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: With just one entry there is no need for this category. Also merge contents to Mayors of places in Illinois....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Every city doesn't need one of these the moment one of its past or present mayors has an article to file in it — they should only exist when four or five mayors have articles to file in it, and if there are less than that they should just be filed in the appropriate parent categories in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2018 (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 with just one entry which is a redirect. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:34, 7 November 2018 (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 with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:33, 7 November 2018 (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:75th United States Congress templates[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:keep, since it has been populated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category (I have movedwould move the 1 page in it to Category:United States Congress templates in a bid to start reducing the huge number of template categories that are virtually empty. If this passes, I will seek to continue doing so.) DannyS712 (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC) (updated DannyS712 (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Comment I restored the one entry to the category per WP:CFD which says not to empty a category before proposing it for deletion. @DannyS712: will you please provide a different rationale for this CFD or should I get an administrator to close it?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian: I now count 4 templates in this category. Do you believe that is enough to justify its existence? Also, in Category:Wikipedia template categories, there are thousands of tiny categories like this one. What should the base number of templates in a category be to justify it? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: I don't follow a hard-and-fast rule. But I look to the more important number: the potential size (48 in this case), not the current size, because of WP:NODEADLINE. Here's where these categories are useful: say you wanted to tackle setting up the new templates for the about-to-be-seated 116th Congress. Easiest way to know what you had to do is if there is a Category:115th United States Congress templates to which you could go, to see what was there all in one place. And guess what, there is! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian: Currently, there are 31 congress-specific template categories with only 1 template in each, and 13 more with only 2 templates. While there may be more created in the future, for now I don't think these deserve their own categories. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this now has 5 members. However, I would favour merging and redirecting as WP:SOFTDELETE for the many sibling categories in Category:United States Congress templates that have only one or two members; they could easily be re-created once there are enough potential members to make them useful. – FayenaticLondon 10:12, 8 November 2018 (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:American subsidiaries of foreign companies[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:no consensus. ℯxplicit 06:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename Where not causing awkward wording, categorization prefers "United States" over the less clear "American." UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I have added the equivalent British category to the nomination today. – FayenaticLondon 10:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep American and British are clearly understood and all other related categories in Category:Corporate subsidiaries are Australian/Canadian/Greek/Indian/Pakistani etc rather than use the country name. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename. I disagree with the nominator's claim. I would argue that the opposite is the case: where not causing awkward wording, categorization prefers "American" over "United States" for adjectives. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:55, 21 November 2018 (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 towns without a railway station[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: It's surely a bad idea to categorise things by what they aren't, or features they don't have. I think this sort of information can be useful when presented in context, as in the partially-overlapping List of largest towns in England without a railway station, but lumping places together that range from quite large urban towns to small island settlements doesn't convey anything useful. Jellyman (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and being non-defining, apart from the largest town on the list, but that doesn't need a category for that factoid. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 08:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Utterly pointless.Charles (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Completely useless The Bannertalk 11:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's generally not useful to categorise places by things they don't have, and I don't see any reason why this category is any exception to that. It's not even clear about the definition of railway station – some of these places (e.g. Minehead) do have a station, just not part of the national rail network. — GasHeadSteve[TALK] 14:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If municipal status were tied to having a train station, this might be good (e.g. City status in the United Kingdom traditionally was granted to the presence of a cathedral, so it might be useful to have a category for non-cathedral-cities), but there's no connection whatsoever, just as there isn't for "towns without inns", "towns without a McDonald's", etc. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Glad someone nominated it. And many of the towns in the category used to have a railway station, so it's historically wrong as well as pointless. Sionk (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - risible. This would be enormous if fully populated. Oculi (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. This is basically "Towns in central England without a railway station"; picking a few dozen at random, I found one in Scotland, two in Wales, and a couple or three in southern and far northern England. "British" doesn't normally seem to exclude NI (except from fiercely republican perspectives, I suppose), but this category seems to. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume British refers to England, Scotland and Wales, while UK includes NI. However Great Britain and the United Kingdom appear not to have separate demonyms and the demonym for the whole of the UK is British. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the reasons given at the 2012 AFD and the 2018 about being too vague. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Such a bad idea for a categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an oddly specific yet purposeless category. Naturenet | Talk 09:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The topic is a valid one, but the inclusion issues are too complex for a category to be able to deal with them. I am voting to remove the category, but to keep and add detail to the list. One of the problems is that of defining a "town" in conurbations. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2018 (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.
