< June 19 June 21 >

June 20

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:2010s anime television series

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: no consensus to rename; only the first category listed was tagged with Template:Cfr. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:2010s anime television series to Category:2010s anime television series by year
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I attempted to remove ((container)), but was reverted, so someone insists on it being a container. Therefore, I recommend the name be changed to better reflect that it is a container category. Slivicon (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[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:Commonwealth sport

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) 04:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Competitions is already the stated scope of the category and this is the typical naming convention under the parent Category:International sports competitions. SFB 18:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[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:Lists of current office-holders in the United Kingdom

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: no consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Isn't using the term "current" in a cat name problematic?. Slivicon (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as is. This category is for list of who is currently an office-holder in the UK. Once they are no longer an office holder, they will be categorized differently. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[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:Machine learning 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. MER-C 12:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I am not involved with stub creation, the objection at the wikiproject appears to be that this was not properly created through Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. The category creator is acting with the best of intentions, but there has been no consensus that this stub cat is required at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[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:Lynchburg, Ohio

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 12:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Town category has only two entries, one of which is the town itself. Lynchburg is less than 2,000 people ...William 13:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[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:Defunct oil and gas companies of Australia

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. – Fayenatic London 21:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CFD. Category was improperly redirected to the new name. Added to create a proper discussion. Beagel (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there was no impropriety in the actions of user JarrahTree renaming/redirecting the category as per standard practice of bold revert discuss I find the nomination rather close to being a PA designed to influence the opinion of others. Gnangarra 09:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:R#CATEGORY states: Do not create inter-category redirects, by adding a line #REDIRECT [[:Category:target category]] to a category page. That was the reason for reverting that redirect and opening discussion here. Please assume good faith. Beagel (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • thanks to user beagel for applying proper process. In most companies the process of change did not make them defunct, they were absorbed or renamed, and in effect the original company was continued - defunct seems an innapropriate term. Also this might not be easy to follow as I have requested a Cfr - as I had accidentally created Category:Former Oil and gas companies of Australia and requesting a change in O to lower case for the word Oil JarrahTree 09:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another argument is that the term "former" may be here confusing and also inappropriate. In this context, it may also mean a company which once has operated but discontinues its oil and gas operations and has changed its field of operations. If the argument for the name change is that company which has absorbed by another company is not defunct, and if the successor company continues oil and gas operations, it can't be neither to be categorized in the Category:Former oil and gas companies of Australia. Beagel (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. But in this case we have to change the whole category:Defunct companies tree. Otherwise, changing category name just for one country does not seem very logical. E.g. the parent categories for this category are named Category:Defunct companies of Australia and Category:Defunct oil companies – both using the term "defunct" instead of "former". Beagel (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment if thats the case then whats the problem this is an encyclopedia so terms should be used as they are defined and understood, we shouldnt be forcing the misuse of terms for the sake of avoiding some housekeeping. Gnangarra 10:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And how it is exactly different in the case of Australian oil and gas companies from companies categorized in the similar categories? If there is a problem with the term, it can't be problem with only this category. If these companies does not belong to the category using the term "defunct", they definitely can't be in the subcategory which parent categories are using the same term (in this case the parent categories are [:Category:Defunct companies of Australia]] and Category:Defunct oil companies). The easier solution is that if you think that some article does not fit to the term "defunct" they should be recategorized instead of renaming the whole category. Beagel (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Former is something that came before, where as defunct is something that has cease to exist. ie Ampol it still exists as a registered company[1] own by Caltex but no longer trades so therefore it is a former Oil company in Australia not a defunct one. Gnangarra 12:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it means that it also can't be in the subcategory of [:Category:Defunct companies of Australia]] or Category:Defunct oil companies). In addition, former oil company may also mean a company which has only changed its field of operations, not necessarily its name or ownership. And if the company still operates in the field of oil and gas, it can't be the former oil company. Beagel (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[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:Sun News Network personalities

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OC#PERF by association with a particular television channel. Virtually everybody in this category was associated with other media outlets prior to joining this one, and since this one is now defunct they're all now associated (or will be) with still others — which means this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the people. Since they're all already listed in the channel's main article anyway, no information will be lost and no new "listifying" is necessary. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[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.
More