Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 7

width = "100%"
style="width:50%; text-align:left;" \| < January 6 ! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" \| January 8 >

width = "100%"

style="width:50%; text-align:left;" | < January 6

! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | January 8 >

= January 7 =

== Category:Rolo Tomassi songs ==

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Rolo Tomassi songs}}

:Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 1 redirect i.e. no song articles. Richhoncho (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Support - per nom. Most of their albums have questionable notability so I don't hold out much hope for their other two singles! Sionk (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Speedy This is effectively empty, WP:C1. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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:The Dillinger Escape Plan songs ==

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|The Dillinger Escape Plan songs}}

:Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 1 redirect i.e. no song articles. Richhoncho (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy This is effectively empty, WP:C1.
Delete Unless there is going to be a guideline to create and categorize redirects for every non-notable song by every music act, this serves no purpose. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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:Carcass songs ==

: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. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Carcass songs}}

:Nominator's rationale: Redirect to deleted category Richhoncho (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete serves no navigation purpose. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete per db-g8. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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:Repulsion (band) songs ==

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Repulsion (band) songs}}

:Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 1 redirect i.e. no song articles. Richhoncho (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy This is effectively empty, WP:C1.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete No navigational benefit for a single redirect back to the band. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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:Wikipedia media files ====

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Wikipedia media files to :Category:Wikipedia files

:Nominator's rationale: Afaics there is no difference in meaning between "media file" and "file". Note: before the proposed upmerge the "See ..." paragraph of the category text should be moved to the target category. DexDor (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Support in this area, all files are media so the intended distinction adds nothing but redundancy. SFB 14:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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:Communist parties in Transnistria==

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:*Proposed merger: :Category:Communist parties in Transnistria into :Category:Political parties in Transnistria.

:Nominator's rationale: I created this category, and looking back, I now feel that it's unnecessary. The articles featured within are also in the main category. Charles Essie (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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:Valid SVG ==

: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 to {{cl|Wikipedia images in SVG format}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Valid SVG to :Category:Wikipedia images in valid SVG format

:Nominator's rationale: This category's current name looks like a content category (it is not clearly a wp administration category). The proposed name would be more consistent with :Category:Wikipedia images available as SVG, :Category:Images that should be in SVG format etc. DexDor (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Rename to Something The category should definitely start with "Wikipedia". No opinion on what comes next.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Rename' to :Category:Wikipedia images in SVG format. Invalid ones should be placed in the maintenance categories which can be a child of this new category. This will by default mean that invalid files are not directly in the cominated category and all contents will be in the valid format. SFB 14:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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:Vietnam War military equipment of Australia ====

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Vietnam War military equipment of Australia to all parents (:Category:Cold War military equipment of Australia and :Category:Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War and :Category:Military equipment of the Vietnam War)

:Nominator's rationale: This category contains just a single subcategory (following this CFD) and there are no equivalent categories for the US etc (i.e. other "Category:Vietnam War military equipment of ..." categories). DexDor (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete This is really just a cleanup item from the earlier nomination. This extra layer of categorization doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Support as not assisting navigation in any meaningful way. While we're here, I also think the needlessly wordy :Category:Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War could be renamed to :Category:Australia in the Vietnam War. SFB 14:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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:Images of 1978 ==

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Images of 1978 to :Category:Images of the 20th century

:Nominator's rationale: This is (afaics) the only "Images of " category in en wp and it only contains a single file (Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg). DexDor (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Support this level of detail is not helping navigation as it stands. As per my previous comments, I think using the year is often not very definitive and further subdivision by genre (e.g. :Category:Images of war in the 20th century) would gather content in a much more useful way. SFB 14:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment there are so many images of the 20th century, surely a division by decade would be necessary just for organizational purposes. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

::En wp does have many thousands of images of the 20th century (e.g. most of the images in :Category:Screenshots of television), but editors have overwhelmingly chosen to categorize images by subject and not by year/decade. DexDor (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

:::The images are just incompletely categorized then, needing additional categorization. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

::::Why do you think these images "need" additional categorization ? - they are already categorized by subject (nature, sport etc) and (where appropriate) by location. Note also that these images only exist in wp so that they can be placed in articles so (unlike on Commons or for wp articles) only editors are expected to be looking at these categories - :Category:Wikipedia images is an administration category. Images could also be categorized by date, but (unless someone is willing to do all the categorization) a largely incomplete category is worse than no category. If we were to categorize images by date then we would also have to consider (for example) how to categorize a photo taken in 2015 of an object (e.g. a building or a portrait) from decades earlier ? DexDor (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::The date a photo was taken can be used to check against copyright expiration. Years that they are taken can also be used to check for event photos of that year, to see if a suitable image exists without needing to upload another. Our images are mostly incompletely categorized, so the existing trees already are incomplete by topic. Thus having a date available would let us have a different method to find appropriate images. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::I agree that the images-by-subject tree is very incomplete (this can be shown by seeing how a sample of random files are categorized), but it does contain tens of thousands of images compared with just 11 in the images-by-time category tree (approx 0.001% of wp images). Images-by-time would be a fine way to categorize images if editor time was available to populate/maintain it, but the evidence indicates that there isn't. DexDor (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::The purpose of the category system does not extend to the technical information on the file relating to copyright expiration. SFB 12:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

== Mexican TV stations by channel number ==

: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: Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Mexican TV stations by channel number}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. As with the radio station categories currently under discussion on the January 3 log, the channel number that a television station happens to be located on is not a useful point of categorization. The substantive purpose of such a grouping would be to help people find a television station if they knew its channel number and location, so such material would be appropriately handled in a list — such lists already exist in {{cl|TV stations by channel number}} — but happening to broadcast on the same channel number is not a useful point of comparison across otherwise unrelated television stations, so it's not an appropriate or defining basis for a category. The value of the lists is the ability to provide additional details (i.e. city of license) to help people find a particular station if they don't know its call sign — but by virtue of its inability to add contextual cues, a category can't help with that. Per the rationale at Category talk:Canadian TV stations by channel number, further, the purpose of the categories was to take content load off the lists for size management purposes — but that's not a valid basis for a category in and of itself under our categorization rules. Accordingly, stations categorized here should be readded to the appropriate lists, and the categories themselves should be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Listify no objection to having this information in a list article but it doesn't aid navigation in the category space. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Listify as content is useful in terms of avoiding confusion between the subjects an delineating regions. Delete category as not suitable for navigation as this is not a definitive feature. SFB 14:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Listify -- I cannot see the purpose of such a category. A list will be much more satisfactory as it can provide further contnet in further columns. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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:Websites blocked in the United Kingdom ==

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Websites blocked in the United Kingdom}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-standard categorization pattern, from what I see there's no parent :Category:Blocked websites by country. Brandmeister^talk 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Keep I'm not sure what use a parent page would do. In the mean time it's a useful page for tracking notable sites blocked. I could probably create a similar one for China and Pakistan if that would standardise things better? Deku-shrub (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:::If you are not sure why categories should have parent categories please read WP:CATEGORY before creating any more categories. Categories should be for permanent characteristics - not for tracking the current status of whether a website is blocked. DexDor (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Delete. We have categories based on more defining characteristics (e.g. websites by country) and categorizing a website by every country that blocks it could add a lot of categories to some articles. Possibly listify. DexDor (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Delete. This is not a defining characteristic of the websites, it can be a transient characteristic which is temporarily true but then becomes untrue again (which is not a useful basis for categorization), and encouraging this could lead to extreme category bloat as some websites are added to similar categories for three or five or ten or twenty different countries simultaneously. Bearcat (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Delete Per Bearcat's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

'Delete as non-defining and temporary, and also non-helpful as a country level division for a non-country-specific concept (cf. avoiding national categories for animals). Content coverage is fine as a list on the article. SFB 14:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

== American TV stations by channel number ==

: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: Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|American TV stations by channel number}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. As with the radio station categories currently under discussion on the January 3 log, the channel number that a television station happens to be located on is not a useful point of categorization. The substantive purpose of such a grouping would be to help people find a television station if they knew its channel number and location, so such material would be appropriately handled in a list — such lists already exist in {{cl|TV stations by channel number}} — but happening to broadcast on the same channel number is not a useful point of comparison across otherwise unrelated television stations, so it's not an appropriate or defining basis for a category. The value of the lists is the ability to provide additional details (i.e. city of license) to help people find a particular station if they don't know its call sign — but by virtue of its inability to add contextual cues, a category can't help with that. Per the rationale at Category talk:Canadian TV stations by channel number, further, the purpose of the categories was to take content load off the lists for size management purposes — but that's not a valid basis for a category in and of itself under our categorization rules. Accordingly, stations categorized here should be readded to the appropriate lists, and the categories themselves should be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Listify no objection to having this information in a list article but it doesn't aid navigation in the category space. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Listify as content is useful in terms of avoiding confusion between the subjects an delineating regions. Delete category as not suitable for navigation as this is not a definitive feature. SFB 14:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep. In addition to the arguments made in the radio station discussion, equivalent templates and disambiguation page content, which might serve as rough substitutes, do not exist for US, Canadian or Mexican TV stations. --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Listify -- I cannot see the purpose of such a category. A list will be much more satisfactory as it can provide further contnet in further columns. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Listify. I'm probably primary recently in contributing to populating these categories, but was doing it as part of other cleanup work because that was established precedent for these articles. Lists make much more sense, and I'm happy to step up and get my hands dirty to do that work if that's the ultimate result. Mlaffs (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Object to including the Channel 6 radio stations category in the mass discussion as that category refers to a specific type of television station (a low-power one that operates primarily for its audio feed), not an indiscriminate listing of all channels occupying a particular frequency. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

== Canadian TV stations by channel number ==

: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: Listify. {{ping|User:Bearcat|Bearcat}}, {{ping|User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect}}, {{ping|User:Sillyfolkboy|SFB}},{{ping|User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron}}, {{ping|User:Mlaffs|Mlaffs}} Lots of work to be done by the community to convert to lists. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Canadian TV stations by channel number}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. As with the radio station categories currently under discussion on the January 3 log, the channel number that a television station happens to be located on is not a useful point of categorization. The substantive purpose of such a grouping would be to help people find a television station if they knew its channel number and location, so such material would be appropriately handled in a list — such lists already exist in {{cl|TV stations by channel number}} — but happening to broadcast on the same channel number is not a useful point of comparison across otherwise unrelated television stations, so it's not an appropriate or defining basis for a category. The value of the lists is the ability to provide additional details (i.e. city of license) to help people find a particular station if they don't know its call sign — but by virtue of its inability to add contextual cues, a category can't help with that. Per the rationale at Category talk:Canadian TV stations by channel number, further, the purpose of the categories was to take content load off the lists for size management purposes — but that's not a valid basis for a category in and of itself under our categorization rules. Accordingly, stations categorized here should be readded to the appropriate lists, and the categories themselves should be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Listify no objection to having this information in a list article but it doesn't aid navigation in the category space. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Listify as content is useful in terms of avoiding confusion between the subjects an delineating regions. Delete category as not suitable for navigation as this is not a definitive feature. SFB 14:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Listify -- I cannot see the purpose of such a category. A list will be much more satisfactory as it can provide furherr contnet in furhther columns. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Listify, per comments on similar nom directly above. Mlaffs (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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:Armstrong Atlantic State University alumni ==

: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. Note that speedy rename nominations are listed at WP:CFDS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Armstrong Atlantic State University alumni to :Category:Armstrong State University alumni

:Nominator's rationale: This is a speedy renaming nomination. Armstrong Atlantic State University renamed itself Armstrong State University in 2014. ...William 15:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:*Speedy per WP:C2D, bringing a category in line with the article. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Rename to relfect the new name of the institution itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

== Unused WikiProject India sub-categories ==

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|High-importance India (architecture) articles}}

{{hidden|List of unused WikiProject India sub-categories - 5 sets and parent categories|headerstyle = background: #ccccff; font-size: 110%;|

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Low-importance India (architecture) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Mid-importance India (architecture) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (architecture) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (architecture) articles of Mid-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (architecture) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (architecture) articles of Low-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (architecture) articles of Mid-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (architecture) articles of Unknown-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Unknown-importance India (architecture) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|High-importance India (school) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|List-Class India (school) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|List-Class India (school) articles of Unknown-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Low-importance India (school) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Mid-importance India (school) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (school) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (school) articles of High-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (school) articles of Mid-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (school) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (school) articles of Mid-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Unknown-importance India (school) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|High-importance India (sports) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Low-importance India (sports) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Mid-importance India (sports) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (sports) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (sports) articles of High-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (sports) articles of Mid-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (sports) articles of Low-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (sports) articles of Mid-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (sports) articles of Unknown-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (sports) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Unknown-importance India (sports) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|High-importance India (railways) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Low-importance India (railways) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Mid-importance India (railways) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (railways) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (railways) articles of High-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (railways) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (railways) articles of Low-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (railways) articles of Mid-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Unknown-importance India (railways) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|High-importance India (religion) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Low-importance India (religion) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Mid-importance India (religion) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (religion) articles‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Start-Class India (religion) articles of Mid-importance‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (religion) articles‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (religion) articles of Low-importance‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Stub-Class India (religion) articles of Mid-importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Unknown-importance India (religion) articles‎}}

:Following can be deleted after above have been deleted

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|WikiProject India (architecture) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|WikiProject India (school) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|WikiProject India (sports) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|WikiProject India (railways) articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|WikiProject India (religion) articles}}

}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories are empty and not likely to be used ever due to alternate names and subprojects. Can be speedily deleted. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have notified of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics as this is really a decision that should be agreed by the project. SFB 14:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Reply {{to|Sillyfolkboy}} - I have been seeing the Template:WikiProject India for many years where the sub-projects have migrated to better naming conventions without the parenthesis (Railways, for example) and others in parenthesis have been dropped (Architecture, Religion, Sports, etc.). Hence these will not be used at all. You can check the template to understand this situation. Please provide support for speedy deletion. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 15:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

== India articles assessed in ((month)) ==

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in October 2006}}

{{hidden|List of India articles assessed in month X - all and parent category|headerstyle = background: #ccccff; font-size: 110%;|

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in November 2006}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in December 2006}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in January 2007}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in February 2007}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in March 2007}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in April 2007}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in May 2007}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in June 2007}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in October 2007}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in November 2007}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in December 2007}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in March 2008}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in April 2008}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in September 2008}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in October 2008}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in November 2008}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in December 2008}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in January 2009}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in April 2009}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in May 2009}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in June 2009}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in July 2009}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in December 2009}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed in March 2010}}

:Following can be deleted after above have been deleted

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|India articles assessed by month}}

}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories are empty and not likely to be used ever. Can be speedily deleted. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.