Category:Buildings and structures in Hodonín[edit]
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.
Merge per nom. Hodonín has a populated of under 30,000 people, which it too small to need multiple categories. (I am not saying we should not keep "people from" it). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2019 (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:Buildings and structures in Ghardaïa[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 article in the category and only a few in both parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2019 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Not all the articles are about days, but there aren't enough awareness months to justify a separate category Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2019 (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:2016 murders in Denmark, 2016 murders in Turkey, 2018 murders in Iraq, Category:2018 murders in Pakistan, Category:2019 murders in Pakistan, Category:March 2016 Istanbul bombing[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Most countries do not justify a "murders by year" category; although it does as here require an upmerge to three categories (four for Turkey); Denmark, Iraq and Turkey have only one subcategory for murders by year, while Pakistan has two. Hugo999 (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree in relation to cats which have very few articles in them, such as 16 murders in Denmark & 18 murders in Iraq, but not in relation to those which have several articles. The 16 in Turkey & 18 in Pakistan cats easily have enough articles for those cats to be justified. The 19 in Pakistan cat should also be kept as it will almost certainly soon have more articles in it. Jim Michael (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would agree to retaining the 2010s categories by year for Pakistan and Turkey, but with additional categories by year for the 2010s, so that new articles for Turkey in 2018 or 2019 (say) would go immediately into a by-year category. And consider deleting category Category:March 2016 Istanbul bombing which contains one article with the same title and apparently the same categories (add any missing to the article). Hugo999 (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 16 is probably the only year in Turkey which has enough articles for a Murder by year cat. I agree with deleting the March 16 Istanbul cat, because there's no point in having a cat which only has one article in it. Jim Michael (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the first 3 only have one article in each of them & are unlikely to have any other articles in them in the future. Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2019 (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:withdrawn. – FayenaticLondon 17:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains only 2 items. Merge only the article, not the sub-cat which is already within other sub-cats. – FayenaticLondon 11:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a synagogue too. Withdrawn. – FayenaticLondon 17:23, 27 March 2019 (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:Congregational churches in Cambridge[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article, which is already categorised within the sibling Category:United Reformed churches in Cambridge. There may be scope to expand the category for the county, but no need to keep this one for the city. – FayenaticLondon 11:24, 27 March 2019 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer, each containing only one sub-cat. – FayenaticLondon 11:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much needed removal of extra layers in the religion tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2019 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories; the categories for Harlow district are just called Harlow. – FayenaticLondon 12:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much needed removal of extra layers in the religion tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2019 (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:Procedural close until this RFC is closed. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 15:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other sub categories of Category:Organizations by continent. No reason to be concerned about local spelling usage for a continental category. Rathfelder (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, consistent spelling for categories that have no WP:ENGVAR issues. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aside from one university in one country, who in Europe uses "organizations"? Several European jurisdictions (one very large and important) use English as a primary language, and they all use "organisations", and the language has very heavy use in many of the others; see chart at right, which notes that the majority of residents of nine countries (excluding former British colonies) claim to speak English, and most of them will have learnt British English, not a variety using "organizations". This is not South America, with only one small country using English primarily and the rest having minimal use for it. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On a personal note, I belong to the >80% of Dutch people who learned English at school. Contrary to what is stated, we did not learn British English, but we learned (some of) the differences between British English and American English, with the advice to use BE in conversations with British people and AE with American people. Here at en.wp I am still doing my best using "surely" in discussions with American editors and "certainly" in discussions with British or Irish editors - although I can't promise 100% accuracy. There are Dutch schools specifically advertising that they teach Cambridge English, e.g. [1], however they are exceptions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the differences between forms of English across the world the different spellings of organization is probably one of the last things any teacher of English is going to bother about. All this fuss is a completely misguided attack on what is seen as American linguistic imperialism. Rathfelder (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend backup/Nyttend you wrote see chart at right, which notes that the majority of residents of nine countries (excluding former British colonies) claim to speak English, and most of them will have learnt British English, not a variety using "organizations".
The chart itself says precisely nothing about what variant of English those people learn. The chat's description page links to http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf, and I found nothing there about which variant of English was used. If I missed something, please point me to the correct age number. Or is your statement about those people learning British English just an unevidenced assumption? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RFC. I have opened an RFC about whether to standardise on the "Z" spelling in descriptive category names, i.e. to use "Organization" in all cases. I estimate that this affects the naming of about ten thousand categories.
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 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:Recipients of the National Service Medal (Norway)[edit]
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 National Service Medal (Norway) main article said that everyone who served 18 months national services automatically recieves this award. It also says that such 18 months of service was mandatory. Of all the award categories I've nominated over the years, this is hands down the most ludicrous! - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
D-E-L-E-T-E - I.am.speechless. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is clearly a NN award. We discourage categories even for campaign medals (or stars), and this is much worse. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2019 (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:New Zealand Business Hall of Fame inductees[edit]
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.
Wikipedia doesn't have a main article for the New Zealand Business Hall of Fame but their web site is here. It's an annual dinner that gives awards to 8 or so people a year. Several of the articles in the category mentione the award in the lede but without exception that was added by the creator of this category. This event doesn't seem defining to the individual biography articles but it would be good as a list article. Normally I list the winners in the main article but I put them here on the creator's talk page so no work is lost. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- OCAWARDS clearly applies. Listify if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2019 (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.
