< September 4 September 6 >

September 5

Category:Temple Towns

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. Whether the articles should be included in Category:Hindu holy cities will be a question for each article. (Category:Hindu holy cities and Category:Holy cities were also called into question, but neither were nominated as part of this discussion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Will avoid duplication. Shyamsunder (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are actually very few articles in this category mentioning "temple town", so I'm not really convinced about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 16 September 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.

Stars with Proper Names

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) 03:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only 2-3 articles in each category. Minuscule categories merely hinder easy navigation to related articles. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 5 September 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.

Category:1977 in Moldova

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. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per other members of category:Years of the 20th century in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. I didn't put this as a speedy as I couldn't find any previous CFD discussions on Moldova/Moldova SSR. Tim! (talk) 10:28, 5 September 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.

Category:1807 disestablishments in the Holy Roman Empire

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 proposed. If users feel to move the articles to the "in Germany" subcategories that might exist, they could do so, and then we could see what happens next in this long-running saga. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806 Tim! (talk) 09:08, 5 September 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.

Tsunamis

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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 (or 2) articles in each category. Minuscule categories merely hinder easy navigation to related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 5 September 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.

Category:1722 establishments in Belgium

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 all. – Fayenatic London
  • Propose renaming Category:1722 in Belgium to Category:1722 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1723 in Belgium to Category:1723 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1786 in Belgium to Category:1786 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1789 in Belgium to Category:1789 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1790 in Belgium to Category:1790 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1792 in Belgium to Category:1792 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1793 in Belgium to Category:1793 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1794 in Belgium to Category:1794 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1795 in Belgium to Category:1795 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1796 in Belgium to Category:1796 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1797 in Belgium to Category:1797 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1722 establishments in Belgium to Category:1722 establishments in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1723 establishments in Belgium to Category:1723 establishments in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1722 disestablishments in Belgium to Category:1722 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1734 disestablishments in Belgium to Category:1734 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1762 disestablishments in Belgium to Category:1762 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1786 disestablishments in Belgium to Category:1786 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1794 disestablishments in Belgium to Category:1794 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1795 disestablishments in Belgium to Category:1795 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1796 disestablishments in Belgium to Category:1796 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:1797 disestablishments in Belgium to Category:1797 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands
Nominator's rationale: per Austrian Netherlands for years 1714-1797 Tim! (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without offering an immediate solution, let's keep in mind that the 1790s problem in fact continues until 1815 (end of French occupation) or 1830 (when Belgium was really established). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I think about it, the more I think "Low Countries" (as a geographical term) is the only really workable alternative, using it as parent for things like "Austrian Netherlands" and "Dutch Republic" where that is possible. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need to group southern and northern low countries together, since the two parts had been separate for two centuries. Per Southern Netherlands I suggest to have a parent Category:Southern Netherlands for the southern low countries covering the Spanish period up to 1830. The nominated later 1790s categories can then be renamed Category:1797 disestablishments in the Southern Netherlands etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 6 September 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.

Ancient earthquakes

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/delete as proposed. The follow-up discussion may result in further changes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 (or 2) articles in each category. Minuscule categories merely hinder easy navigation to related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure this is a problem. We also have Category:History of Ancient China for example. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That category specifically states "China", which makes it include only China, and not using the ambiguous wikt:ancient alone (Relating to antiquity as a primarily European historical period; the time before the Middle Ages.) which has specific implications for region and time, not the same as what we are using it for. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may well have a point here. Needless to say that you are welcome to propose a rename of Category:Ancient earthquakes in a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 1st millenia earthquakes. It's pretty obvious that 70.51.202.113 has a point. HeatIsCool (talk) 21:32, 10 September 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.

Category:MundoFox network affiliates

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) 04:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
    • Category:MundoFox network affiliates to Category:MundoMax network affiliates
    • Category:MundoFox subchannel-only network affiliates to Category:MundoMax subchannel-only network affiliates
Nominator's rationale: Need to properly reflect the network in question having rebranded from MundoFox to MundoMax. Shiningpikablu252 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:C2D. If a thing changes its name, we can just speedy-revise the corresponding categories without really needing to debate it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Without a doubt it has to be renamed. HeatIsCool (talk) 21:26, 10 September 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.

Category:Three-digit Interstate Highways

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; leave a redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name, and the appearance of WP:SHAREDNAME.
Background: There are auxiliary highways in the US Interstate that are either bypasses, spurs or beltways to the main highway. The way the roads are named, the main trunk highway has 1 or 2 digits (Interstate 70) and the auxiliary roads have a number before that (170, 270, 370, 470 and 670). So there is a connection between the type of road and how it is numbered but there are also exceptions.
What's defining about these articles is that they are auxiliary or secondary to the main interstates; how they're numbered just reflects that status. That's why the main article is List of auxiliary Interstate Highways and the subcategory is Category:Unsigned auxiliary Interstate Highways. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified SPUI as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject U.S. Roads. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine leaving a soft redirect at the old name. (I wasn't able to get that template to work with a non-existent target though.)RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could live with a soft redirect as well, if the cat is renamed. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. That category should probably be upmerged into the main U.S. Highway category, but that's another discussion. –Fredddie™ 17:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. Let's see how this one goes and then I can nominate that one as a follow up. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Though I understand the rationale behind the rename, there's still the issue of the notoriously designated Interstate 238, which isn't an auxiliary interstate of anything. I also vaguely remember a discussion on other three-digit highways being given proposed interstate designations despite not being an auxiliary route of any other interstate. The other exceptions mentioned by the nom at least have some rationale to them. I will admit, that the "Auxiliary Interstate Highways" cat seems like it might also be good for suffixed interstates, though. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DanTD: I would favor removing Interstate 238 from the renamed category then based on WP:SHAREDNAME. I don't know if that makes you more or less favorable to the nomination though. (-: RevelationDirect (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could live with that. I'd feel even better if the designation was changed to a real auxiliary route, but that's a whole other issue. What I also think would fit in with the new cat would be the Category:Business Interstate Highways. You could make it into a sub-category. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One route (I-238) shouldn't derail the entire discussion just because it doesn't fit the mold. Yes, it has a stupid route number, but in the whole system, it still serves the purpose of an auxiliary Interstate Highway. –Fredddie™ 20:43, 6 September 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.
More