Category:Organizations based in East Germany[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. I have changed the sort key of the existing category to "East" to make it easier to find. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:56, 8 June 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Only one article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contains three items; the subcategory contains more; and main category can accommodate related articles. — O'Dea (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please see WP:EPON—one article, one template, and one subcategory (itself with only seven items) does not justify an eponymous category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't look like nearly enough to me for an eponymous category. All we have is a "Works by" category, the main article, and a template. All can and should be simply linked to from the main article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:25, 7 June 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:Members of the Linnean Society of London[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.
Keep – there is no duplication - there are members and there are fellows, expressed in category terms by the former being a parent to the latter. Occuli (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This nomination is not complete on the category page. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator appears to have been under a misunderstanding. I have added the CFD template to the category page anyway. - Fayenatic(talk) 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is being a member of the Society defining for someone in the similar way being a fellow of the Society would be? Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:53, 9 June 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:Smithsonian Institution related animals[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 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:Rename to "template". Timrollpickering (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains about 5 pages; only contains one template. If kept, it should be renamed to "... templates" (lowercase), but there is no reason why it should continue to exist. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I recommend adding Template:WikiProject Brighton to the talk page with class = Template and call then delete this category as redundent. This projects WikiProject template supports template class. --Kumioko (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nominator is wrong. It only contains one entry in templatespace, but it contains four templates. You are not required to, and indeed, are discouraged from placing some templates into templatespace. 184.144.168.112 (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with lowercase. I have added the project template with class=Template to each template's talk page as suggested by Kumioko, but it seems to just add them into the project's article categories under W. It seems more useful to me to have a category for the project's templates like so many others. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:35, 8 June 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 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:Split per nomination. Jafeluv (talk) 10:20, 13 June 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:administrative close: speedied as explained below. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CSD C2. jorgenev 04:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I G6'd it. It wasn't a test page, but a typo. The one article in that category has been moved to the correct category. I've also zapped the other mis-named cats shown here. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 4 June 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:Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. SORAS is an obscure acronym which should be spelled out for clarity's sake. If this is not seen as a defining characteristic then I have no issue with a deletion. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a minor facet of a fictional characters persona. I don't think it is a logical grouping, subjects in category have very little to do with each other; SORAS is extremely common and not particularly noticeable. jorgenev 04:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify; because there is no definition of "rapid" aging, classification of a character as having SORAS requires some explanation and references that cannot be captured by a category. And, as Jorgenev notes, this is a non-defining trait of various not only fictional, but often secondary fictional characers.- choster (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the entries are cases of characters who grew faster onscreen than they should have; others though are cases (deliberate or otherwise) where characters are brought back after a number of years or even born offscreen after their parents left the show and they return older than they "should" have been (or in one case younger). This is pretty much categorisation by minor continuity error. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timrollpickering. I agree that this is not category material because of its relatively minor importance to the characters. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:55, 9 June 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.
