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: Consensus has been reached that the name of the exchange, Nasdaq, does not have to be in ALL CAPS on Wikipedia articles. The category should be renamed to reflect this consistency. Eyesnore 19:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nasdaq per WP:C2D but unsure about adding "the". Three subcategories should be renamed as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, the article is at Nasdaq so so should this be.PrisonerB (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2021 (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:United States Navy lieutenant commanders[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: Recommend using the higher level category for United States Navy officers, which is adequate. Breaking down by individual rank at the field or company grade level does not seem useful. Also, many articles that say a person is a navy officer do not specify rank unless at the Captain/Admiral level. Recommend upmerging to Category:United States Navy officers. FieldMarine (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "does not seem useful": it is useful because it gives the rank (that Category:United States Navy officers does not give). "many articles that say a person is a navy officer do not specify rank unless at the Captain/Admiral level": how is this related to the deletion proposal? Apokrif (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that my comment "does not seem useful" is highly opinionated, so your criticism of that is well founded. If available, ranks can and should be included as part of the article, so the information is there. There are five ranks at the company and field grade level, plus five more for warrant officers. There are also at least 9 enlisted ranks. If we have a cat for lieutenant commander, we should also have cats for all officer and enlisted ranks as well. Personally, I do not recommend that at this time as I believe it would be over cat. As for my comment, "Many articles that say a person is a navy officer do not specify rank unless at the Captain/Admiral level." The issue is unless the person holds a senior rank, many of the articles, and the sources used to create the articles, just say officer or sailor, so having a cat structure with specific ranks will be a challenge to populate beyond the parent cat. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"having a cat structure with specific ranks will be a challenge to populate beyond the parent cat": I don't get your point: if we don't know the rank, we can, as usual, categorize under a more general category.
Delete, categories are meant to group articles with similar content and it is unlikely that articles are generally different in content just because of a difference in rank. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose those categories serve a maintenance purpose, because I can't see how anyone could be interested in those categories from a content perspective. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The appropriate course would be to merge with the officers parent, but this is so heavily populated as to make it useless for navigation. If we did keep this, we would have to require that people were categorised by the highest rank reached, so that Admirals do not also get categorised by the lower ranks that they held before promotion. Some containerisation of the parent would be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, many officers in the parent cat, and the sources for the articles about the people, do not list specific rank unless at the higher level. This is more pronounced for the enlisted ranks in the parent Category:United States Navy sailors. Accordingly, IMHO, breaking down by rank would be of limited use for navigation because many would still remain in the parent. If diffusion of an overpopulated parent is the concern, it may be better to use the already existing series of subcats, "officers by century", such as "Category:18th-century American naval officers". This would be far easier to populate based on information available in the articles. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk)
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, officers are sufficient and rank is fluid (even after death with posthumous promotions).PrisonerB (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2021 (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.
Note: if this proposal does not achieve consensus, then the previous renames of the two "Songs" categories should be reversed. – FayenaticLondon 10:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By your wording above, I'm getting the impression that I got something wrong with my initial move request. Can you please elaborate so I know for next time?
I would also like to note also that the recent categories were moved per C2D (following the singer in question being established as the primary topic for this name), so these could be tagged with the same. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per nomination, in addition to previous consensus and recent moves. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2021 (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.
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 for a tag deleted in 2012, should never have any uses. Dylsss(talkcontribs) 01:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is actually a pretty triumphant category deletion: back in 2007 I created a category for a maintenance task (fixing the tagging of all the fair-use images), and the maintenance task in question is now complete! This category was definitely useful once, but as the nomination says, it doesn't have much of a reason to exist any more; we finished retagging all the images, so there's no maintenance task to track any more. --ais523 02:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete per G8, category populated by a deleted template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G8. --Just N. (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2021 (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: There is an article for only one member/former member of this band. Per Category:Musicians by band, "categories should not be created when only one member has an article." StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2021 (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.
Each year's winner of the Eurovision song contests gets to host the next year's contest, so there's generally not time to build a new facility, although they're often spruced up. Instead, countries generally use existing stadiums like Moscow Olympic Stadium (built 1980, hosted 2009), Jerusalem International Convention Center (built 1956, hosted 1979 & 1999) and Royal Albert Hall (built 1871, hosted 1968). Baku Crystal Hall was the only one that I found that was purpose built, but I only went through half the articles. The venues are already listified in a sortable column in List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A list is enough for this sort of thing. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2021 (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.
Royal Order of Francis I was a national award for the the Kingdom of the Sicilies but, after that country's merger, later became a private award.
We already have a very well developed non-subjective Category:Awards by country tree with thousands of award articles while this has just 15, all of which are now in the standard country categories. Category:National prizes was created in 2005 by an editor banned for disruptive behavior and, in the past 16 years, there has not been editor interest in using this approach. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The appropriate tree is Category:Awards by subject and country. The contents of both categories would need to be checked that they have an appropriate category in that tree, but RevelationDirect tells us he has done that. There is no purpose in having a misformed parallel tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nominator makes a compelling point.PrisonerB (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2021 (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: An article for Adam von Buhler was deleted, leaving an article for only one of this band's members. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with only one article this would be a funny category.PrisonerB (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2021 (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: Article for only one group member. Per parent Category:Musicians by band, "categories should not be created when only one member has an article." StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wasn't aware of the guidelines of the aforementioned category and its intricacies. Tag it with G7 as I agree with the decision. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2021 (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.
