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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:DATERANGE for non-consecutive years. There is 1 potential caveat there ("in certain topic areas if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention of reliable sources"), to which, a) I don't see any good reason to keep the abbreviated year, and b) I only found RS examples which use the full year (i.e. 1, 2, 3). This specific case is not explicitly addressed in WP:NCDURATION, but is instead linked to MOS:DATERANGE.
The RFC closure includes: "A limited number of exceptions apply to this. Firstly, when space is at a premium, such as in tables or infoboxes, 2 year date styles may be used." It might be argued that this applies as someone like Ian Paisley is in a lot of these categories. Oculi (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By that metric, Éamon de Valera is the most popular, belonging to 21 of these categories, and Ian Paisley is a close 3rd at 19. There are 356 pages belonging to more than 10 cats (using 1/2 max as a not-too-arbitrary cutoff), which is 0.76% of the 47,098 unique articles (depth = 4). Abel Smith (1829–1898), for example, belongs to 10. Are you suggesting we go against the MOS because of this small %, and small #, of articles, nevermind the fact that categories have nothing to do with "tables [n]or infoboxes"? ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 01:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:DATERANGE. None of the 3 exceptions listed in the guideline apply here. --Gonnym (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done - added 4 newly created categories. Pinging all creators @FoxyGrampa75, Ehlla, and Concus Cretus: if you create more categories before this CfD concludes, please add them to the list yourself. Or, it might be easier to hold off creating categories of this type until then. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:07, 1 June 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nonsense category. "Spirituality" is already an immensely broad topic, which includes philosophical issues. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per most of the nominator's own rationale. If it really is 'an immensely broad topic, which includes philosophical issues', that seems like a good reason for having a more precise category, so readers don't have to wade through articles dealing mainly with non-philosophical aspects of spirituality (whatever those might be). However my Oppose is Weak mainly because I'm not all that interested in the issue. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note: of the 3 articles currently in the category one obviously doesn't belong (Y doesn't belong in Category:X-of-Y) and the other two articles are in many other categories. DexDor(talk) 08:34, 1 June 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:speedy delete. Clearly not appropriate Jac16888Talk 20:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a legitimate Wikipedia category, but on its creator's own terms, it was set up for users to propose changes for Minecraft Wiki (a nonexistent page). Such discussions belong in talk pages, not category pages. Moreover, the page is full of code that is atypical of category pages, and has a Fostered Content lint error. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:00, 29 May 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.
Done - added 4 newly created categories. Pinging all creators @FoxyGrampa75, Ehlla, and Concus Cretus: if you create more categories before this CfD concludes, please add them to the list yourself. Or, it might be easier to hold off creating categories of this type until then. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)