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.
→ Thanks. I think you’re right that I didn’t hit the mark here (my first category creation attempt!). I think many of the relevant pages for this category are about the ‘stuff’ of learning to read - student readers, teacher books, software, electronic items - would
Category:Learning to read materials or something like it be a better option?
Smilingpolitely (
talk)
11:27, 23 December 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:Trans women
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.
I am neutral towards both the original and the alternative rename proposal (except I would put "biographies" between brackets). @
Vaporgaze: what is your opinion about the alternative rename?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle:Could've sworn I read a policy stating that we shouldn't name categories like this since the names are supposed to refer to the subjects of the articles rather than the articles themselves IIRC, but I can't find it anywhere now. Even if I'm just misremembering things, I'm not a fan of the alternative rename, as it would make the name inconsistent with those of just about every other non-hidden category, plus it just looks awkward.--
Vaporgaze (
talk)
11:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Mild oppose. "Trans women" seems to have become the most common and less loaded term. All other suggested names seem to carry a point of view on the issue. None of these brings an improvement, either in brevity or clarity.
Place Clichy (
talk)
19:43, 27 December 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:Trans men
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: The current name is rather misleading; an editor adding categories via HotCat or the visual editor may see it and assume it's for individual trans men (even though we already have
Category:Transgender and transsexual men for them), when in reality it's for topics related to them in some way.
Vaporgaze (
talk)
09:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Mild oppose. "Trans men" seems to have become the most common and less loaded term. All other suggested names seem to carry a point of view on the issue. None of these brings an improvement, either in brevity or clarity.
Place Clichy (
talk)
19:43, 27 December 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:Regulatory fraud
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.
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:American Theater Hall of Fame inductees
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:Vehicles rebuilt in 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.
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure the creator understands what "rebuilt" means, and it seems to be applied inconsistently and often without references - the Evoque seems to be a current model made in a Chinese factory, others are examples of old tooling being sold to China.
Le Deluge (
talk)
09:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep As some of these vehicles were cloned, some were produced also or badge engineered, with or without license. As nominated for deletion, my test was successful for reviewing the Germans view on automotive industry. Thanks. --Hans Haase (
有问题吗)17:13, 14 December 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:Crossings of the Prut River
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:delete as a redundant category layer, they each only contain one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the subcategory has been adequately parented already.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Eliminate this level - Such categories should not normally exist, both are merely parenting a bridges category. Possibly the bridge subcat should be merged here rather than this being deleted. If there were also multiple articles on ferries or tunnels, in theory having both might be legitimate, but it would perhaps be better to have them all in crossings.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:07, 16 December 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:Sultan Qaboos Prize for Environmental Preservation laureates
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.
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 question basically is what is the definition of a Turkic state. I would suppose it is a state in which non-Turkic people do not have the same legal rights for mere ethnic reasons. Modern states are not Turkic states, similarly the United Kingdom is not a Germanic state. (But possibly the whole concept of a Turkic state is ill-defined.)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Support merge as the clarification in scope that comes with the merger is welcome. Note that some "states" in the
Category:Former Turkic states are not Turkic or ethnic in nature. Instead, they are temporary political regimes in modern-day Turkic countries, but that in most cases would not be entirely "Turkic" in character, either by their population, their leadership or their government principles. Such entities that could not be clearly defined as a "Turkic state" should be purged before merging.
Place Clichy (
talk)
19:43, 27 December 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.