Category:Defunct Southern League (1885–1899) teams
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: Maintaining suck a difference between defunct and former teams for a league that folded more than a century ago isn't beneficial. (Especially as of now only two teams exist.)
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Support If the league still exists, this distinction makes sense, but not in this case.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge -- The important thing is that they were members at the time, not whether they survive, which is presumably the basis of the second.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:10, 3 May 2020 (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.
Organization of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
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. bibliomaniac15 18:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I propose to rename these categories to the pattern "X basin", in line with most other categories for river drainage basins.
MarkussepTalk 12:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose - these should follow their respective articles.
Narva is a city, not a river; the river is
Narva River.
Dnieper is the river, so that one is OK.
Vantaa (river) is the river;
Vantaa is a city.
Oculi (
talk) 13:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: the word "River" is sometimes used as disambiguation (which is clearer when it's in parentheses, like the Vantaa example), but it's not part of the name of the river, at least not in these cases. I don't think any confusion about the basin is possible in cases where a city and a river share the same name.
MarkussepTalk 18:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Support River should not be part of the title, but part of the links in the category definition.
Dimadick (
talk) 16:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, articles and categories should be renamed to "(river)" if "River" is not part of their proper name. But it should start with the article names.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Oculi. If any of the articles are renamed at a RM discussion, the categories can be speedily renamed per
WP:C2D. But as Oculi notes, the category names should follow their respective article titles ... so no rename withwithout an RM. -
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
OK, good point, this discussion can be closed then. Depending on the outcome of the discussion at WT:RIVERS, I'll use WP:CFDS then. Is it OK if I list Category:Dnieper River system for speedy rename now, or do I have to wait until this discussion is closed?
MarkussepTalk 08:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I suppose it's alright to have Category:Dnieper River system on CFDS right now.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Dnieper appears to be a valid speedy.
Category:Don basin which illustrates the perils of this approach would be a speedy in another direction.
Oculi (
talk) 18:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If it is decided to abandon the "X River" scheme for rivers in Russia,
Don River is likely to be moved to either
Don (Russia) or
Don (Sea of Azov) (or
Don (river) as primary river topic). I suppose the category shoud be moved accordingly then.
MarkussepTalk 06:54, 4 May 2020 (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 now the RM is sorted
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Defer To whatever the main article ends up being called, whether I agree with the RM outcome or not.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves.
GiantSnowman 17:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Match article name once RM has been decided. Polite reminder to @
Fuddle: to sort out the article location issue before trying to move the related category...
GiantSnowman 17:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
<thumbs up emoji>.
Fuddle (
talk) 17:35, 29 April 2020 (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:Dungeons & Dragons creatures
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.
Support in the spirit of
WP:C2D. Please also nominate the subcategory for the same reason.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Support to bring in line with the title of the lead article.
oknazevad (
talk) 14:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Support This should limit the scope as well.
Dimadick (
talk) 16:52, 29 April 2020 (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:British Cycling 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 result of the discussion was:delete.
MER-C 15:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The
British Cycling Hall of Fame was founded in 2009 and has wall plaques in the Manchester Velodrome (see
here). The vast majority of these articles mention the award in passing with others, maybe a fourth don't mention it at all and 3 mention it in the lede so it doesn't seem defining. (In contrast, the Tour de France and Olympics are universally in the intro, if applicable.) We already have the winners listified
here in the main article. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to
WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome
here. -RD
Background We deleted similar American cycling halls of fame categories
here and
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
DElete -- OCAWARD. They get the award because they are notable, not vice versa.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:13, 3 May 2020 (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:DeMolay International Hall of Fame members
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.
MER-C 15:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
DeMolay International is a Masonic youth organization for boys/men aged 12-21. This award is given to men who, decades later, become politicians, astronauts, celebrities or are otherwise prominent. The success of people like
Paul Harvey,
John Steinbeck and
Bill Clinton seems to have little direct connection to this group or Free Masons generally though. The contents of the category are already
listified here for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to
WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome
here. -RD
Delete -- I note that there is a list, but I doubt that the list is worth having.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:15, 3 May 2020 (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.