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:merge. MER-C 09:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I haven't been able to find any articles for the category, so why not get rid of the useless middlemanperson and put the sole category under Category:Circuses?Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge (probably full upmerge). There are 10 items in US subcat, but this is an unnecessary level, with little prospect of gaining siblings. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:14, 8 September 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:rename. MER-C 09:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support (as creator): The term "social security" is certainly used in the UK, and in fact was the name of the former government which managed pensions and benefits. I believe at the time of creation, this category was populated with only actual pension and benefit items, but seems to have later been applied to broader topics related to welfare in Britain, so I have no issue with the category being renamed for consistency and relevance. Same with the U.S. category: this seems to have been applied more broadly than the Social Security Administration.--Canley (talk) 03:30, 6 September 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:Members of the Society of the Plastics Industry[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:merge. MER-C 09:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This is not about members but organisations. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 8 September 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:Members of the Society of Plastics Engineers[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:merge. MER-C 09:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Society memberships do not provide a good basis for a category, so that we should have nothing but a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:17, 8 September 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:delete. – FayenaticLondon 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles. Probably an anachronism. No other similar categories. Not clear whether these two articles are held out as modern or as old fashioned, but both techniques seem to be still in use in the 21st century Rathfelder (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no need to merge, both articles are already in a subcategory of Category:Agriculture. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to make things more fun, of the two articles, one is on something that was in use by at least 1895, and that is only in one specific use and the "first successful" use. Farming techniques here are often broad things, that came about over long periods of time. Neither is limited to the 20th-century, and categorizing a technique like irrigation by every century it is known to have been used (and that is probably not the worst possible example) is a nightmare waiting to happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 14 September 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:rename. MER-C 16:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like unnecessary overcategorization. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, why exactly would this be overcategorization? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No rationale given for the nomination. Dimadick (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but I'd be happy with a rename to Category:Sex- and gender-related slurs. At the moment it looks like the category is about gender-related slurs and sexuality. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes an additional dash would be helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support this rename as grammatically superior. SFB 12:17, 15 September 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:Western State Colorado University alumni[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:rename. MER-C 09:16, 13 September 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.
