taught at school as part of the subject 'geography'). Am happy to see this adjusted. Is there a way to follow what changes are made so I can see if I agree with them? Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It looks like what you intended to create was more of a concepts category than a terminology category. Whilst we do have some concepts categories it's usually unnecessary as articles about specific places are moved down into subcats such as Category:Islands of the Arctic Ocean. Apart from the changes I've already made (see my comment below), the changes would (assuming the CFD closes as merge) be a bot recategorizing the articles followed by a human tidying up any resulting redundant categorization. You could watchlist all the articles in the category to keep an eye on the changes. DexDor(talk) 18:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given that many of these terms also apply to Antarctica, perhaps the term "Arctic" needs to be changed to "Polar". Grutness...wha? 01:11, 20 September 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:delete. MER-C 15:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. There does not appear to be enough content specific to the region of "Aegean" (i.e. Greek) Macedonia and related to more correctly called Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. The only dance listed in the category appears not to be specific to the region (the town of Bitola is actually located in North Macedonia, not in Greece). This article is already in parent Category:Macedonian dances, so upmerge is not even necessary. Place Clichy (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The category has no actual content, just a miscategorized article. Dimadick (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The one article is sufficiently categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 22 September 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:merge. MER-C 15:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope and content of these categories is almost identical. Place Clichy (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom but move the subcategory and the Bulgarian article to somewhere else, namely to Category:Ethnic Macedonian people: Greek and Bulgarian Macedonians aren't diaspora. Effectively this would be a split instead of a merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. These are not minorities. Dimadick (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally supportive but the Greek and Bulgarian cases are NOT a diaspora, but the result of North Macedonia not encompassing the whole native ethnicity. Category:Ethnic Macedonian people would cover these. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 22 September 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: Category with just 2 entries. Also merge to Mayors of places in California....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per nom. We have allowed category proliferation far too much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 22 September 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:China-related lists of superlatives[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.
The result of the discussion was:merge. MER-C 15:32, 26 September 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. MER-C 15:32, 26 September 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:delete. MER-C 15:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The description of this category is vague -- the only link, moe, leads to a disambiguation page with only one mildly relevant entry that might fit the pages that are included in this category, but the inclusion of some pages seems arbitrary or objective. HalJor (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this reeks of WP:COATRACK and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. It's an excuse for putting whatever characteristics in anime and manga that have some kind of appeal under moe or just in general, and has redundancy with the newly created moe stock characters category. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The biggest problem with this category is not that it is confusing to understand. As I understand it this is basically tagging articles that are seen to connect to Moe (I am not sure what this is, it seems to relate to anime somehow). The problem is that an article on the French maid outfit or class president says nothing to link to this category. The Moe attributes nature of these things are not defining to their encyclopedic notability, and so categorization this way fails.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the description has been clarified (after my nomination), this is the "arbitrary" point I was intending to make. Thank you for expanding that, and the fact that none of the linked articles make the connection is exactly correct. HalJor (talk) 16:09, 22 September 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.
