Category:Women in the Canadian armed services[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. Kbdank71 14:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Most of the other female military personnel categories are named like this, and some of these women were nurses, and hence not armed. Asarelah (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The proper Canadian term is "armed services"; "military" (like "armed forces") is a bit of an Americanism. It is the services that are armed, not every single one the services' component individuals. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:Then why is the parent category titled Category:Canadian military personnel rather than "Canadian armed services personnel? This category is the only subcat of the parent that uses the term "armed services". Its inconsistent. Asarelah (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to parent, distinction by sex is not needed. OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Distinction by sex is needed, see Category:Women in war and its subcategory Category:Female military personnel. Other occupation categories have subcategories for women, especially ones in occupations that women tend to be underrepresented in. Asarelah (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2009 (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:Investment trusts of the United States[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.
Delete but add the same parents to the sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2009 (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:Rename. The Creative Assembly is the companies name, not just Creative Assembly. QueenCake (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2009 (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 Based upon the related CFD, anyone can create a non-US named category to mirror this. Kbdank71 15:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As "Pedestrian mall" appears to be a more uniquely U.S. and Canadian name for these areas, should we consider renaming, per main article Pedestrian zone? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that is wise at this point. Pedestrian zone, may be the main article, but its use is far from universal. Take a look at the incoming redirects; Pedestrian street, Pedestrian mall, Auto-free zones, Car-free, Carfree area, Carfree zone, Car-free area, Pedestrianized zone, Pedestrianized zone, Auto-free zone, Pedestrian Street, Pedestrianization, Pedestrianised street, Pedestrianisation, Pedestrian area, Pedestrianised, No-Car Zone, Pedestrian precinct, Car-free place, Car-free zone, Pedestrian-only use, Car-free urban area and Vehicle restricted zones. Given that list it shows that one name is clearly not universally accepted. This reply started as a comment, but I'm changing to Oppose given that the name may in fact represent local usage and should be left. The better solution here would be to leave Category:Pedestrian zones as the parent for the concept. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for all the reasons Vegaswikian opposes. I see no evidence that the overall category of things covered at the Pedestrian zone article is generating such a huge number of article that they need to be subdivided into categories for pedestrian malls, auto-free zones, etc. If/when they are, then this category might need to be this specific. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo gets over 1,000,000 hits on pedestrian mall. So clearly this term is very common and in use. I fail to see how doing away with a well used term, that may well be able to have a separate article, helps the encyclopedia. If this is a regional difference it needs to stay. Given the vast range of being car-free, to not sub categorize these seems counter productive. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also in looking at those results, it appears that definition of :Pedestrian mall is codified in some places. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a bizarre coincidence. I had no idea. Should we put this discussion on hold, pending the prior discussion below...? --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2009 (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:Wikipedia requested photographs in Abington Township, Wayne County[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: Categories created in error by PhotoCatBot Tim Pierce (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all of these will be speedyable per C1 in about 3 days if they remain empty, which will occur before this CfD is set to end. VegaDark (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that I should have requested a speedy deletion. Since they were created by my bot, I requested speedy for these under G7. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2009 (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: With only two articles and no expectations of many more, this category is completely unnecessary. Farix (Talk) 11:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the onging prequel tv series, Shinkyoku Sōkai Polyphonica Crimson S, is a candidate for a third article. But otherwise, no, I don't see a need for this. Delete as too few to be useful. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. It can always be recreated later in the slim chance that it's actually needed at some point. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Small and unnecessary eponymous category for television programme. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small category that's unlikely to grow. — Σxplicit 23:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small unneeded category. QueenCake (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (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:Songs from Bedknobs and Broomsticks[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: With no other comments, I'll consider this withdrawn. Kbdank71 14:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category serves no additional purpose as all the relevant songs are wikilinked in the main article, Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Please note there are a number of categories listing songs by individual musical, which I bring to discussions depending on the outcome of this Richhoncho (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change of mind. On second thoughts, I think these work as a sub-category of Category:Songs from musicals. I'll leave the nomination here for further discussion in any event.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2009 (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 empty. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment model year 2010 usually comes out in 2009. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2009 (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:Users in the United Arab Emirates and Category:United Arab Emirates Wikipedians[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:merge. Kbdank71 14:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Duplicate (or is it triplicate?) categories and per naming conventions. — Σxplicit 23:29, 12 April 2009 (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 - Individual user category, which we have unanimously deleted in the past. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia readers will not use this structure, which only benefits this one user. Alansohn (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2009 (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:Functionaries of Stalinist regime in Poland 1939-1956[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: Just a grammatical move, really. BiruitorulTalk 00:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the use of non-standard keyboard characters as a barrier to navigation. It is unclear why a date range needs to be in the category name at all. Certainly add the "the" to it. Otto4711 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose the time period does cover the 'Stalinist regime': frm the Soviet invasion of Eestern Poland in 1939 to the Polish October of 1956. The current name may reflect what the category was intended to cover. Hmains (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that these functionaries weren't constituting a government during much of this time-period - and the people who were constituting the Polish government-in-exile are not those intended to be covered by the category. AllyD (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2009 (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. Subjective grouping that seems to already be serving as a weird, poorly-defined mix of academics who published scholarly work about Canada, academics who merely happen to be Canadian but didn't write about Canada to any notable degree, people who are predominantly writers of fiction and people who are historical figures within the study of Canada. People should never be categorized in such a subjective, awkward and POV way — and even if this were somehow to be kept, a rename-for-capitalization to "Key figures in Canadian studies" would be necessary. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject to endless uncertainty over the word "key". - BiruitorulTalk 00:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons put forward by Biruitorul David WC2 (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree with Shawn, but this can't just be renamed. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "key" is POV, SUBJ, and invitation to OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2009 (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.
