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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCEPON. Only article is for an individual with whom she was reported to have had a romantic relationship. Completely unnecessary category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me19:54, 8 April 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.
Category:Adabel Guerrero
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCEPON. 3 of the entries in this eponymous category are other actresses with whom this person may have some sort of association and the other is a film she was in, which is overcategorization per
WP:PERFCAT. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me19:22, 8 April 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.
Category:2015-16 in Kuwaiti Football Leagues
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 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:Kuwait Champions Challenge
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 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:Hardcore Hall of Fame
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.
Keep - This hall of fame is as notable as several other wrestling halls of fame. It is essentially the hall of fame for the organization that, for several years, was the third biggest promotion in North America and had a world champion recognized by Pro Wrestling Illustrated. Rather than deleting the category, an article should be made about the hall.
GaryColemanFan (
talk)
22:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, even with a notable article it will still remain a non-defining characteristic, the articles in the category aren't primarily about this Hall of Fame.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. An article could be created, but even if it is, there's not a reason that I can see to keep the category. There is no loss of data by deleting since all the information is
here in the article.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The criteria for categories are a lot different than for articles. This may well be a subject that is notable enough to have its own article. It is however not notable enough to be defining to the articles that are put in the category in a way that it is a worthwhile categorization of those articles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:42, 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.
Category:Palestinian cinema
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.
If there are articles covering the cinema of the pre-1948 period (which I haven't checked) the split makes perfect sense, Mandatory Palestine and State of Palestine are completely different.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
03:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Support ALT-2: Rename,
Fayenatic's suggestion is best so far. It doesn't make sense to split the films of the Mandate, Jordanian or Military Administration eras apart from each other when they are all being made by Palestinians.
TrickyH (
talk)
05:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Split the Pre-1948 and post-1948 categories at a minimum. Pre-1948 we will be including any film created by anyone within Mandatory Palestine. We can not put pre-1948 things in post-1948 categories without taking some sort of stand on continuity. It will always be controversial, so pre-1948 things need seperate categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:46, 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.
Category:Cuisine of Georgia (country)
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.
Fair enough. I was wrongly assuming that the adjective would not be used in this phrase to refer to the US state. If it is ambiguous, then keep. –
FayenaticLondon11:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Georgia is always dabbed to distinguish from US State. While the use of a demonym would normally be welcome, in this case the need to dab means it is not.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:13, 10 April 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.
Category:Watercolorists
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.
CommentWP:ENGVAR changes should not be done. All nationality categories should not use British English That is a violation of
WP:TIES. Only UK categories should use British English. All other categories should use local English, if they speak English. If they do not, it should be restored to the
WP:RETAIN spellings when the categorization was first done. --
70.51.45.100 (
talk)
05:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I have been notified as though I created this; I didn't.. I also think we should leave well enough alone. 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pmanderson (
talk •
contribs)
Is the skill set so vastly different than other painting? I haven't checked but are most of the categorants also in other painting categories. We have some media types, but I think that if this is kept no entry should be in any other painting category; I would be surprised if many modern painters with access to the tools and techniques haven't tried their hands at this medium - in the same way that many spray painters technically fall into
Category:Fresco painters.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I have no idea. I have heard that watercolor painting is on the hard side compared to other types, but based on the little I know, I too doubt that it is that much different to warrant separate categorization. But yes, most of the articles I have looked at are also in other subcategories or
Category:Painters.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per Kennethaw88. The nationality subcats should use American or British spelling in accordance with the rest of the tree of that particular nationality.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep to match parent categories of this category. Issues about sub-categories can be decided in individual discussions, or just ignored by those of us who prefer to spell the word kelor and confuse everyone.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:50, 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.
Years in international relations
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.
Delete -- The items that I sampled were areas that has gained the status of Roman provinces. That is not about international relations. This seems to be another useless thread in establishments trees, which we have been pruning of late. I would suggest that in any event years in the 1st century should be expressed as "6 AD", not "6". All the subcategories need to be merged into something like
Category:States established in 1st century AD. They should also be in
Category:6, which is highly ambiguous and should be
Category:6 AD. This will probably require further noms when this one is closed.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete We have gone far too small in these categories. That said, it is properly written AD 6, not 6 AD. However I see no reason to use the modifier for 6 and not 1776.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:52, 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.
Category:Late Antiquity and Medieval sites in Kosovo
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 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:Foreign involvement in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
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.
Delete - generally there is no problem with "Foreign involvement in <Foo war>" cats, but this one doesn't include any relevant article (Foreign involvement of <foo>). If there is no article, there should be no category.
GreyShark (
dibra)
22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Could you elaborate on that a bit? Aren't the articles about the
Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Aren't they about foreign involvement? And does that really apply to all 17 articles? And what about the three subcats? Why not suggest to purge or merge instead of delete?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete There are two corresponding categories in the same format,
Category:Foreign involvement in the Iraqi Civil War and
Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. In regard to the argument made by
Marcocapelle above, in both of those cases, nations outside of Iraq and Syria (respectively) are actually involved in the conflicts, with boots on the ground or planes in the air. That's not the case here. A hodge-podge of lawsuits, riots, various advocacy groups, meetings, controversies in foreign newspapers alleging that Israeli troops harvested organs from Palestinians and other such potpourri does not constitute "foreign involvement", and the assortment of articles tagged as such adds nothing to the reader. This is a mere
WP:COATRACK.
Alansohn (
talk)
14:48, 8 April 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.
Category:Acanthis
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 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:Colibri
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.
As I said, I would be fine with that option, but the only other thing that should be highlighted about using the common name is—that there are many, many categories like this one that are named after bird genera that use the taxonomic names instead of the common names when the relevant WP articles use the common names and not the genera names. I have no problem renaming this to the common name, but I know in the past there has been some resistance to this idea since the categories are part of the
Category:Birds by classification. See, eg,
this discussion, where I thought "kiwi" was more appropriate than "Apteryx", but that was shot down.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:47, 8 April 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.