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:Upmerge (which is equivalent to deleting in this case). "Southern China" is not a precisely defined geographical entity so classifying flora along that line makes no sense. Pichpich (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The sole content is actually already in the the target. China is certainly a vast country, but the appropriate next level down is the province. I note that no "Southern China" category exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can tell us exactly where southern China begins.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2012 (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:WikiProject Phineas and Ferb members[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 housekeeping (G6) / page dependent on a deleted page (G8). BencherliteTalk 13:18, 30 April 2012 (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:Non-H visual novels available in English[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:Delete. Merger performed to ensure all properly categorised. The BushrangerOne ping only 06:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific and unnecessary. Longstanding consensus at CFD is that categories based on not being something are a bad idea. A category for 'visual novels with sexual content' might be acceptable, one for 'non-sexual visual novels' (which is what this is) is not. Robofish (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not categorize by what something is not. In this case it makes even less sense, because at least in the circles I frequent people do not use "visual novel" as a code word for sexually-explicit material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we also do not classify things as "availabe in language x". If this was "writen in English" and thus limited to articles on visual novels that are "Non-H" (which is not a common way to refer to them at all) and initially written in English, it might work. Since Wikipedia is not supposed to be language specific (we write in English, but in theory we are supposed to write for a worldwide audience), we should create sister categories for Non-H visual novels available in Japanese, French, Russia, Swahili, German, Greek and any other language that has such, then put each article into each translation it exists in. We do not want to do that, down that path lies madeness. Especially since, why stop with visual novels? We do not want to see what would happen if the works of J. K. Rolling or J. R. R. Tolkien were put in categories of every language to which they have been translated. We need to nip this category in the bud, because down its path lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2012 (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.
Comment why is it called "photographs" when some of the articles aren't requesting photos? (instead they want other types of images) 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is for historic reasons. There was at one point many templates, categories and list pages that got too complex. It was decided to combine them all into the {{reqphoto}} template. This was renamed to {{Image requested}} and text of the template and the category pages edited to reflect that it was for any type of image. There was discussion to rename the many categories and thus update all the 100s of thousands of pages where it is used but was decided at the time that the effort was too great for the sake of what is an administrative background process. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If someone requests an image of a person from the 18th century, they will not expect a photograph. These categories do not overlap, and only a persentist view that ignores the vast majority of human history would think of them as overlapping. Keep both, but probably make the photos one a subcat of the images one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we use photograph to describe things that are not photographs? That makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - scanning an original piece of artwork creates an image of that artwork. And I would hesitate to call that a "photograph", even in the loosest definition of the word. And what about images of documents. See also Wikipedia:Meetup/NARA_2. If this is all just about merging some templates, start a WP:VP discussion (I'm not sure that the discussion linked to had quite enough comment or visibility from what I can tell for what would seem to be be a rather sweeping set of changes) and once that's done, find some willing bot owner. It just seems odd to me to be throwing around the word "historical" when image would be the historical term (the file: namespace was called the image: namespace for years until it was renamed very recently). - jc37 00:59, 10 May 2012 (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:Rename; both C2D (albiet a redirect) and a non-controversial change to match the actual current name of the team. The BushrangerOne ping only 03:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, the subject of this nomination, allowed its (men's) ports teams to choose their own nicknames in 2000. The baseball team chose "Rainbows" instead of "Rainbow Warriors" or "Warriors". See Hawaii Rainbow Warriors for more details. Also, see Page 3 of the 2012 Hawaiʻi baseball media guide, which specifically lists the nickname as "Rainbows". Dale Arnett (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2012 (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: SMALLCAT that has no use for differentiation. The existing subcategory is the only content and doesn't need this parent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no reason to delete, as there is one "Health in Hong Kong" and "Health in Macau". The issue of Health in Tibet may concern this issue before Tibet was incorporated into PRC. There is already other articles that may be included in this category. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep for the reasons given by BHG and RT above and also that it is part of a category set found in Category:Tibet. Deletion would leave a hole in this set which includes all the categories one would expect to find for a county (as Tibet once was). Hmains (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per BHG and RT. If there's a category for Hong Kong, than Health in Tibet should stay too. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tibet existed for centuries as an independent land.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2012 (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: per WP:SMALLCAT. Category contains only one page. I can't imagine significant growth. LeSnail (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Highly significant group and there's certainly room for expansion. WP:SMALLCAT is only ever a very minor issue - it's not as if we're short on category space. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (highly subjective), but files belong to metal-working and wood-working tools, so cannot belong just in metal-working. Files are not generic metal-working tools. The generic metal-working tool category is more a parent category, and, for the uninitiated, it needs more descriptive sub-categories. There is not just one type of file. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support the rename per BHG if this is kept. LeSnail (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2012 (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: Unnecessary eponymous category houses only main article and a related list that is prominently linked from the main article. LeSnail (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fairly populated with otential for growth ,also includes taylor burton diamon named after him and kate and sally burton who are most notable for their relationships to him.RafikiSykes (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would have thought that Burton was a sufficiently important actor for it to be possible to justify a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My smallcat threshhold is typically c. 4 members. That said, I think that there is clearly potential for growth. And so even if there is no consensus to keep, there should be no prejudice against re creation should more articles be created/found. - jc37 01:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG. Given that most of the contents are articles about family members, I can't see that an eponymous category is warranted at this time. Seems like a category for the "Burton family" would make more sense, if anything. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category should differentiate from the notable 19th century person of the same name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2012 (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.
