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.
Object to this combination as these are very different processes. Only the outcome can sometimes appear to look the same. gidonb (talk) 14:59, 6 July 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.
Nominator's rationale: I found this as an ill formed proposal. Because it makes sense, at first glance at least, I fixed it. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The term and category "deities" includes divine beings of both genders, while the term "gods" here is masculine and the category includes only males. Dimadick (talk) 23:09, 26 June 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.
Nominator's rationale: I found this as an ill formed proposal. Because it makes sense, at first glance at least, I fixed it. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 26 June 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.
Category:Literature not translated into English[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.
Category:Sports clubs established before 1850[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 result of the discussion was:delete, making sure that the contents are appropriately placed in an appropriate year-based category for sports club establishments.Good Ol’factory(talk)00:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Manual delete. The nom and RevelationDirect are correct that this is an arbitrary cut-off date. However, deletion should be done manually to ensure that all the category's contents are properly categorised elsewhere, and are not simply stripped of date-based categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A mid-19th century date might have some merit for British sport. Its popularity rose greatly after the limitation on working hours in (I think) 1860s, which gave working men a half days holiday on Saturday afternoons. This means that the 19th century category might be split into 1800-49 and 1850-99, but the normal split after centuries is by decade. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 27 June 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.
Oppose. The nominator hasn't bothered to check the purpose of the category, which is not as he misinterprets it (and this is not the first such error to arise at CFD from the nom's lack of English as a first language). It would appear that the nominator never even looked at Category:Planned cities, because the purpose of the category is made clear there. The nominator also gives no reason for deleting this category while keeping the parent Category:Planned cities and all its subcats. It is depressing to see a nomination like this from someone who is so prolific in CFD participation, and even goes so far as to close CFDs. There is a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While "existing" may not have been the correct opposite word, I don't find much evidence that cities in this category were planned cities, except for Kyoto, but even for Kyoto it doesn't seem like a major descriptor. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article is planned community and it involves the history and foundation of a settlement. As for Kyoto, much of its history is covered on the article of its previous name, Heian-kyō. It explains its foundation as a new capital in 794, the city layout as planned by Emperor Kanmu and his court, and that it was patterned in imitation of Chinese capital Chang'an, with the exception of lacking Chang'an's city walls. Dimadick (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the obvious misinterpretation of "Planned city" by the nominator. However, the listed cities need substantiation by WP:RS in regard to whether they are considered planned cities as a whole. Also, I have no idea what on earth led BHG into attacking the nom so harshly for a forgivable mistake of the kind that has probably happened to anyone of us before. People have different qualifications, strengths and weaknesses. Not being a native speaker is a handicap, no doubt, but not an overriding aspect. While I may disagree with one or the other argument or proposal, all in all, Marcocapelle's nominations have been amongst the best ones lately. --PanchoS (talk) 17:55, 27 June 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.
Relisted at2016 JUL 12 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
