< October 16 October 18 >

October 17

Category:Industrial relations education by country

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 and merge subcat, as described in the alternative proposal. ~ Rob13Talk 07:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge in the spirit of WP:SMALLCAT, there is no point in having a container category that contains only one child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2016 (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:Professorships in industrial relations

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 to Category:Industrial relations education as per the alternative proposal. ~ Rob13Talk 07:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2016 (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:Television series created by Barbara Hall (TV producer)

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. – Fayenatic London 13:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a common sense move because the disambiguator isn't necessary here. It's obvious from the context "television series created by..." that it's referring to a TV producer and not anyone else listed at Barbara Hall. See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 18#Category:Television series created by Dan Schneider -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why there'd be any agony over it. A category redirect from the current title should solve any confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming the other way (to match the article) satisfies the speedy criterion C2D: WP:CFDS. Eg Category:Compositions_by_Don_Davis is at present a speedy in exactly the opposite direction. One thinks something is at last sorted out and then confusion is introduced. Oculi (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don Davis is a different situation. There are several Don Davis' who worked in that field, so the disambiguator is necessary there. In this case, you're not going to see "Television series created by Barbara Hall" and think "Hmm, I wonder if these series were created by the politician, the crossword puzzle editor, or the TV producer." It's obvious by the context that we're referring to the TV producer. There's no need to be redundant with the additional disambiguator at the end. -- Tavix (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: stale discussion from September 7, which is deadlocked but unlikely to attract any new input there.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2016 (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:Buddhist temples of the Thai Forest Tradition

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 the nominated category to Category:Buddhist temples and monasteries of the Thai Forest Tradition and Category:Thai Theravada Buddhist temples to Category:Thai Theravada Buddhist temples and monasteries. -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Buddhist temples of the Thai Forest Tradition to Category:Buddhist monasteries of the Thai Forest Tradition
Nominator's rationale: After creating and populating the category, I realised (a bit too late) that most articles use the term monastery. Now I'm not quite sure what the distinction between Buddhist temple and monastery is, as they all refer to wat in Thai. I've placed the category under both Category:Theravada Buddhist temples and Category:Theravada Buddhist monasteries (via Category:Thai Theravada Buddhist temples), since I don't think it's a distinction worth making at this level, but the category name could benefit from following the common term used by member articles. Paul_012 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the modificatin suggestion JarrahTree 08:26, 30 October 2016 (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:Warrants issued in Hong Kong Stock Exchange

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overategorization. Most of the entry in the cat already covered by Category:Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The cat was contained Euro and Australian dollars (which i removed as they were not mentioned in the main article they were traded (or have derivatives and warrants) in HK Stock Exchange also). If the cat want to refer to shares subscription warrants, they must be already covered by Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. As well as it is not notable to categorize company's secondly financial instruments. Matthew_hk tc 13:36, 17 October 2016 (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:Front Palaces

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: no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Front Palace" is a royal title, and this category contains biographical articles of people who once held that title. However, the current name might be confusing to those unfamiliar with the title. I'm open to alternative suggestions. Paul_012 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2016 (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:Iron mines in Australia

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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match typical Australian terminology for such mines, which may differ from other countries. See also the previous opposed proposal to rename Category:Iron ore mines in Western Australia to Category:Iron mines in Western Australia (under https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&oldid=744728559#Opposed_nominations). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically that's always true of any metal — but in actual usage, we do tend to just say "nickel mine" instead of "nickel ore mine", "copper mine" instead of "copper ore mine" and "gold mine" instead of "gold ore mine", yet "iron ore mine" instead of "iron mine". Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2016 (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.
More