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.
This is not really the place for the discussion, but the naming convention for UK districts was briefly discussed here. It would be quite a task to rename them all, but I think the general point is that "District" is not just a disambiguator, it is part of the name.--Mhockey (talk) 10:32, 7 March 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:Scottish Premier League Manager Of The Month Award Winners[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 per C1. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 9 March 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.
Support per nom. This should be a speedy (but the category is not tagged). Occuli (talk) 14:23, 7 March 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:Scottish Premier League Manager Of The Month Award Winner[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 per nom, over-catting. GiantSnowman 14:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree feel this is a valid category it is an achievement for a player to win this and is a valid cat to show this.Warburton1368 16:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – it would be more impressive for a Scottish Premier League manager to fail to get this award as there are only 12 of them. Occuli (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is in correct few managers actually receive the award in reality and there only being 12 at any one time is nothing to do with itWarburton1368 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The frequency with which the award is issued (monthly) makes it a minor award. It doesn't have its own article for that reason, and as such we need not categorise for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a monthly award is inevitably minor. In this particular case we have 36 managers who have received the award, out of a total of 45 in Category:Scottish Premier League Managers. Ridiculous. Occuli (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's like the "Worker of the Week" award in The Simpsons #1F13 Deep Space Homer? Everybody has the right to win it at least once. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 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:Scottish Premier League Players Of The Month Award Winners[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 per nom, over-catting. GiantSnowman 14:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree feel this is a valid category it is an achievement for a player to win this and is a valid cat to show this.Warburton1368 16:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Where is the article Scottish Premier League Players Of The Month Award? Who gives the award? Is it sufficiently prestigious to be mentioned in each player's article? Is it the Clydesdale Bank Premier League Player of the Month award? If the other banks gave awards would they all be categorised? Occuli (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bank are the sponsor of the award in reality the award is given by the SPL and yes it is prestigious enough and should be listed under honours. Warburton1368 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The frequency with which the award is issued (monthly) makes it a minor award. It doesn't have its own article for that rason, and as such we need not categorise for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As previously mentioned above it does have its own article contrary to what user above states.Warburton1368 20:41, 7 March 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. Category for a very small town which only contains 3 articles and is likely to never be expanded. TM 12:34, 4 March 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.
Category:Members of the Reichsrat (1861-1918)[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:Rename. The main article for the Austrian Reichsrat is Imperial Council (Austria). I suggest making the name of the category reflect that of the article. All members of the Austrian Reichsrat served between 1861 and 1918, so including the date range is unnecessary. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support making the name of the category reflect that of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 5 March 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. It is standard practice for the categories named after national legislatures to match name of the corresponding articles. These are the ones that currently do not match. I propose that each should be changed to match its main article. If these category names are changed, there are some subcategories which may also need to be changed; I will follow-up on those. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming all - categories are always named after the main article, whether its about a legislature, a chemical compound, or a work of art. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 March 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.
