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) 06:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Linh Nga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Only article is for an individual with whom she was reported to have had a romantic relationship. Completely unnecessary category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:54, 8 April 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.

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) 06:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Adabel Guerrero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. 3 of the entries in this eponymous category are other actresses with whom this person may have some sort of association and the other is a film she was in, which is overcategorization per WP:PERFCAT. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but strictly for WP:OCASSOC. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 9 April 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 11:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2015-16 in Kuwaiti Football Leagues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty category (content moved to Category:2015–16 in Kuwaiti football). HandsomeFella (talk) 11:02, 8 April 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 11:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kuwait Champions Challenge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty category, no similar article. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:02, 8 April 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.

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. The WP:CATDEF arguments went unaddressed and support deletion. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 12:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hardcore Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non notable Hall of Fame CrashUnderride 10:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This hall of fame is as notable as several other wrestling halls of fame. It is essentially the hall of fame for the organization that, for several years, was the third biggest promotion in North America and had a world champion recognized by Pro Wrestling Illustrated. Rather than deleting the category, an article should be made about the hall. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gary probably has the right idea, the Hardcore Hall of Fame is independently notable from the ECW Arena but is clumped in that article.LM2000 (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even with a notable article it will still remain a non-defining characteristic, the articles in the category aren't primarily about this Hall of Fame. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An article could be created, but even if it is, there's not a reason that I can see to keep the category. There is no loss of data by deleting since all the information is here in the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The criteria for categories are a lot different than for articles. This may well be a subject that is notable enough to have its own article. It is however not notable enough to be defining to the articles that are put in the category in a way that it is a worthwhile categorization of those articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 8 May 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.

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 to Category:Cinema of Palestine. There was no consensus to split between different time periods, and a more-focused discussion on that question may be helpful. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 12:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Palestinian cinema to Category:Cinema of the State of Palestine

Nominator's rationale: This category should be in standard correct form like Cinema of (country FOO). ApprenticeFan ^work 08:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative rename to Cinema of the State of Palestine, in order to align with Category:State of Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative has been adopted by nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the main article is called Cinema of Palestine -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ALT-2: Rename to Category:Cinema of Palestine, to match the lead article. The history section in that article begins in 1935, long before the declaration of the State of Palestine in 1988. – Fayenatic London 15:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Cinema of the State of Palestine and create Category:Cinema in Mandatory Palestine. I would also like to point out that a related discussion is ongoing at talk:Palestinian rabbis#split.GreyShark (dibra) 20:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are articles covering the cinema of the pre-1948 period (which I haven't checked) the split makes perfect sense, Mandatory Palestine and State of Palestine are completely different. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Greyshark09: I only found Adamah (film) from the Mandatory period. Gaza Ghetto (1984) and Wedding in Galilee (1987) also predate the declaration of the State of Palestine in 1988, so do not belong in either of the categories you have suggested. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we can find a solution for those two, but exceptions should not set the rule. We typically have "Cinema of <foo state>".GreyShark (dibra) 07:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT-2: Rename, Fayenatic's suggestion is best so far. It doesn't make sense to split the films of the Mandate, Jordanian or Military Administration eras apart from each other when they are all being made by Palestinians. TrickyH (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with ALT-2 as well, but in addition I wouldn't object if someone would start a subcategory Category:Cinema of the State of Palestine. Note that this overturns my previous vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Split the Pre-1948 and post-1948 categories at a minimum. Pre-1948 we will be including any film created by anyone within Mandatory Palestine. We can not put pre-1948 things in post-1948 categories without taking some sort of stand on continuity. It will always be controversial, so pre-1948 things need seperate categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 8 May 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.

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cuisine of Georgia (country) to Category:Georgian (country) cuisine

Nominator's rationale: This category should be in standard national cuisine forms like XXXX cuisine. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt rename to Category:Georgian cuisine, like its sub-cats, and like various siblings within Category:Culture of Georgia (country). When using the adjective, the primary meaning is strong enough to not need the qualifier. – Fayenatic London 08:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From where I sit, "Georgian cuisine" is peach cobbler washed down with a SweetWater Beer from Atlanta. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I was wrongly assuming that the adjective would not be used in this phrase to refer to the US state. If it is ambiguous, then keep. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the present name is greatly preferable; Georgian (country) is dreadful. (Category:Georgian (country) people is, mercifully, a redirect.) Georgian always needs a qualifier and the errant subcats should be renamed. Oculi (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The nom was 'rename to Category:Georgian (country) cuisine' when I made my first comment; it was Category:Georgian cuisine when I made my second comment; it then went back to Category:Georgian (country) cuisine. Category:Georgian cuisine was speedily renamed to the present name in 2011 (per Category:Georgia (country), a format which should be replicated throughout the sub-tree). Oculi (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And the name of Category:Culture of Georgia (country) was the result of a cfd. Oculi (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Georgia is always dabbed to distinguish from US State. While the use of a demonym would normally be welcome, in this case the need to dab means it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current name matches the other categories in Category:Culture of Georgia (country). kennethaw88 • talk 23:51, 14 April 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.

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 with no prejudice against discussion(s) on the subcategories. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 13:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Watercolorists to Category:Watercolourists

Nominator's rationale: For consistency: all nationality subcats use the British spelling. Or conversely we could rename the subcats, I don't particularly care. This should also apply to Category:Women watercolorists‎.  Sandstein  07:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse rename the subcats; that will match the parent category: Category:Watercolor painting. Neutrality^talk 19:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:ENGVAR changes should not be done. All nationality categories should not use British English That is a violation of WP:TIES. Only UK categories should use British English. All other categories should use local English, if they speak English. If they do not, it should be restored to the WP:RETAIN spellings when the categorization was first done. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have been notified as though I created this; I didn't.. I also think we should leave well enough alone. 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs)
  • @Pmanderson: it was created under your account in 2006. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Really? are we categorizing artists by what type of painting they used? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46: it's a bit of a mixed bag. See this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the skill set so vastly different than other painting? I haven't checked but are most of the categorants also in other painting categories. We have some media types, but I think that if this is kept no entry should be in any other painting category; I would be surprised if many modern painters with access to the tools and techniques haven't tried their hands at this medium - in the same way that many spray painters technically fall into Category:Fresco painters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea. I have heard that watercolor painting is on the hard side compared to other types, but based on the little I know, I too doubt that it is that much different to warrant separate categorization. But yes, most of the articles I have looked at are also in other subcategories or Category:Painters. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The main article is Watercolor painting, which the parent category already matches. The subcats should be renamed to match. kennethaw88 • talk 00:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kennethaw88. The nationality subcats should use American or British spelling in accordance with the rest of the tree of that particular nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to match parent categories of this category. Issues about sub-categories can be decided in individual discussions, or just ignored by those of us who prefer to spell the word kelor and confuse everyone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 8 May 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.

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 all. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 13:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:6 in international relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:9 in international relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:10 in international relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:15 in international relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:17 in international relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of WP:C1, as the only content is a subcategory that is not about international relations. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The items that I sampled were areas that has gained the status of Roman provinces. That is not about international relations. This seems to be another useless thread in establishments trees, which we have been pruning of late. I would suggest that in any event years in the 1st century should be expressed as "6 AD", not "6". All the subcategories need to be merged into something like Category:States established in 1st century AD. They should also be in Category:6, which is highly ambiguous and should be Category:6 AD. This will probably require further noms when this one is closed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have gone far too small in these categories. That said, it is properly written AD 6, not 6 AD. However I see no reason to use the modifier for 6 and not 1776.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 8 May 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.

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 London 12:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Late Antiquity and Medieval sites in Kosovo to Category:Historic sites in Kosovo

Nominator's rationale: Rename to align with parent Category:Historic sites by country. Speedy rename was opposed due to conflict with name of main article Late Antiquity and Medieval sites in Kosovo. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment -- I would have thought that the article should be at Late Antique and Medieval sites in Kosovo. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Support -- Previous comment withdrawn, as Kosovo is an anachronism for the medieval period. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 10 April 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.

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 here. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 13:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Foreign involvement in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is pretty vague and dubious CAT. + overcat? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What is vague and dubious about it? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For the time being I tend to oppose, because of the vagueness of the rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems contrived collection of not-really related stuff. We could just as well create categories for foreign involvement in any number of "conflicts" real or imagined. Category:Foreign involvement in the German-English conflict otherwise termed WW2, or Category:Foreign involvement in the DRC conflict, Category:Foreign involvement in the Angolan Civil War etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have several of those categories, e.g. Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. If it is really a problem to have categories like these, they'd better be nominated together. But honestly I don't get it yet why it would be a problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - generally there is no problem with "Foreign involvement in <Foo war>" cats, but this one doesn't include any relevant article (Foreign involvement of <foo>). If there is no article, there should be no category.GreyShark (dibra) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you elaborate on that a bit? Aren't the articles about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Aren't they about foreign involvement? And does that really apply to all 17 articles? And what about the three subcats? Why not suggest to purge or merge instead of delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit disappointed about the vagueness of this discussion. Note that a plain deletion is really not an option, because that would make the articles of this category disappear from the tree of Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict which they definitely belong in. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a legitimate sub-category. I see no dubiousness. I see no vagueness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are two corresponding categories in the same format, Category:Foreign involvement in the Iraqi Civil War and Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. In regard to the argument made by Marcocapelle above, in both of those cases, nations outside of Iraq and Syria (respectively) are actually involved in the conflicts, with boots on the ground or planes in the air. That's not the case here. A hodge-podge of lawsuits, riots, various advocacy groups, meetings, controversies in foreign newspapers alleging that Israeli troops harvested organs from Palestinians and other such potpourri does not constitute "foreign involvement", and the assortment of articles tagged as such adds nothing to the reader. This is a mere WP:COATRACK. Alansohn (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reasonable alternative I see here is to upmerge it to Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict because all articles are definitely about this conflict. That will solve nothing on the fact that the articles are a hodge-podge, however. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These articles are not about the conflict in question, they do not constitute foriegn involvement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 8 May 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.

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 to Category:Redpolls per main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Acanthis to Category:Acanthis (genus)

Nominator's rationale: This category is about the genus of bird, but Acanthis is ambiguous. It could be renamed to Category:Acanthis (genus), Category:Acanthis (bird), or—to use the common name and WP article name—Category:Redpolls. I have no real preference as to which name is chosen and would support any of those three. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:51, 8 April 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.

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 to Category:Violetears. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Colibri to Category:Colibri (genus)

Nominator's rationale: This category is about the genus of bird, but Colibri is ambiguous. It could be renamed to Category:Colibri (genus), Category:Colibri (bird), or—to use the common name and WP article name—Category:Violetears. I have no real preference as to which name is chosen and would support any of those three. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative Rename to Category:Violetears (with an "s") since that is what every article in the category, including the main one, is called. (The proposed rename could be used as a category redirect, if desired.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I would be fine with that option, but the only other thing that should be highlighted about using the common name is—that there are many, many categories like this one that are named after bird genera that use the taxonomic names instead of the common names when the relevant WP articles use the common names and not the genera names. I have no problem renaming this to the common name, but I know in the past there has been some resistance to this idea since the categories are part of the Category:Birds by classification. See, eg, this discussion, where I thought "kiwi" was more appropriate than "Apteryx", but that was shot down. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 8 April 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.