Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 11



Category:Romania in Antiquity

 * 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. MER-C 03:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Romania in Antiquity to Category:Ancient history of Romania
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, these are two categories serving the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge/delete; I agree. Neutralitytalk 20:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge Clearly redundant, no strong preference on the name but the Ancient History one seems more established as a tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge -- obvious. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:AFL Rising Star nominees

 * 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. MER-C 12:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting afl rising star nominees


 * Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic, see WP:OCAWARD, adequately covered in templates and lists The-Pope (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -- We would not allow Category:AFL Rising Star winners under WP:OCAWARD, so that we should not allow nominees. The outcome would normally be to listify a winners' category, but that is not necessary here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Historical coats of arms of Hungary

 * 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. MER-C 12:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Historical coats of arms of Hungary to Category:Hungarian coats of arms
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge since coats of arms is a historical topic by definition. No other country has a separate historical coats of arms category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge -- There will not be enough to need to split out present from past. Coats of arms are not merely historical: they are still used as logos on occasions.  I do not know about this case.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 02:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting talkpages decorated by hafspajen


 * Nominator's rationale: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  07:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep See Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 17:
 * "The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)".
 * Please close right away. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - this page has been superseded by Category:Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen, which goes on the user page, rather than the talk page. This solves the issue of the category being archived, thus this category is redundant. Further to thus, the naming is wrong. The category doesn't go on talk pages it goes on user talk pages. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Kelapstick, template also go on this talkpage, which is not user talkpage. Got problem with that, little user? Hmm  ? bishzilla    ROA R R! ! 11:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Oh mighty, peace be upon the brave fire breathing zilla. Perhaps Pages decorated by Hafspajen would be more appropriate, which would make the category all encompassing?--kelapstick(bainuu) 12:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Possibly merge to kelapstick's target. It certainly shgould not be in ordinary category space.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete These are not pages in Hafspajen 's userspace, they are other people's talk pages, which presumably does not contain only Hafspajen 's contributions. They are not defined by having Hafspajen make a comment. This is equivalent to Category:Pages edited by Hafspajen, which is something we do not categorize by, since it is not significant. A Wikipedia search restricted to usertalkspace for Hafspajen edits would find the talk pages. If they want a userbox to indicate interaction with Hafspajen, then that's a different matter (per the superceded category comment) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Users should not be playing with categories; it is not (IMO) humourous and just clutters up things like the list of uncategorized categories. DexDor(talk) 06:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural Close re-nom of CfD closed as keep from a month ago. No nomination rationale provided. ―  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete serves no cooperative value and thus fails to meet the requirements for user categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per JPL. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Military facilities of the United States in Germany

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Germany to Category:Military installations of the United States in Germany
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. As per previous nominations, 'military facility' to 'military installation'. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy this Whole Tree There are tons of similar sub-categories in Category:Military installations of the United States by country and I would nominate them all through the speedy process, per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy whole tree - above editor has it right, these should be done via omnibus speedy. Neutralitytalk 05:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy the lot per above. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Much to my surprise, the broader speedy nomination was challenged. To be clear to the closing administrator, I *do* favor this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.