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.
Rename - correct British English spelling. However, that does not mean that the US category should be changed if it is the correct American spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2017 (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.
Keep or add "in England" or "in England and Wales". This is a specifically an English category, but the present name is liable to pick up suppressions in other countries and at other times. However purge: with the exceptions of alien priories suppressed during 100 years war and a few small ones used by Wolsey to endow an Oxford College, they were all dissolved in 1536-9, so that categorising them as dissolved is the same as categorising them as monasteries, quite apart from friaries not being monasteries. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the RM does not seem to lead to the desired result, I support the nomination here, thus by exception prioritizing WP:C2C over WP:C2D. Moreover, it makes some sense that we do not regard Dissolution of the Monasteries to be the main article, since the article is about a topic (an event) while the category is about a set (of monasteries). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Since the RM does not seem to lead to the desired result"? Oppose this, categories should support articles, not become their own beast. You can argue freely in the RM, but should respect the consensus there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Categories are navigational aids. This means that they should support, in a consistent way, navigation through similar topics (e.g. in Scotland, Iceland, Ireland, England). So while a particular topic might wish, for local reasons, to cling to a particular common name, nevertheless, the category may, for navigational purposes, diverge from that peculiar local name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories lose their viability as navigation aids if they become de-coupled to the articles. The substance of the argument made here should be made in the RM on the article talk page. If this thing has parallels in other countries and other times (it does), then the article titles should reflect that. COMMONNAME is being used for local naming minimalism. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2017 (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:delete, the category consists of an arbitrary selection of articles regarding the content of the Hebrew Bible, while nearly all of it is already in one of the more specific bible book categories. The only exceptions are the battles subcat and the list article, they should be moved to Category:Hebrew Bible content if this category is going to be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Apart from the battles which can be merged to the parent, this is a random list of articles on Biblical events. I suspect that the articles will be better categorise under the separate Bible books in which they appear. Distribute contents where necessary and them delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2017 (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 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 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:National Hockey League first round draft picks
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: Sorting by non-defining characteristic. We do not categorize any other sportspeople by what round of the draft they were drafted. TM04:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: ... which is an "other stuff doesn't exist" argument. So what? It's a easily definable, not indiscriminate term, and athletes generally carry "He was a first round draft pick in 19xx" throughout their careers. Is there a better rationale to delete than that? Ravenswing 21:44, 2 December 2017 (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 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.
