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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: AIDS articles have been migrating to HIV/AIDS where appropriate. I just completed the move from AIDS denialism to HIV/AIDS denialism as it fits the bill. This is the parent article for this category, so the category should match. — Scientizzle 13:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the main article is HIV/AIDS and the main category is Category:HIV/AIDS, I think Category:HIV/AIDS denialism is better for consistency. "HIV/AIDS" is a commonly-used term in the scientific & medical literature[1] and we have multiple sources that use it cited in this family of articles. — Scientizzle 14:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Support. Keφr (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per main article and parent category. jonkerz♠talk 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the main aritcle is actually HIV/AIDS denialism. The article on denialism is clearly the main article to this category, not the article on the disease.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is this aside relevant? The question is whether the category should say "HIV/AIDS" or "AIDS". HIV/AIDS denialism happens to fall in that Venn diagram between HIV/AIDS & denialism and the topic wouldn't exist without either of the "parent" topics. Do you have an opinion on the category rename? — Scientizzle 12:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because categories should, as a rule, conform to their main article's name unless there is good reason otherwise, and, this, as the main article uses both terms, the category should as well. - The BushrangerOne ping only 17:56, 4 September 2012 (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:Businesspeople in the insurance 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename all for clarity and to fit the most commonly used format in Category:Businesspeople by industry, which is "businesspeople in foo". The current format of "businesspeople in the foo industry" merely adds two redundant words. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 30 August 2012 (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: Overcategorization--eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an eponymous category - it is a category named after a TV series. Of which there are more than a few, including just for NBC. There should be a WP:BEFORE for cat deletion that says 'before nominating a category that isn't categorised, check to see if there's a tree it fits in'. - The BushrangerOne ping only 05:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response By saying this isn't an eponymous category, you are justifying the creation of a category for every television series or media franchise which may contain only its main article. Surely you don't think we should have Category:Cop Rock, do you? Since this is only categorized under a hidden Wikipedia category, it's functionally eponymous, just like (e.g.) Category:Bono is an eponymous category under the structure Category:Wikipedia categories named after Irish musicians—it's not categorized under any non-hidden navigation scheme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but for those that have five articles, it's perfectly alright. And what do yo umean "only categorised under a hidden Wikipedia category"? Category:NBC network shows is not a hidden category. - The BushrangerOne ping only 11:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Well, youadded that categoryafter I left the CfD nom... The five articles are pretty well inter-linked and one of them is tangentially related. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did - hence my aside above about checking uncategorised categories for logical parents. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is a borderline case. I don't think the Joan Jet song really belongs in that category so we would be left with just four articles that are fairly well inter-connected. As far as I'm concerned, that's too thin. Nevertheless, keeping the category wouldn't be wildly incongruous. Pichpich (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is an eponymous category, that is a category named after something. It is too small and its contents too inter-related to justify its existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - On one hand, the common thought is that these kinds of things are easily navigated by the main article. But since there are so many sub-pages to the main article (split/separate content per WP:SS), I can see the merit in keeping this as an eponymous cat. Incidentally, I removed the Joan Jett song from the cat, as I don't believe we categorise songs by TV shows they may appear in, any more than we categorise actors that way. - jc37 20:02, 6 September 2012 (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:Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "Raging Rhinos" and "Rhinos" are, in fact, the same team, but with different names at different times. While the subcats are appropriately named for their league/name/time combinations, the main players categories should probably be merged. The BushrangerOne ping only 03:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge we put all incarnations of a team under its current or most recent name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2012 (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:WP:OC - MLS team executives do not have individual by-team categories. The BushrangerOne ping only 03:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there is no tree for breaking out the executives in Major League Soccer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2012 (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:Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The standard for sports teams (among other entities) that are renamed, that have no significant changes other than the name, is to have a single category under the current team name. The New York/New Jersey MetroStars (making the category name erronious to start with) were bought by Red Bull and renamed the New York Red Bulls in 2006. As the team continuity, apart from ownership and branding, was unchanged, the presence of seperate categories for the MetroStars and the Red Bulls is redundant categorisation - note that there is already only one category for the team's seasons - and the MetroStars' categories should be merged into the Red Bulls'. The BushrangerOne ping only 03:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added merge noms for 'stragglers' from the Dallas Burn > FC Dallas (2005), Kansas City Wizards > Sporting Kansas City (2010), and San Jose Clash > San Jose Earthquakes (2005-2008, hiatus but officially the same franchise) name changes. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge using the current/most recent names for the team is the accepted standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2012 (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:Merge/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. One-article category that has little chance of expansion, is not part of a category tree (is the only by-team subcat of Category:Major League Soccer stadiums) and in fact already has its sole article already correctly categorised under its parent. (Plus the team it is named after changed its name in 2010 to Sporting Kansas City.) The BushrangerOne ping only 02:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't really get the difference between a merge and a delete, but this category should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT and the article(s) should insted be listed in Category:Sporting Kansas City. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A straight delete simply removes the category from the article. A merge moves the article(s) to the new category and deletes the old one afterwards. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:35, 1 September 2012 (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:Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't really get the difference between a merge and a delete, but this category should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT and the article(s) should insted be listed in Category:D.C. United seasons. As a matter of fact, I don't get the point of having three different articles for one single season, but that's another discussion. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A straight delete simply removes the category from the article. A merge moves the article(s) to the new category and deletes the old one afterwards. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there is nothing special about 2011 to give it a seperate cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2012 (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.
Author Comment I'd go along with merging them into the more generic People from Erie category. After all, they weren't mayors and shouldn't be listed under that category. The status quo would be my preference, but I'll bend to the group if a majority thinks the category must be exterminated. Ultimately, there is a finite number of these burgesses, so two burgess articles, while admittedly few, is actually a rather high ratio of the total. Compare it, say, to the ratio of total mayor articles vs the total number of mayors. It might be an interesting calculation in support of keeping the category. I'm of the opinion that it isn't unreasonable to expect someone to write a biographical article about one of the burgesses sooner or later, so the category might serve us yet. But whatever you think is best. Pnoble805 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, they weren't mayors, per se, but they held the same office as the office that was later renamed Mayor - consensus is in that case is that the should be categorised under the most recent name of the office, regardless of what the office's name was at the time they were officeholders - see, for instance, Category:Los Angeles City Controllers, which includes both Los Angeles City Auditors (pre-1925) and Los Angeles City Controllers (post-1925); different names, same office, one cat. - The BushrangerOne ping only 11:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to mayors. The fact that the title was "burgess" before 1850 can be dealt with in a category head note. The office of burgess and that of mayor would appear to be similar. With a population of over 100,000, Erie is probably big enough to warrant having a mayor category. With alumni categories, we put the graduates of a predecessor in the category for the successor. This can usefully be extended to a change in the title of the office. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to mayors. The use of burgess here is suitable for Erie, but the term can encompass councilors and representatives as well as executive officials. It is clearer to use the modern equivalent, mayor.- choster (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to parents. The fact that mayor is not the current title used in Erie means that this will never be a workable category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, you mean that because Mayor and not Burgess is the current title? - The BushrangerOne ping only 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to say "burgess is not the current title".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2012 (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 Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)