Category:Noble titles of the Holy Roman Empire[edit]
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: To more clearly indicate that this is a people category, not a title category. By the way, the text of the header assumes that it is a title category, but that does not match with the actual use of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both this nomination and an expansion to the noble titles tree as all the ones I checked are trees for people mainly, not just titles. "Nobility by title" allows us to include both. SFB 22:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A proposal for renaming the entire noble titles tree can be found here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Use of contemporary country name. The Prince-Bishoprics existed mostly from approximately 1000/1200 to approximately 1800, see Prince-Bishop. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support current usage is ahistorical. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- In common parlance, the Holy Roman Empire was Germany, but they were princes of the Empire, so that the proposal is better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge and redirect. These are duplicate categories. Category:Former buildings and structures by building type contains a mixture of "Defunct" and "Former", but only one of each these for each building type. The target category has several sub-cats of Former theatres by country. – FayenaticLondon 17:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a distinguishing between theatres no longer used as theatres, but still existing, and theatre buildings that are no longer theatres but have been renovated into something else? And theatre buildings than have been destroyed/demolished? -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Only railway stations have established categories called "disused" [1] and even those are part of the "former/defunct" tree. – FayenaticLondon 12:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Hasn't this just been recently suggested and rejected already for good reason? Hmains (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmains: Not as far as I am aware. I can't trace any previous suggestions via the talk page or by "what links here". – FayenaticLondon 12:41, 29 October 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale: These incidents are not in any sense an "epidemic". This category was created and named by a disruptive, now-blocked user, who created hundreds of pages and nearly 50 categories in pursuit of an anti-alcohol POV. At the AfD for the related article "Methanol outbreaks", consensus favored the name "List of methanol poisoning incidents" for that article. I believe this category should follow the same format. MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Revelation Direct makes a good observation, but on that formulation I fear we'll have lots of one-off bio's of wives and husbands who have been murdered by methanol showing up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- No preference for which option, but epidemic refer to disease and this is not about one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a completely unnecessary category. We already have Category:South African Army officers (a subcat of SA Army personnel), Category:South African Air Force personnel and Category:South African Navy personnel, all falling under Category:South African military personnel. This extra category will just add confusion. Gbawden (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above. There are other categories which consolidate the officers of the various arms of service for other countries. BoonDock (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above - the category's "parentage" should be corrected. This category is a necessary subcategory of Category:Military officers by nationality. It should be a "container" category with no articles directly in it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it should mainly be a container category for officers of the various services. It is possible this is an inappropriate Americanism and that the cat should be Category:South African armed forces officers, matching the British usage where military is army only. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2014 (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:speedy redirected. No prejudice against a comprehensive discussion if anyone feels that all of the sibling categories should be at "sport" instead of "sports", but as long as they are at "sports" this one needs to follow suit. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Parent category tree consistently uses "sports" for Canadian topics. R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an empty category that simply duplicates another category that already existed, so it can simply be {{categoryredirect}}ed to the existing category name without requiring discussion — and even if this were populated and the proposed target didn't already exist, this could still have been cfr-speedied as a C2C for conformity with its siblings. That said, however, the overall parent for this tree is Category:Sport in Canada rather than "sports", so there may actually be a case to be made for renaming all the subcats of Category:Canadian sports by year — but that would require a comprehensive discussion well outside the scope of this particular nomination alone. Speedy redirected. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2014 (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:delete, as essentially a re-creation of a category previously deleted under a different name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Overseas" from where? Wikipedia is international. Elizium23 (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Overseas from Vietnam, of course. Proposed title seems unnecessarily convoluted. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we talked about others like this in the past. Try 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 noting that there may be others. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed as redundant for no clear reason. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - category makes perfect sense if you treat "overseas Vietnamese" as the adjective. DHN (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why use the word overseas? From Vietnam to Europe you don't necessarily go over a sea. I admit there's currently not an article about Vietnamese commerce in Europe, but I presume it's not the intention of this category to exclude this? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of these are Vietnamese American businesses, except for Little Saigon which is also almost entirely about the US. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2014 (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.
