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 this to parent, as it only contains one sub-cat. The second parent Category:Works by Malaysian people already contains the sub-cat via another hierarchy. As for the third parent category Category:Malaysian music, I would not object if anyone thinks this should also be merged there. – FayenaticLondon 22:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It may be deleted. --Tijd-jp (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge per nominator's rational. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:13, 11 June 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 result of the discussion was:administrative close. Category has already been deleted, categorization of articles has already been reverted. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with a careful check of the edit history of the creator of the category, who in an hour long edit spree as a newbie, had made 69 edits, many of them adding articles to this nonsense category. It would take me probably three hours to sort out, but I suspect more accomplished editors or admins may have tools. -Roxy the dog.bark 19:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete marketing at worst and just coatracking healthclaims into Wikipedia at best. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 10 June 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.
Category:MTR stations built on reclaimed land[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: Current naming is a bit too specific and it doesn't have a proper parent category. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a one-article category for a group of MTR stations in Hong Kong. If kept MTR should be expanded, an issues that applies to a whole tree. However do we need this category at all? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I created this category to categorize railway stations in Hong Kong ONLY (I don't know this kind of category other than Hong Kong in fact) cope with the Chinese version of this category. If no other category names are appropriate, I suggest keeping this category name. Ckh3111 (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether a building is on reclaimed land or not is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the building, so it's not a trait that requires categorization under any name. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat (and then cfd the similar category for public housing) - there's no need to categorize buildings by characteristics of the history of the land they are on. DexDor(talk) 19:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People who proposed to delete the category did not know the backgrounds of Hong Kong infrastructure. Ckh3111 (talk) 07:04, 13 June 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 result of the discussion was:merge. ℯxplicit 00:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as unnecessary container categories, only having one or two subcats, thus merely hindering navigation. The nominated categories have all been created by the same editor User:Hocimi of whom some more Dutch history categories have been nominated in the past weeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 10 June 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 result of the discussion was:merge. ℯxplicit 00:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as unnecessary container categories, only having one or two subcats, thus merely hindering navigation. The nominated categories have both been created by the same editor User:Hocimi. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Support -- though I suppose the Dutch Empire was not dissolved until after 1945, whereas the Dutch Republic disappeared during the Napoleonic Wars. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, though all articles in these categories are from the times of the Dutch Republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 10 June 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: Category links to an article with minimal sourcing which is itself the subject of a PROD due to unclear significance. It appears this category is being populated with a lack of due diligence as well, as multiple articles under this category do not have material establishing they are in fact "hixploitation films". May be worth attempting to listify, but I think for now this needs a serious rebuild. DonIago (talk) 05:32, 10 June 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 result of the discussion was:keep. ℯxplicit 00:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Originally the team as the Iowa Energy was a hybrid NBA team dealt with basketball operations and local ownership dealt with business side. The team was purchased by the Minnesota Timberwolves who control both the basketball and business operations [1], and therefore the category should reflect the name change based on new ownership. Syracusestorm (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Syracusestorm. Nothing is being overcategorised. Oculi (talk) 16:10, 10 June 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 result of the discussion was:keep. ℯxplicit 00:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCAT, small category that serves little purpose Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category is necessary because the Wisconsin Herd is an expansion team, which belongs to the Milwaukee Bucks and sub categories of coaches and players will be added shortly.Syracusestorm (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is by no means a small category, with numerous subcats and dozens of articles. Nothing is being overcategorised. Oculi (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: Currently it only contains two articles and one subcat. Was there much more when you had a look at it? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The subcat has 7 subcats, one with 143 articles. A category contains all the articles and subcats in any subcat. Again, give me an example of a single article or subcat which is being overcategorised, ie being cluttered by the inclusion of this category. Oculi (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I just thought that a lot of the content had disappeared. Never mind. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:00, 17 June 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.
