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 (no consensus to delete, but it looks like it has been appropriately "purged"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Youth hostels to Category:Youth hostels in England and Wales

Nominator's rationale: Individual hostels are now listed under Category:Hostels (previously this category and Category:Youth hostels overlapped with no clear rationale or distinction). This category now contains only youth hostels in England and Wales (a category which corresponds to the remit of the Youth Hostels Association (England & Wales)). David Edgar (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete What actually make a youth hostel notable? Well, apparently nothing that's about being a hostel. By my rough survey half of the membership are listed buildings currently used all or in part for a hostel, and the other half are towns which happen to have a youth hostel among their amenities. I'm sorry, but I don't see how this adds up to a category of hostels; with the one odd Canadian example excepted, there aren't articles on buildings because they are hostels (which I think is quite reasonable), and there's certainly no reason to list towns as if they were hostels. Seyasirt (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now removed some articles about villages etc from this category - Greenhead, Kettlewell, Kielder, Mankinholes, Once Brewed, Thurlby. DexDor ^(talk) 05:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with the proviso that this could be recreated if we ever get articles specifically about youth hostels. Most of these articles are about manor houses, castles etc that have been a YH for part of their history. There is List of past and present youth hostels in England and Wales - which should be upmerged to Category:Youth hostelling. DexDor ^(talk) 05:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename -- As we have articles on a number of youth hostels, we should retain a category. If the category is being misused by categorising places with a youth hostel, which is not discussed in the article, the solution is to purge, not delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if an article mentions a youth hostel doesn't mean it should be in a category such as this one. For example, Pen-y-Pass (which I've just removed from this category) is about a mountain pass; things that are (or have been in the past) at that place include hotel, youth hostel, cafe, car park, bus stop etc - the article doesn't belong in categories for those things. If we had any articles actually about individual youth hostels (e.g. Pen-y-Pass Youth Hostel) then they would belong in a category such as this. DexDor ^(talk) 06:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename per Peterkingiron. The category has been purged meanwhile and the remaining articles really are about buildings in use as a youth hostel. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2015 (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. As the category is meanwhile empty there is nothing to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Slovenian pentathletes to Category:Pentathletes

Nominator's rationale: Slovenia declared its independence in 1991. The women's pentathlon ceased to be an international standard event in 1981. This anachronistic category isn't one that warrants creation and its sole child subject hadn't competed in a pentathlon for almost 30 years by the time of the nation's creation. SFB 20:01, 10 August 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Natural sites in Aarhus to Category:Geography of Aarhus

Nominator's rationale: The usual Wiki category for natural features in Foo is "Geography of Foo". "Natural sites in Foo" is only used in 2 instances (see below). Bermicourt (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 00:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Visitor attractions in Aarhus. While I agree with rationale of nominator, a similar reasoning applies to the proposed rename: no other Danish cities have a "Geography of city" child category, so this rename doesn't seem to be appropriate either. Visitor attractions on the other hand is a well-established category form for (Danish) cities. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would just say that some of the entries in this category are not AFAIK "visitor attractions" (e.g. the local river and the bay) which is why I suggested moving them into the Category:Geography of Aarhus. Bermicourt (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2015 (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, because there is nothing to merge. MER-C 02:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Natural sites in Denmark to Category:Geography of Denmark

Nominator's rationale: As above. In this case, there is already a suitable category. Bermicourt (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 00:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I purged the one article in this category, as the article was already in child Category:Natural sites in Aarhus so the nominated category is empty now. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2015 (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 / merge as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of organisations based in Mongolia to Category:Lists of organizations based in Mongolia
• Propose renaming Category:Non-profit organisations based in Mongolia to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Mongolia
• Propose merging Category:Organisations based in Ulaanbaatar to Category:Organizations based in Ulaanbaatar

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent Category:Organizations based in Mongolia. This nomination was rejected on the Speedy page as ineligible for speedy processing, see below. – Fayenatic London 17:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I already implemented the merger for Ulaanbaatar, as the S spelling is a newly created duplicate; there was already a longstanding category, spelled with Z; finding the latter empty, I renamed it from Ulan Bator to Ulaanbaatar as housekeeping after speedy renaming of Category:Ulaanbaatar. – Fayenatic London 18:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Does Mongolia tend to use one regional version of English over another? If not, I have no objection to making things consistent with the "z" as proposed above. (I'm also not adverse to changing the parent category.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match parent cat. Neutrality^talk 00:02, 18 August 2015 (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: speedy renamed by User:Lugnuts as a straight spelling error which didn't actually require debate. The misspelled version can be deleted as an implausible redirect since it's a spelling error that's unlikely to be repeated by too many users. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:20th-century Armenian male actores to Category:20th-century Armenian male actors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Obvious misspelling Icarusgeek (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redirect after the category itself has already been renamed manually. Not the best thing from a procedural point of view, but the outcome is obvious. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• A straight spelling error like this can just be fixed by anyone at any time, or listed for CFR-speedy if necessary, and doesn't actually have to come all the way to CFD for seven full days of debate. The renaming's already been done by another editor, so there's no need to keep this open any further. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2015 (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: upmerge to Category:People from Assam. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ancient peoples of Assam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The articles have to be moved to Category:People from Assam and this one deleted. This category tree is for ethnic groups, not for individuals which this particular category is filled with. —SpacemanSpiff 08:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most individuals here aren't really "ancient" either - 16th or 17th century. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete biographical articles are not "peoples", they may be "people" and seem to be in such categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and repurpose to something like Category:People from Assam before 1800. I do not think there are enough people to split by century, but there are enough to merit a category for historic people. I have no strong view on the precise cut off date. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:People from Assam which I think is what is intended in the nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge I expected this to be about ethnic groups that ceased to exist before 1500 or maybe an earlier cut off, but it is not. Probably due to the creator having limited proficiency in English. Still the contents clearly belong in the target pointed out by RevelationDirect. I do not think an arbitrary year division is justified at this time. If we were to divide, 1827 when Assam became part of the British Raj would be far better than 1800 which has no significance to Assam.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2015 (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:  Relisted at 2015 AUG 28 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Diseases with moribund eradication efforts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Diseases with active eradication efforts
• Propose deleting Category:Eradicable diseases

Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING, non-permanent characteristic of a disease. DexDor ^(talk) 05:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is false. Eradicatibility is permanent characteristic of a disease. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the two former categories, eradication efforts are defining and objective, but preferably merge the two categories together to Category:Diseases with eradication efforts because the first category is too small to remain on its own. Support delete of the third category, this is too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Household brands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete, as overly subjective. "Common household brands" may well vary from one culture to another. Also, touting a product line as a 'household brand' is POV and promotional. – Gilliam (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- clearly involves a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - subjective, not helpful for navigation and classification. Neutrality^talk 03:16, 16 August 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Energy art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The definition of the category is unknown. The selection criteria for this category are unknown. This term is not commonly used in the literature. A search of Google Books and Google Scholar provided no hits that connect "Energy Art" with two of the members of this category (Burning Man or Survival Research Laboratories). A search of the web shows that "Energy Art" seems to be used with visualizing energy, which is very different from Burning Man or Survival Research Laboratories. The "Energy Art" page was deleted in 2012. Full Disclosure: I've been to Burning Man, but not since 2012. I've worked with Survival Research Laboratories. Original research: I've never heard Mark Pauline or anyone associated with Survival Research Laboratories use the term "Energy art". Cxbrx (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename to something like Category:Fire in art Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see some citations for "Fire in art", though "Fire in art" seems like a better description and less ambiguous than "Energy art". BTW - one of the items in the category Pyranoscope has no citations. I've moved to have it deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pyranoscope. Locally, The Crucible (arts education center), has a Fire Arts festival and classes in Fire performance. There already is a Category:Fire arts, maybe articles in Category:Energy art should be moved to Category:Fire arts? Cxbrx (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - fine with that Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the articles of this category have nothing in common with each other. Most of the articles are not about fire in art either. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2015 (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.