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:Populated places established in 1168
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: A single entry in this category with very little or no prospects for growth. In line with
the category guidelines, where reliable foundation dates exist, populated place articles should be categorised by year for 1500 and later, by decade from the 1200s to the 1490s, by century from the 10th century BC to the 13th century and by millennium for the 2nd millennium BC and earlier.
Greenshed (
talk)
13:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge -- We are unlikely to get enough content for annual categories in this period. In England, a lot of market towns were chartered in the 13th century, so that I support the guideline.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Adding a parent and sibling decade category; as the nomination merges straight from year category to century, the 1110s decade cat would be left isolated by the original proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon14:09, 11 April 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:Hatnote templates documentation
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.
Background (I created this category): I think this category had more pages years ago (multiple Hatnote doc pages); see also its presence in parent ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Hatnote templates i.e., the complete hatnote overview. Today the only content is a navbox (as template documentation, not for mainspace).
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:Wartime cross-dressers
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. There was a suggestion that a category be renamed, but not enough discussion about the renaming to draw any conclusions, so there is no prejudice against speedy renomination for renaming.
(non-admin closure)DannyS712 (
talk)
00:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong keep for female cross dressers I have no idea how you can say that it's not defining. All of the characters in the female wartime cross dressers are notable for doing just that. JDDJS (
talk to me •
see what I've done)06:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support doing something e.g. because
Ehud Barack doesn't belong in
Category:LGBT rights (because he disguised as a woman during a special forces raid). However there are many women in these categories whose only/main claim to fame is that they masqueraded as a man to join the army. Perhaps we should have a more precise category for such women (and delete the current categories). DexDor(talk)20:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
That name would be an improvement. It may be better to create that category and move articles to it (manually) to check they belong in it (e.g. there might be some who were sailors rather than soldiers). There are also some articles where the category tag appears to be incorrect (e.g.
here it was added to an article which has no mention of cross-dressing). DexDor(talk)05:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong keep, is this some sort of belated April Fools' joke? It is the defining feature and source of notability of most of the members of the category. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
20:39, 12 April 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:Legal drama video games
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:Kenyan superheroes
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: Last discussion had no consensus due to nobody else contributing, so I'm nominating it again. There's only one single article in the category, and it could be argued that it doesn't even belong in the category. JDDJS (
talk to me •
see what I've done)00:08, 11 April 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.