Category:Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist-related lists[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: Only two of these are really related to the topic--one is simply a list of hymnals. Articles can be upmerged to appropriate parent cat.s —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:58, 24 April 2011 (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The result of the discussion was:Keep/withdrawn by nominator. Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I know this is rather soon after the recent renaming of the former category and the no consensus on the CfD for the latter. However, the definition of a paranormal place is a location that is reportedly haunted. I don't think therefore it makes sense to have two categories saying the same thing. Simply south......trying to improve for 5 years 16:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Surely Category:Supposedly paranormal places. No, insufficient alliteration. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kittybrewster, if you must, then "Purportedly paranormal places" would surely be prettier. Bishonen | talk 18:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Agree (with KB). "Paranormal", without a qualifier, implies that Wikipedia somehow agrees with this nonsense. – iridescent 16:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose I don't understand the proposal: it's clear that paranormal is a much wider category than simply ghost stories. However, I am open to renaming Category:Paranormal places but as I've said in a couple of recent similar CfDs, I don't think that a qualifier is needed. We need to trust our reader's intelligence. The parent categories of Category:Paranormal are Folklore, Mysteries, Pseudoscience and Superstitions. That sounds pretty unambiguous. The typical reader will not be thinking "hey if Wikipedia says Paranormal rather than Reportedly paranormal then surely paranormal phenomena exist." I'm not going to fight a rename tooth and nail but I think it would be much more meaningful to rewrite the introductory paragraphs of the various categories in a way that stresses the scope: they're categories documenting the existence of legends, folklore. Pichpich (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Pichpich. Iridescent, come on, don't be absurd. Pichpich makes a very good point: that what needs attention is the introductory definitions of the parent Category:Paranormal and the grandparent categories Folklore, Mysteries, Pseudoscience and Superstitions. How about Category:Paranormal for instance: "Some paranormal phenomena may be supernatural". Oh really? No. And don't blame Merriam-Webster, either. (I've just edited this definition, since it was the worst of the lot. Feel free to further improve it!) Bishonen | talk 18:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The problem is that the {{Cat main|list of reportedly haunted locations}} is incorrect and should be removed. Like I said above, the description of the category should be rewritten, especially given the fact that the current one is completely misleading. Clearly Bermuda Triangle, Mapimí Silent Zone, Barsa-Kelmes, Vile Vortices have nothing to do with hauntings. Pichpich (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your proposal but I agree that some reorganization might be beneficial. However, the first priority should be to clean up the existing categories and at the very least make sure that every article contains material justifying the inclusion in some "paranormal place" category. Pichpich (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We shouldn't merge two categories just because one of them has a misleading description. And we should certainly not merge a category on mainstream topic (reports of hauntings) with a category on a fringe topic (paranormal). It's nor appropriate for an article on a specific "haunted" site to appear immediately in a fringe category. The confusion was caused by this edit. I have simply reverted it now, as it was done without any explanation and even marked as minor. I doubt that much thought went into it. HansAdler 18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Haunted locations are a tourism attraction; paranormal covers a lot of other nonsense. Paranormal shouldn't be linked with places and many of those locations should be moved to reportedly haunted. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kittybrewster and Hans Adler. We don't have "Cursed places" or "Lucky places" categories, so I don't see why we should have one implying that some places are paranormal. If we are looking for a category that will encompass a wide variety of Folklore, Mysteries, Pseudoscience and Superstitions, I would suggest Category:Forteana.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per clarification. Simply south......trying to improve for 5 years 17:53, 25 April 2011 (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:Speedy rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. It is now a university, so the main article (University of the Highlands and Islands) has been renamed, this category should be updated to match. Vclaw (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom. Simply south......trying to improve for 5 years 21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel(talk) 02:24, 26 April 2011 (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:Category:Cycling race report without link to previous or next race[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:Speedy delete as a typo. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Created this with the wrong name. Probably as Speedy as can be, but it looks like there is no 'speedy delete category' method. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there is a speedy method - use {{db-author}}. Occuli (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I looked at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, and only the only 'speedy' template explained there is for speedy renaming, and the speedy deletion criteria there do not include my situation...--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:22, 24 April 2011 (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.
