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. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:11th-century establishments in Germany to Category:11th-century establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
• Propose merging Category:12th-century establishments in Germany to Category:12th-century establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
• Propose merging Category:13th-century establishments in Germany to Category:13th-century establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
• Propose merging Category:14th-century establishments in Germany to Category:14th-century establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
• Propose merging Category:15th-century establishments in Germany to Category:15th-century establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
• Propose merging Category:16th-century establishments in Germany to Category:16th-century establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
• Propose merging Category:17th-century establishments in Germany to Category:17th-century establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
• Propose merging Category:18th-century establishments in Germany to Category:18th-century establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
• Propose merging Category:15th-century disestablishments in Germany to Category:15th-century disestablishments in the Holy Roman Empire
• Propose merging Category:16th-century disestablishments in Germany to Category:16th-century disestablishments in the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: In the 11th century through the 18th century, Germany was not Germany but the Holy Roman Empire. I don't know if it's better to structure these categories under their current state or territory or the one at that time (or both) but I think the one at the time makes some sense. I don't think it's necessary to split this into the Kingdom of Germany (or any of the other various kingdoms under the Holy Roman Empire) but I suggest listing them under the Holy Roman Empire and then have those categories under the Germany establishments categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is a very similar nomination as 997 establishments in Germany of which the discussion is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Oppose While I support this nomination and the earlier one, we should wait for 997 establishments in Germany to be closed and then speedy the rest. If this nomination reached a different consensus than the earlier one, the category tree would be an inconsistent mess. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - a country doesn't have to be a formal state to be both at the same time: a territory and a part of a larger empire. A lot of timelines are categorized using "country" as filter, not "state" and certainly not "nation state". Both timeline categorizations (HRE and Germany) are helpful for readers in a different context. Also, such an overhaul would have to include other HRE-territories for all centuries as well (Austria, Belgium, Bohemia, Burgundy, Lotharingia, Netherlands, Northern Italy, Slovenia and Switzerland). GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- In my view HRE = Germany, as I have said on the 997 discussion. However, I would support merging all annual categories for establsihments inot centuries; possibly decades fo90r more recent times. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How about renaming these to Category:11th-century establishments in present-day Germany, etc. and putting these then under Category:Establishments in the Holy Roman Empire without breaking down by dates be a compromise? Then you can review the Germany structure and see these while also being able to see what was under the HRE at that time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Breaking this down further, that would move from Admont Abbey from Category:1074 establishments in the Holy Roman Empire to Category:1074 establishments in present-day Austria so that it's nearby Category:1070s establishments in present-day Germany (from Category:1070s establishments in Germany) where Banz Abbey is, once both are under the same Category:Establishments in the Holy Roman Empire category. There's no reason why one Abbey is under the HRE structure not Austria and the other under Germany. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Germany does not equal the Holy Roman Empire. At various times that included modern Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Austria, and over half of Italy and well as parts of modern Poland and France. The present Germany plan is even worse, since it would involve imposing boundaries that had no meaning at the time. The most logical precedent here is say Category:1901 establishments in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire = Turkey argument failed there for the same reasons the Holy Roman Empire = Germany argument fails here. At no time was the Holy Roman Empire limited to the modern extent of Germany, and even in the late 18th-century it covered Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and parts of what is now Poland and Italy. To call this "Germany" is to do violence to the term as it is understood in the post-World War II era. We need a term that conveys the the readers what its intended meaning is, and that is Holy Roman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The discussion about 997 establishments in Germany closed as no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2015 (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 and listify. – Fayenatic London 08:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Universal Science Fiction films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There appears to be a consensus here not to categorize science fiction films by studio, but instead country or franchise. If kept, it would need a rename to "Universal Pictures science fiction films" in keeping with its siblings. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the Universal series of science fiction films is, like their horror series is notable enough to have seperate mention. I don't believe any other studio created such a large body of work in such a short time. Renaming is a good idea. I should have been more specific. Inkwell765 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was wondering that myself, although spanning old B-movies right up to blockbusters like ET doesn't seem to me to be a coherent "series." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point. I can remove the 1980s films, they were an afterthought, a sign of me getting carried away. That leaves the list ending with Sssssss (1973) definitely a B movie. Inkwell765 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure, if you wish. And I don't mind if there's consensus to rename and keep. Also, if you can point to any film history books or articles that state that Universal sci-fi movies of this period represented some kind of a defining group, you'd greatly bolster the case for keeping. Right now, all the main article Universal Studios has to say on the matter is: "The studio also had a success with monster and science fiction films produced by William Alland, with many directed by Jack Arnold." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The category could use a source article or list better explain the relation between these films. But there is a precedent in Universal Monster films who form a sub-genre in themselves. Dimadick (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Universal science fiction films aren't generally considered as a group the way those Universal horror films. Those at least had some crossovers and the retroactive "Universal Monsters" branding. The films in the category just seem to be science fiction films that Universal released. Trivialist (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify - per the various comments above. - jc37 20:19, 21 June 2015 (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: listify. MER-C 12:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:People associated with the campaign for Scottish devolution to article List of people associated with the campaign for Scottish devolution

Nominator's rationale: The campaign for Scottish devolution is a very diffuse grouping, spanning different periods, groupings and ideological stand points. To use a context-less category to arrange these people is not a very useful method of content navigation - a list if a much better arrangement as we can supply additional detail on how the person relates to the campaign. Furthermore, it is highly subjective as to what degree a person needs to be "associated" with the idea to warrant inclusion. SFB 13:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• At best Articlise -- Any category for "people associated with" is highly subjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not split the category into more coherent and less subjective subcategories? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support listfy Per WP:NON-DEFINING - "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Looking at several entries at random (Bashir Maan, Tom Nairn, John McAllion, James A. Whyte, etc), it is not defining to them. Yes, it might be considered defining to Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, but I don't think this is a good idea for a category. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• And for anyone for whom this association it is truly defining, would Category:Scottish nationalists not cover it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some who want further localised government but oppose secession, so not exactly the same. SFB 21:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but that's exactly how it is here: Quebec nationalism is not necessarily Quebec separatism. So everyone campaigning for Scottish devolution would be a Scottish nationalist of some sort even if they don't support outright independence. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree on WP:NONDEF and struck my previous question. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or listify - the case for a list is rather weak (can't the key players be adequately explained in the main referendum article and in their own biographical articles?), but of course having a category is weaker still. Neutrality^talk 21:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify, or just name them in the main article on the campaign if their role was significant and noteworthy (and recat them as Category:Scottish nationalists where appropriate, which per SFB won't always be the case for every person but absolutely sometimes will) — but Wikipedia actually has an explicit rule, WP:OCASSOC, against using "People associated with X" as the name of, or the basis for, a category. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2015 (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 as below. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Colored hentai manga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-verifiable category DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete contents are not manga, they are mangaka, so the name is wrong -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2015 (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; currently contains only the empty sub-cat below. – Fayenatic London 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Uncensored hentai manga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-verifiable category DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete contents are not manga, they are mangaka, so the name is wrong -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2015 (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; it has in any case already been emptied. – Fayenatic London 15:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Uncensored and colored hentai manga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-verifiable category DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete contents are not manga, they are mangaka, so the name is wrong -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2015 (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. As it happens, they also need to be merged to Category:Solicitors-General. – Fayenatic London 15:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Solicitors-General of the United Kingdom to Category:Law Officers of the Crown in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: There is no such office as "Solicitor-General of the United Kingdom", and never has been. Scotland has a separate legal system from England and Wales, and this category tries to conflate the two.
The target Category:Law Officers of the Crown in the United Kingdom already includes the Attorneys-General for the UK's constituent countries without needing a subcat. It can easily include the Solicitors without this misleading subcat BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now delete -- I have added Category:Law Officers of the Crown in the United Kingdom to the Scottish category, which already contains the one for England and Wales. This renders the present category redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2015 (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.