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) 01:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Highest points per country to Category:Highest points of countries

Nominator's rationale: New name uses same nomenclature as other sub-categories of the parent category (Category:Highest points). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:56, 2 May 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Shepshed Charterhouse F.C. players to Category:Shepshed Dynamo F.C. players

Nominator's rationale: Same club, rendering this category, which uses a former name of the club, redundant. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- WE should apply the principle used for alumni categories where the alumni of a renamed category are deemed to have attended the successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2016 (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: rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lost films of the 1960s to Category:1960s lost films

Nominator's rationale: Rename per decadal film category names... or delete, if it's deemed not to be the start of a valid category branch. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename. Looks like a useful addition to the category tree, especially for pre-WWII-era films. Let's hope that categories for more recent lost films are not needed though - I hope archiving of films is now seen as being more worthwhile! Grutness...wha? 00:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as the creator of the Lost films of the 1960s category, I'm happy either way. Perhaps renaming it would work better. I'm open on that. I do believe that the category with whatever name, is useful to researchers and that's why I created it. So if Lost films of the 1960s becomes 1960s lost films then that's OK. We'll see what others think. Karl Twist (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, for consistency reasons. Almost every one of the 41 subcategories of the Category:1960s films starts with the term "1960s", not with the name of the other parent categories. The few exceptions are the "Lost films" subcategory, Category:Unfinished films of the 1960s, and Category:Unreleased films of the 1960s. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you, I'm nominating these ones, too. They could be speedily renamed but some people may be in favour of deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Classic rock songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Classic rock is a radio format not a genre. What is considered classic rock is also very subjective and subject to change overtime. The current content seems to be any popular rock band from the 1960s, 70s or 80s. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A radio format is not a genre. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2016 (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 to Category:Indian spiritual teachers. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indian Mystics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redundant with Category:Indian spiritual teachers; open invitation for WP:OR and POV-pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: the link to "Category:Indian spiritual teachers" doesn't work; I trust someone can fix it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge them. --LucasSACastro (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2016 (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: rename. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 04:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Argentine Formula Renault drivers to Category:Formula Renault Argentina drivers

Nominator's rationale: This is slightly misleading, as "Argentine" forms part of the racing series' name. So even if all competitors should happen to be Argentine by nationality, this categorization is a by-event, not a by-nationality category. The suggested name follows my proposal on Talk:Argentine Formula Renault Championship#Requested move 2 May 2016 just leaving out the "2.0" qualificator which used to be "1.6" before 2010. PanchoS (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support iff the renaming proposal for the page is supported and completed. Up until then we should probably hang fire. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 3 May 2016 (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: rename to option 1. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming according to one of the following:

Rationale: These categories are all about the same place, so they should use the same name. Preference for option 1, to match parent article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support option 1, as the correct letter is "s with comma below" per Romanian alphabet, S-comma and ro:Wikipedia:Diacritice. --PanchoS (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support option 1. Correct usage, although even Romanian-language websites often use the second (if they bother using it at all). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support option 1. We should always go for the correct orthography. However cat-redirects are needed from all likely incorrect spellings. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support option 1. With cat-redirect from option 2.Afil (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2016 (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: move to Category:Butterfly houses (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Butterfly house (conservatory) to Category:Butterfly houses

Nominator's rationale: This would be a speedy (the category contains individual butterfly houses) except that I'm not sure whether the parenthetical (conservatory) is an adjective and should stay as is, or a noun which should be pluralised. My personal preference is for it to also be plural, but if there is a specific guildeline on this (which I haven't found) then it should be followed. Grutness...wha? 08:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revised rationale: The key article has now been moved to Butterfly house, which simplifies the renaming process. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The peculiar name is inherited from the peculiar article title, which states in the first sentence that they may be called either "butterfly houses" or "butterfly conservatories". Pluralization of both would be in order, but really the article name itself is ill-formed by our standards. Mangoe (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't notice that, but I agree - It might be as well to rename the page as Butterfly house with a redirect from Butterfly conservatory, and rename the category accordingly. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article moved. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 4 May 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Men with moustaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING. See previous discussion. DexDor ^(talk) 05:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as recreation of material deleted in a WP:SNOWstorm. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it: there is all a moustache-loving community, that live for meet notable moustachoed persons; if some people had some notable feature by most of its time, more likely there is someone who wants to know that. It may be classified as a WP:DUPCATEGORY.--LucasSACastro (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A casebook example of WP:TRIVIALCAT. Bravo. I can find no evidence of this category having existed before, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the earlier round it was "people with mustaches" but if anything the constraint of the male gender makes it more non-notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm slightly colourblind and didn't spot the piped link in DexDor's nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about renaming it to "Notable men with moustaches"?--LucasSACastro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be unlikely to survive as a list article, let alone a category. An article on List of men notable for their moustaches would struggle but might survive, but anything less is listcruft. Grutness...wha? 01:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a patent case of an unencyclopedic category. --Dorpater (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In earlier centuries the vast majority of men would be in this category! Completely non-defining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not defining, some people have facial hair at some points and then shave. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- TRivial and not permanent: they shave off easily. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete This is a trivial characteristic. To make it worse, it is a fairly changeable one. There are multiple men who were clean shaven in 1835 who were sporting mustaches along with beards in 1865. On the other hand, there are men who grew a mustache for just a short time. In fact some men only grow mustaches in November. This is an extremely trivial characteristic. What next Category:Women with weave in their hair or Category:women with pierced ears. Both of which are arguably less trivial than this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2016 (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: keep, but convert to a container category for the various Palestinian governments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Palestinian government to Category:Government of the State of Palestine

Nominator's rationale: merge as it overlaps with Category:Government of the State of Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - have mixed feelings, since Palestinian government also refers to previous Ramallah-centered PNA government and current Hamas government in Gaza, so it could be an upper level category for Category:Government of the Palestinian National Authority, Category:Government of the State of Palestine and Category:Gaza Strip governments. Maybe even for category:All-Palestine Government.GreyShark (dibra) 19:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) I'm sympathetic towards re-purposing of the category to a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Repurpose per Marcocapelle's reply to Greyshark09. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 5 May 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Locality-based schools of economic thought and methodology to Category:Schools of economic thought

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, since 'locality-based' is a trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Many schools of thought are based around a university. Not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Extinct canid stubs to Category:Canid stubs
• Propose deleting ((Canid-extinct-stub))

Nominator's rationale: This category has only articlers, consistant since its creation (at least based on a monthly report found here); we have no other "extinct" stub categories, and the parent category, along with these articles, would have just under 70 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Maybe rescoping/renaming the template as ((paleo-canid-stub)) (upmerged into Category:Prehistoric carnivoran stubs) could be an option, but even then it seems unlikely it would be much use. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Too little content to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2016 (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.