< January 18 January 20 >

January 19

Category:21th-century military history

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: speedy delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: duplicate of Category:21st-century military history Robby (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2019 (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:Animal media

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 based primarily on the strong arguments that derive roughly from WP:OVERLAPCAT. ~ Rob13Talk 20:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More WP:CRUFT by the same author. See Category:Cat media for similar issues. jps (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article The Purrington Post has been deleted (with just a redirect left) and The Catnip Times is already in the pet magazines category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (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:Cat lover culture

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:Cats in popular culture. Taken in tandem with the discussion below, that seems to be the outcome which best reflects the mood of the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tandem nomination with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat lover culture. jps (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2019 (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:Cat media

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:Cats in popular culture. Taken in tandem with the discussion above, that seems to be the outcome which best reflects the mood of the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous category. Is this media for cats or cats in the media? Doesn't seem to be either of these. Just WP:CRUFT. jps (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to ජපස aka jps - The page could be divided into two sections. When I created it, I created it with the intention of it being Cat News. News for cat lovers, enthusiast and industries that make their money from cats. This is not cruft as you suggest. I have been monitoring what has been going on in the world of cats for some time and I have seen an upward trend which brought me to the conclusion that there definitely is an important media scene about cats. In hindsight I can see now how the creation has attracted the desire to delete, but I still stand by what I say. Karl Twist (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2019 (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:Canadian expatriates in foreign political positions

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Canadian expatriates in foreign political positions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection of nationality in one country and profession in another. TM 14:02, 19 January 2019 (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:UPN 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. ~ Rob13Talk 05:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:UPN affiliates to Category:Former UPN affiliates
Nominator's rationale: UPN is a former network. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Oppose Deletion @BU Rob13: You're right, I misread the original nomination and focused on Slatersteven's suggestion. I favor a rename but not deletion. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2019 (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:Religion in the British 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: keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, hardly any content of this category is specifically about the period of the British Empire. Many subcategories and articles are about still existing Anglican church bodies. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree these churches would probably not exist without the British Empire. But, if kept, shouldn't we then rename the category to Category:Legacy of the British Empire? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding possible renames, please see Category:Religion by former country which lists the names of many former empires, without the prefix "Legacy". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but this is an entirely different case. It is not about religion in the British Empire but instead about current churches which have started up during the British Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2019 (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:Government-owned companies of China

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 without prejudice against a fresh nomination of the entire tree of Category:Government-owned companies by country. (non-admin closure)Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing. I have reverted the undiscussed move by @Störm, to restore the status quo ante. This discussion can consider whatever rationale Störm chooses to advance for their proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the articles also stated the influence of the State Council/central government, plus nomenklatura, the dual system of the party is the government, thus the firms are leaded by party via government. Matthew hk (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Sorry, the reason given above by Storm seems to me a valid reason. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2019 (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:Bridges completed in the 1883

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: speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: duplicate of Category:Bridges completed in 1883 Robby (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2019 (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:Endemic fauna of Swaziland

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent Category:Fauna of Eswatini. Note: I'm not sure why this category wasn't moved by the previous discussion. DexDor (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2019 (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:Fly fishing target species

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. I have left a dump of the category's current contents at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 19#Fly_fishing_target_species. And no, I haven't made it a list article, because that requires sources etc ... and when I have previously created bare list articles of category contents, they have just sat around unsourced until deletion. But anyone who wants to create a proper list can do use the dump as a starting point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Fly fishing target species to article List of fly fishing target species
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't appear to be a defining category for these species of fish. — Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 05:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting that there are some fish that are fly fishing targets and some that are not; the point is: of those that are fly fishing targets for many/all of them that's a non-defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that is often a "rule", we apply to lists anyway.10:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing a category, not a list. You can read more about non-defining characteristics for categories at WP:NONDEF. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 03:42, 22 January 2019 (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:Kickstarter-funded animated films

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being animated is a trivial difference. Do not upmerge to other parent as it is inappropriate (removing it now). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 19 January 2019 (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:Easy listening artists

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the scheme under Category:Musicians by genre and the concept that performers of easy listening music would be easy listening musicians. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:49, 19 January 2019 (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:Dance-pop artists

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the scheme under Category:Musicians by genre. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:41, 19 January 2019 (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