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 07:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The recetn trend has been to merging regional taxa categories. To have a category for every polity represents category clutter, of the kind against which WP:OC#PERF is directed. The performacne here is occurence. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This should only exist if there are a few species that are only endemic at the Isle of Man --Lenticel(talk) 02:05, 7 July 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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 19:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think combining two ecoregions together is a good idea, Wallacea and the Southeast Asian (Malay) archipelago are two separate regions. Though true, birds could cross the gap. The categories themselves should be separated into the two zones, so the can also be parented by ecoregion categorization. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain more precisely how you think the birds found in this area should be geographically categorized (in a way that avoids a bird being in lots of categories). Perhaps Malesia would be the right sort of size. DexDor(talk) 05:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Do you really want to open the can of worms re: Borneo? Not all of Borneo falls into Indonesia: part of the island (two states) belongs to Malaysia, and part is the Sultanate of Brunei. MeegsC (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Categorising birds (and other fauna) into political (as opposed to biogreographical) entities is largely meaningless. If anything, a category such as Birds of Indonesia should be deleted in favour of categorising the birds of its component islands. Birds of Lombok (for example) is more meaningful thasn Birds of Indonesia. Maias (talk) 02:21, 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looks like a typical WP:SMALLCAT to me. Zero potential for growth. There has only ever been one Führer of Nazi Germany, and there will ever only be one Führer of Nazi Germany. Nymf (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too small with no growth potential and not necessary. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 14:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what a bizarre case of WP:SMALLCAT, and from a relatively experienced editor. I'd initially thought this was some kind of joke, but apparently not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the creator of this category. WP:SMALLCAT should not apply here. This was created as a subcategory of Category:Heads of state of former countries which lists the heads of states of previous countries. There was no entry on the non-presidential heads of Nazi Germany,so I created on to cover both the title and its holder. Like most of the other subcategories there it is not supposed to expand,just hold the the historic data. Compare Category:Kings of Adiabene (5 articles), Category:Akkadian kings (3 articles), Category:Aq Qoyunlu rulers (3 articles), Category:Bahmani Sultans (4 articles), Category:Sultans of Bijapur (7 articles), Category:Buyeo rulers (4 articles). For historic reasons, they are all small categories. Yet none are seen as unnecessary, much less bizarre. What would make Nazi Germany such an exception. Dimadick (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's only one of them, for starters? It isn't a small grouping like the others - there is no group. He already has an eponymous category and he's in the other categories as pointed out below. But I can see you had a logic for it -- sorry I called it bizarre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed refs to 2 categories in the above comment. DexDor(talk) 21:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DexDor, and a smallcat that has no chance of being either expanded or deemed necessary to make up for lack of other cats, per Shawn in Montreal JarrahTree 07:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvioulsy delete -- Save that Doenitz briefly succeeded Hitler after his suicide, there is no room for expansion beyond one member. Nazi Germany does not consistitute a separate country from Imperial Germany and Weimar Germany: the country was Germany. The subsequent Federal and Democratic republics of 1945-89 need to be treated separately, but we again have a unified Germany. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 29 June 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.
