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.
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:Delete. Non-standard category not used by any other country that seems to be attracting a bit of a ragbag of articles that are better sorted in other existing categories. Le Deluge (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Besides inappropriate grammar (not plural), the two articles are adequately categorised as private universities ion Bangladesh. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:17, 25 March 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.
Nominator's rationale: I'm 50:50 whether this should be kept or not, but I felt it needed discussion. It's a stub category that was created out of process by User:Arteronyl to reflect the creation of the Metropolis of Lyon when it was carved out of Rhône département earlier this year. The general rule is that French départements have their own stub types, but MoL has a special status as a territorial collectivity. This means that it's effectively treated as a separate département but for instance it has retained its old département number which it now shares with Rhône (69). It's a real grey area - I can see arguments both ways. At present there's only one article in there. Le Deluge (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's kind of the point, this is not just about this particular stub category but a deeper question about the whole status of Metropolis of Lyon on Wikipedia. It should have a permcat regardless, as it is a highly significant administrative entity - it's just one that's a few weeks old so noone has got round to it yet. It doesn't have a stub tag because it was created out of process - but that doesn't mean it won't in future, I've invited the stub guys to comment here. Perhaps the closest equivalent would be to imagine if Washington DC was carved out of Maryland today, but kept all the Maryland administration like MD postal addresses, MD number plates and so on. DC would not be a state either technically or in many administrative respects - and it would certainly be less work for Wikipedia to treat it as a subset of Maryland - but I suspect purists would argue that DC deserved its own hierarchy and stub types on Wikipedia.Le Deluge (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The way to go about this is first to create and populate a permcat, and then deal with the stub category. Although I wouldn't stop the user from doing both at the same time, creating a malformed stub category, without a stub tag, and populating it directly without also creating and populating a permcat isn't acceptable. To take your analogy, imagine that DC were actually going to become a fully separate state-level entity over the course of a decade; at which point would it deserve a stub category of its own? Hard to tell. However, a permcat structure would certainly need to precede a stub cat structure. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu15:14, 25 March 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.
Nominator's rationale: Reciprocating engines is the industry standard for the referencing of Internal Combustion Engines with pistons and more accurately portrays their operation, i.e. the reciprocating motion of a piston. Aron Pye (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original is correct, the proposed title would have an obvious and serious overlap with steam engines, which isn't what's needed at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 24 March 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 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.
Keep – looking at say Category:18th century the usual standard does not include the extra 'Years of the'. Moreover there are 3 subcats and about 29 top-level articles which are nothing to do with years. Oculi (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@OccultZone: Can you explain the benefit of this change? Would the more concise and broad "16th century in music" be repurposed for something else? If not, I don't really see any benefit. SFB18:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tidy up -- The "years" articles are cluttering this category, especially as a lot of them (before 1550) are redirects to a decade article. There seems to be enough content after 1550 to have decade categories (two already exist). However there is significnat content in the category that is about the century as a whole. The change that is needed to recategorise the years by decade and to delete the redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:26, 25 March 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 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.
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.
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:Kosovo building and structure stubs[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 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.
Oppose per the article title, but happy to support the change if the article is moved. There is no reason why the two shouldn't match, or any benefit to such a change. SFB18:39, 24 March 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.
