March 20
Category:Nuneaton Borough F.C. managers
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Nuneaton Borough F.C. managers to Category:Nuneaton Town F.C. managers
- Nominator's rationale: Club has been known as Nuneaton Town F.C. since 2008. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to match main article. This is a Conference club, so that a proliferation of categories should not be encouraged. The headnote needs to be amended to explain that it includes those managing the club under earlier names; and a category redirect should be retained; otherwise someone will re-create it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rename As the creator of this article, I agree it should be renamed to Town. Jonesy702 (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)----
- 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.
Rebbes of Chabad
- 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: Merged to Category:Rebbes of Chabad DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
- Nominator's rationale: Only 2-3 existed of each, and these dynasties are dead, so no growth is to be expected. All articles in these categories fit in old category Category:Chabad Rebbes. These categories were created today by Hasirpad without discussion or much forethought, if I may say so. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: (As creator) The structure of the Chabad dynasty, like that of all older dynasties, is quite complex, and I think the sub-categorization makes navigation and recognizing the branching structure easier. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Debresser: I would like to make my point clearer. I agree that Chabad in itself does not necessarily need subcategories: Alfasi lists only 26 rebbes in the extended Chabad dynasty (excluding Strashelye), with one main dynasty and several short, extinct subdynasties. Take Zlotshov, however, with 5 or 6 branches (including or excluding Stepin) and 97 rebbes by Alfasi's incomplete count, or Chernobyl—8 branches and over 120 rebbes! Surely these will require subcategories, and, if only for consistency, Chabad could use them as well. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think you rather convincingly explained your agreement with my argument for deletion. Debresser (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Debresser: I don't quite follow—per WP:SMALLCAT, analogy is a valid reason for creating small categories. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SMALLCAT is precisely why this should be deleted! The exception is only for "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which these are not. Category:Chabad Rebbes is good enough for that. Debresser (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Good point, but what about Category:Rebbes of Lubavitch? Eight rebbes is still very few for a subcategory; Kopust had four, after all—where should the line be drawn? (Kopust et al. also meet the "potential for growth" criterion more easily...). (Note that the placement of the first rebbe of Chabad in the Lubavitch subcategory seems inappropriate.) In fact, the Hebrew category corresponding to Rebbes of Chabad has no subcategories, as with most top-level dynasties. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SMALLCAT is precisely why this should be deleted! The exception is only for "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which these are not. Category:Chabad Rebbes is good enough for that. Debresser (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Debresser: I don't quite follow—per WP:SMALLCAT, analogy is a valid reason for creating small categories. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think you rather convincingly explained your agreement with my argument for deletion. Debresser (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge all back to Category:Chabad Rebbes. There do not seem enough to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge all These categories are too small to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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:New Jersey County Clerks
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:New Jersey County Clerks to Category:County clerks in New Jersey
- Nominator's rationale: consistent with others / unnecessary capitalization Greg Bard (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Note that the "x in y" form is consistent not only with other subcategories of Category:County clerks in the United States, but with most "politician in location" categories. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)----
- 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:Chabad Rebbes
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Chabad Rebbes to Category:Rebbes of Chabad
- Nominator's rationale: Consistency with all other subcategories of Category:Hasidic rebbes. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- (This is different from my previous proposed speedy rename, opposed by Armbrust. Note the different target category. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC))
- Support per consistency argument. Debresser (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)----
- 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:Silent Western film stubs
- 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, merging contents to Category:Western (genre) film stubs and Category:Pre-1910 film stubs, as appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough articles to populate this category, since most of them fall into Category:1910s Western (genre) film stubs. If deleted, the 10 articles that are affected can be upmerged to Category:Western (genre) film stubs and Category:Pre-1910 film stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)----
- 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:Manchester United supporters
- 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 to Category:Wikipedian Manchester United F.C. fans. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Vanity category created for one user. Mosmof (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- merge to Category:Wikipedian Manchester United F.C. fans --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- merge, was only created by an editor hell-bent on copyviospam for this team anyway. DMacks (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge or delete. I don't care which. Editor is blocked. Can this be done as a speedy-merge under C2C#C2C? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Created by a daft twat who's been blocked. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)----
- 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:Sports festivals by country
- 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, though modified to "...hosted by..." due to the discussion, which also had weight due to existing categorisation. Noting that while I did consider the 2 "per nom" "votes" in regards to the question of whether to rename, I treated them as as neutral to the question of "...in..." vs "...hosted by...", as they didn't specify. - jc37 21:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The term "Sports festival" has long been used for categorisation on wikipedia as a term roughly analogous with "International sports competitions". What constitutes a "Sports festival" has never been defined - there is no parent Category:Sports festival and no such article exists for Sports festival. Essentially it is an ambiguous term. I propose renaming this category to Category:International sports competitions by country (which by no coincidence does not exist) and also renaming all sports festivals categories as International sports competitions ones (e.g. Category:Sports festivals in Albania --> Category:International sports competitions in Albania. SFB 12:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Country categories
|
|---|
|
- Comment – these are not all international, eg Country Senior High Schools Carnival (Western Australia), so what is the plan for non-international sports festivals in Foo? Oculi (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I will go through these one by one and upmerge to the main "sports competitions in X" categories. This is actually the prime issue with the current wording as there is little rationale between what qualifies as a "sports festival" and what is just a "sports competition". SFB 11:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Split and appropriately categorise under current parents Category:International sports competitions and Category:Multi-sport events by country. Each Sports festivals in Foo Category should probably be split/renamed to International sport competitions in Foo and Multi-sport events in Foo. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I second this suggestion as it was what I was planning to do if this move was successful. The only things shaking out of the category with my suggested change are (a) sub-national multi-sport events, and (b) gatherings involving sports where the focus is not on competition. The multi-sport events categories will certainly be useful ones, but I creating this structure while "Sports festivals" is intact will lead to quite a bit of confusion hierarchy-wise. SFB 13:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Split per Paul_012. The method I would suggest would be to recategorise all single-sport events and then merge/rename the remaining contents to Multi-sport events. There is no clear definition of a "sports festival" but the page sports festival has long been redirected to that meaning. (I had been meaning to get round to this one day – thanks, SFB, for picking it up.) – Fayenatic London 12:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Most of the contents are not multi-sport events so it is not very logical to use the current structure. I'm more than happy to build a multi-sport event structure if this is renamed. SFB 22:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, there was a previous brief discussion at CFD 2013 Nov 15, which failed because the national sub-cats had not been tagged. – Fayenatic London 12:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- On reflection, the new hierarchy should be Category:International sports competitions by host rather than "by country", and the national categories should be Category:International sports competitions hosted by Albania etc. There are already Category:International field hockey competitions by host, Category:International figure skating competitions by host, Category:International association football competitions by host, Category:International futsal competitions by host, Category:International speed skating competitions by host and Category:International water polo competitions by host. While there is also Category:International basketball competitions by country, its contents are all called "hosted by". "Hosted by" makes it clear that these are categories by host rather than by participant. – Fayenatic London 08:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy to support this outcome, given the style's prevalence. However, I don't think the proposed naming is because it could be connfused with competitions that a certain country was participating in. What that wording actually excludes is competitions with multinational participants that are not between nations (for example, the London Marathon is an international sports competition in England, but it is not a international sports competition hosted by England). Still, we will need to specify this clearly on the sub-national pages to prevent miscategorisation (e.g. 2012 Olympics was not hosted by England). SFB 20:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Strong support. It was my proposition from November 2013. Sports festival is a redirect to multi-sport event. But this category includes many (international only) single-sport events also. Subcategories are: Category:International handball competitions hosted by Spain, Category:International association football competitions hosted by Spain and so on. That's why I support the renaming, creating Category:International sports competitions by country instead of Category:Sports festivals by country. I think, subcategories must be in hosted by format, for example Category:International sports competitions hosted by Spain etc. London Marathon must be categorized under parent Category:Sports competitions by country cattree, i.e. put into Category:Sports competitions in the United Kingdom -> Category:Athletics competitions in the United Kingdom -> Category:Athletics competitions in England, as other marathons in England. NickSt (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. per nom. Yogwi21talk 00:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support as the original suggestion. it's better to use "in" than "hosted by". Bandy boy (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Just for clarity, as the original nominator I think we should actually follow the current naming style of "hosted by". I do see the merits of using "in", but I think it makes more sense to raise that question as a separate discussion covering the related "hosted by" categories (I diverged due to lack of knowledge, rather than in principal). SFB 22:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- 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:Fictional Georgian people
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional Georgian people to Category:Fictional people from Georgia (country)
- Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The category should follow the convention used of Category:People from Georgia (country). Georgian is too ambiguous. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Copy of speed nomination
|
|---|
|
- Rename per nom, per parent Category:People from Georgia (country) and per everything in Category:Georgia (country). Oculi (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Strong rename/split standard naming for Georgia categories use "(country)" and "(U.S. state)" this should be no different, for the ethnic Georgians, in which case it should use "ethnic" Category:Fictional ethnic Georgian people -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support and purge out the people fron the US State. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment There is a category for that at Category:Fictional characters from Georgia (U.S. state). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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:National Games by country
- 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: Redirected DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
- Nominator's rationale: Replaced by Category:National multi-sport events SFB 12:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural comment The category was emptied outside of process today by the nominator. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:National multi-sport events, but advise the nominator to follow the process at WP:CFD in future. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Germany, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Hong Kong
- 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: Renamed DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways to
Category:1432mm gauge railwaysCategory:1432 mm gauge railways - Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Germany to
Category:1432mm gauge railways in GermanyCategory:1432 mm gauge railways in Germany - Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Hong Kong to
Category:1432mm gauge railways in Hong KongCategory:1432 mm gauge railways in Hong Kong
- Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways to
- Nominator's rationale: The metric system is used in all locations within the categories, Germany and Hong Kong, and the ⅜ symbol is not well supported and should not be used per MOS:FRAC. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 09:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- not sure there are many other fractions used in the parent of train lines by imperial gauge. How is gauge of a train track decided, since we have both imperial and metric. Is there a trains WikiProject that should be informed?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just informed the trains project.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support, but we could use a source for that gauge definition. Through ((RailGauge)) (see its documentation), we know some 250 rail gauges used in this wiki. Whenever possible, we use the unit (mm or ft,in) it was defined in (the other unit is mentioned in brackets). The tempalte knows 1432mm: 1,432 mm (4 ft 8+3⁄8 in). The ft,in input is not available, nor is it requested by editors to be made available in the template. So the only use is metric. What would be better is if we have a source that shows it was defined in metric. That would finish every doubt.
- For this situation, I am convinced (without source) that it was defined and used in metric. So the move would be according to the definition.
- About WP:FRAC: that does not say we cannot use fractions in titles. So no argument from there. -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Proposal change. Per WP:UNIT, there always should be a space between number and unit. So we should write Category:1432 mm gauge railways etc. I assume nominator Jc86035 can change the proposal into MOS without problem. -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Done boldly. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done Updated the templates on the category pages. Thanks for fixing the names. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 07:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I Oppose the conversion of imperial measurements to metric for categorisation purposes. It is not necessary and illogical. Most of the world's railways were built in imperial gauges. For those that were built in metric gauges (60cm, 750, 760 and 900mm, metre gauge etc), we cater for with metric categories. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Germany and Hong Kong both use metric units. It was them who converted to metric (unless you have a source that says they still use ft,in for gauges, e.g. in stock ordering). Since they use metric, we do too in the article. And since the articles use metric, the category name follows and be metric. We do not convert for the category. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know what they used at the time of construction? Were was the rolling stock first used from? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know, I asked for sources earlier. I know The HK airport island was created in the 1990's, metric. They would use ftin for the new rail then? Any reason to use a historical unit at all? Simpel: we use today's unit, their todays unit. Unless they use archaic units themselves. Outside of a dedicated historical section, we want to describe the measure of the gauge, not it's cultural history. (Amsterdam city was build pre-metric, in the era of "voet", Amsterdam voet, that is). -DePiep (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- According to Hong Kong units of measurement the conversion to metric started in 1976, while the Kwun Tong Line (the oldest line in the category) was under construction (opened 1979). Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 08:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know what they used at the time of construction? Were was the rolling stock first used from? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Germany and Hong Kong both use metric units. It was them who converted to metric (unless you have a source that says they still use ft,in for gauges, e.g. in stock ordering). Since they use metric, we do too in the article. And since the articles use metric, the category name follows and be metric. We do not convert for the category. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- leaning oppose The whole track gauge grouping is something of a mess, and it seems to me that they should be grouped according to how they are specified. The other issue, however, is whether there is a meaningful split-off here from standard gauge. The actual track gauge of the DC Metro is actually a quarter inch smaller than true standard gauge, but everyone classifies it as a standard gauge system because the equipment is (or at least was originally) gauged out to full standard gauge in order to reduce the play between the wheels and the track. I have to wonder if this is not also the case in these systems given that an eighth of an inch difference at this scale is only 0.2% of the whole gauge. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with that "mess", it is hard to get overview. I hope the new this is an improvement. In general, gauges are defined in two units (on enwiki, because we must accept both units; how easy for the German, French wikis). We'll have to live with this. About s.g. merging: if it is defined different size, we must treat it as different. However, if it was a deviation from s.g., we could group the categories (same with early gauge variants in Iberian and Russian). Still, that would leave us with the question of this category title. -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't agree that we do have to treat it as "different". I'm having some serious troubles in all of this because the Hong Kong example is cited to an extremely summary article and the Nuremberg statement isn't cited at all; in the latter case the system is old enough to where a non-metric specification is plausible. But the other issue is that we're creating the impression that an 1/8"/3 mm difference is significant when we already have information that twice that much isn't significant. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with that "mess", it is hard to get overview. I hope the new this is an improvement. In general, gauges are defined in two units (on enwiki, because we must accept both units; how easy for the German, French wikis). We'll have to live with this. About s.g. merging: if it is defined different size, we must treat it as different. However, if it was a deviation from s.g., we could group the categories (same with early gauge variants in Iberian and Russian). Still, that would leave us with the question of this category title. -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support WP:TSC we should not use untypable characters that is not supported by all font sets for no particular reason. "3/8" or ".375" works just as well. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support as per DePiep. Makes no sense to apply imperial units to metric systems. The units used when the system was first constructed should not be determinative of the modern classification. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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:Electropop songs
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Electropop songs to Category:Synthpop songs
- Nominator's rationale: Electropop redirects to synthpop, and says they are essentially the same genre. It doesn't make sense to have two categories. Adabow (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)----
- 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:East Khasi Hills
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:East Khasi Hills to Category:East Khasi Hills district
- Nominator's rationale: There is no town or district by name of 'East Khasi Hills'. It should therefore be merged into Category:East Khasi Hills district. Shyamsunder (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)----
- 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:People of the 2014 Crimean crisis
- 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Arbitrary association. In this way Vladimir Putin or Barack Obama will collect hundreds of categories. - Altenmann >t 03:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep As being defining to many of the individuals listed within the category, and as a valid sub-cat of Category:21st-century people by conflict. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete it. See also: Category:21st-century people by conflict and Category:People by war. NickSt (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep -- but it should be limited to people directly involved, excluding foreign politicians and diplomats. In using "foreign" I mean people outside Crimea, whether in Russia proper or the rest of Ukraine. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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:Schneersohn dynasty
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Schneersohn dynasty to Category:Schneersohn family
- Nominator's rationale: This category is not about a "dynasty" in any of the usual senses, but about the Schneersohn family. The Schneersohn family includes most leaders of the Chabad Hasidic group, but Category:Chabad-Lubavitch (Hasidic dynasty) and related categories exist for that purpose; this category includes notable members of the same family that neither held positions of power in the Chabad movement nor were followers of the movement. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also note that the name of the parallel category in the Hebrew Wikipedia is named "he:קטגוריה:משפחת שניאורסון" ("Schneersohn family"). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support There is List of Hasidic dynasties and there is no Schneersohn dynasty? - Altenmann >t 03:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment In any case, the categorization of schneerzons is screwed up mightily: e.g. Shmaryahu Noah Schneersohn is not in this category, but a looks like a separate Hasidic dynasty. - Altenmann >t 03:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Altenmann: I've accordingly fixed the categories at Shmaryahu Noah Schneersohn and related pages, thank you. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 13:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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.