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The result of the discussion was:withdrawn, though merging somewhere is a live option and could be discussed in a nomination that proposes that. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. While Lucasfilm previously announced the spin-off series to be "Star Wars Anthology", they are now referring to them as "Star Wars stories", with the naming convention being "TITLE: A Star Wars Story". Hence, the first name in the series is "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story". DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 20:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question@DarthBotto: Are more films definitely planned at this point? At this point, the one article category isn't helping navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect:, absolutely. Aside from Rogue One, which is well into production, there is an untitled film about Han Solo in pre-production, (directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, written by Lawrence and Jon Kasdan), as well as an announced film that was previously going to be directed by Josh Trank that is moving forward. So, there are three formally confirmed to be in development, with the second one expected to be titled and put into the production phase in the near future. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 06:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: I've decided to withdraw this nomination, as upon reading the source, I came to realize that the news is still categorized under "Anthology Series". It's apparent that more discussions are necessary. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 06:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Do we really need more than a single category for the whole Star Wars franchise? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we do, as there are a number of spin-off films that are not a part of the main saga, which are already under a separate sub-category. This new series of Anthology films are also not a part of the planned 9-part saga and should be put in their own separate sub-category. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:SMALLCAT there are only 3 proposed films, too small for a category. They should just be mixed in with all the other SW films -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2015 (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:Hasidic communities displaced, diminished, or destroyed by the Holocaust[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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. MER-C 11:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think we don't need this, or at least not with this name, so raise a discussion. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointy, lengthy, vague... The entries are describes as "Dynasties" not "communities", all European Jewish communities from France to Poland and from Norway to Italy were at least diminished during WWII, undefining category. Kraxler (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kraxler. Category is too big; it describes the experience of literally thousands of Hasidic communities. Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- probably to Category:Hasidic Judaism or possibly rename to Category:Hasidic Dynasties. Since almost all varieties of Judaism were heavily injured by the holocaust, I see no purpose in a category with the present name. Category:Hasidic Judaism in Europe contains many of the dynasties. AS a matter of principle, articles should not be in both parent and child categories, so that there is a need for purging. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, there is no need to merge, since they are all already in such a category. Merging is a rather specific process, and should not be recommended when not applicable. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not particularly useful - one supposes that nearly all such communities that were in the wrong place at the wrong time were displaced, diminished or destroyed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2015 (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, without prejudice to creation of a new category, as discussed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT, only two articles of which one article claims it was the only D.D. vote against the Articles of Perth. Probably no need to upmerge to Category:Puritans since neither of the two articles mentions Puritanism. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose -- I think there is room for a rather wider category. The Five Articles of Perth (correct name) were James VI & I's attempt to impose Anglicanism on the Church of Scotland. This resulted in a period of unrest in Scotland, leading to the Bishops Wars. I am not good on the history of the Church of Scotland, but there was a significant struggle between Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism in Scotland. We probably need a category for that (if we do not have one) dealing with this period of conflict. WE have Covenanter and Category:Covenanter, but they deal with the events of 1638 and beyond. I have not got a clear view on what my proposed category should be called. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the very small size of the nominated category, we might just as well start a new category from scratch then. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2015 (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. MER-C 11:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories mean the same thing, but "People from" is preferred. Aurictalk 14:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Born in" was created in error. I blanked it which I thought would lead to its automatic deletion. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- now empty and unnecessary. I think a tag needs to be added before automatic deletion will occur. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2015 (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:Netherlands Reformed Congregations Christians from the Netherlands[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: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article which isn't even a biography. Probably no need to upmerge, the parents of this category aren't really appropriate targets and the one article in the category has been parented well. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biography categories without any biography articles don't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If we had more than just a main article Netherlands Reformed Congregations, I would have suggested upmerging, since it is appropriate to have a denominational category, but with only a main article, the whole thing seems rather pointless. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2015 (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:Kingdom of England emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies[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.
The result of the discussion was:procedural closure. Nomination was withdrawn without !votes. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge because it's not clear how the two categories distinguish themselves from each other, especially when taking in mind that the Thirteen Colonies did not exist yet during the Kingdom of England. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2015 (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: upmerge for consistency, with people by religious belief categories we usually do not have a separate Lay subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Up/Merge both per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2015 (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 "by day" categories aren't holding mainspace redirects from individual dates; they're holding portalspace "current events" subpages. That's why they're "different": they're not serving the same purpose that the categories which have been nominated here are serving. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As far as I can see both categories consist entirely of redirects: that makes it a pointless category. The one item that I looked at appeared to have been merged into an article on the month February 2004 and I presume that applies generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia has long had a consensus against creating separate mainspace articles for every individual day in any given year, so these exist only as redirects to a longer article about the month rather than standalone articles about the individual day — and in that context, there's no need for every individual day's individual redirect to be categorized as such. The fact that we have a different category scheme for a different type of dated content, located in portalspace instead of mainspace, does not make these necessary. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2015 (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.
