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. The collective term is Romani. The Roma are a sub-group of the Romani people. There are other groups of Romani, such as Sinti and Romanichal, so Romani is a more accurate term. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 01:18, 18 December 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.
Yes, the previous CFD, linked above, did leave the way open to split banknotes from coins. The intended meaning of the parent Category:Mints (currency) is to cover banknote printers as well as coin mints; this is explicit at that CFD. Given this explanation, I hope the above editors will reconsider the "merge" !votes. – FayenaticLondon 23:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's a manual task using WP:HOTCAT; some may be banknote printers too, although I started with the obvious ones already. – FayenaticLondon 23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do the closing admins here have the skills here to recategorise the contents accurately? E.g. Casa da Moeda do Brasil is down as a mint but is also a banknote printer. And which of the Indian or Australian printers are also coiners? Ephebi (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to allow for the reorganisation. - jc37 07:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current category [Coin manufacturers], which is unambiguous, is better than [Mints (currency)], which should not be created. I note that Category:Mints (currency) was just a single suggestion in the last CfD taken out of context of the existing tree. Ephebi (talk) 19:44, 20 December 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 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:Current members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico[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.
Merge back to Members of 29th House ..., which is essentially the same thing. Or do I me3an 28th House ...? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All "Current: X" categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 25 December 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:Delete. Since many jurisdictions have unique film ratings systems, we do not categorize films by what rating they received under any one of the systems. To fully develop such a categorization system would lead to dozens of ratings categories being placed on film articles. To include only the Motion Picture Association of America ratings would be overly centric towards one rating system. Cf previous discussions for X-rated films, R-rated films, Movies Rated PG. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per nom. Different jurisdictions have different ratings, we'd end up with dozens of categories for each internationally released film. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason to have this category unless we have other rating categories, and we have decided to not classify films by rating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list is sufficient for this. --Qetuth (talk) 13:29, 19 December 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: ...what? This is a task performed by admins. Account of creator and sole member of the category is six days old. This should be an obvious delete. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1/G3. If not, delete per jc37. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:40, 20 December 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 into Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists. As FL says all three are also already in Category:Iranian journalists. A disagreement exists about whether this is an unnecessary small category or whether the language is important but I feel that this discussion is enough to show a rough consensus to merge. delldot∇. 23:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This is too fine of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The BBC operates services in a significant number of languages, who are inevitably speakers of the relevant language. They are not necessarily all journalists. I would therefore suggest that, even though it mayn bea small category, we should keep it. We may need similar categories for BBC services in other languages. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:25, 23 December 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:Best Song on MTV Europe Music Awards[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.
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:no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Doctrine and Covenants is a book, or rather a collection of religious documents. We generally do not categorize people for appearing in or being mentioned in a book or other work. These people are generally not notable because they appear in the Doctrine and Covenants—they are notable for some other underlying reason. Virtually every early leader in the Latter Day Saint movement was mentioned in the D&C, so it's also somewhat redundant to other categories for leaders in this movement. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doctrine and Covenants is a) a scripture (to Mormons), and b) an historical document. On both bases, this makes it different to someone's (auto)biography, and from a secular document. It is available in every one of their churches, much as the Bible's available in every other church. It is thus, not the same as Winston Churchill's memoirs, or Mein Kampf, or Miley Cyrus' latest "book".
Also, not everyone who appears in D&C is a Mormon, let alone a church leader.
"We generally do not categorize people for appearing in or being mentioned in a book or other work" - Actually Wikipedia does in numerous cases. There is a whole category for people in the Book of Mormon, no doubt one for the Bible etc.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Book of Mormon people exists because most people believe that most of the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon are not real people. They are notable for being mentioned as people in the Book of Mormon, and not for any other reason. This is not the case with the Doctrine and Covenants—all of the modern people mentioned in it are uncontroversially "real" people, and they are notable for other reasons. The fact that not all people mentioned in the D&C are Mormons only strengthens the argument that this is not defining for those who are mentioned. Jesus is mentioned plenty, as are Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Peter, John the Baptist, the Apostle John, Aaron, Melchizedek, Elijah, Elias, Methuselah, Noah, and on and on. Another problem is that multiple versions of the Doctrine and Covenants exist. Whose version are we going by? The LDS Church's? The Community of Christ's? Many people are mentioned in the CoC version that are not mentioned in the LDS version and vice versa. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make more sense to listify this relationship in a new article? That way we could subdivide into sections for "scriptural" people (people from other standard works), 19th century people common to both LDS & RLDS/CoC editions, mentions exclusive to LDS version of D&C, and mentions of RLDS/CoC people in that version of D&C. One could even merge in material from List of code names in the Doctrine and Covenants as it's own section. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this problem, and it is definitely a valid criticism, but two things should be borne in mind. Firstly, the majority of D&C, is used by almost all LDS groups. Secondly, the mainstream LDS' membership dwarfs the CoC (which is almost non-existent outwith North America bar a handful of branches). I don't wish to belittle the CoC, but I think those folk could be dealt with in another category...--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's also bad protocol to slap a deletion notice on a page with an "in use" template.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's an issue if the deletion proposal is placed on a category and the nominator thinks that the category is inherently flawed. It's not like nominating a poorly sourced article for deletion at AFD, which can be improved with sources as it's worked on. Even if the category was fully populated, my concerns would be the same. There is little sense waiting for more work to be dedicated to populating it if it is going to be deleted. But I apologise anyway, because you felt it was wrong for me to do so. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article should have been listed on the appropriate WikiProjects anyway. How can this be debated properly otherwise.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you underestimate the knowledge of common editors and overestimate the effectiveness of the Latter Day Saint Wikiproject. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Listed this on LDS WP, or tried to, in order to get a more balanced debate.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a historical narrative like other scripture, and none of these people are known only from this work of scripture, which is the reason for having other x scripture people categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is an historical narrative. Biased, perhaps, but still both a scripture and an historical source. Some scriptures do not purport to be historical at all.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Historical—yes. A narrative—no. Each section is a self-standing revelation, letter, or minutes of a meeting. If you try to pick out a historical narrative by reading it cover to cover without background material, you will struggle. For one, there are huge gaps in time between some sections. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for reasons stated above.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:31, 18 December 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:no consensus. We need a firm conclusion on whether an establishment in a historical country applies to the current country, as the decisions are all over the map. But this discussion gives no clear answer.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale to speak of Pakistan before 1947 is anachronistic, to speak of it in 1865 is to use the term before it was even invented. The Lahore Museum was clearly in India, Lahore was clearly in India. It was one of the main places that Rudyard Kipling lived. This is clearly India in 1865 without a doubt. While the 1920s dates to not predate the idea of Pakistan they predate its reality. The country is clearly India at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: the nominator has created these India categories and already started to move pages into them before this move is decided, which confuses the discussion. Also note that there are multiple discussions on [Year Establishments in Country] going at the moment - can we wait until this is decided until moving onto this series. Ephebi (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS proposer has notified WP:India (good) but with a partial one-sided argument so as to WP:STACK the extra participants coming here (bad), and without the context of current on-going dicussions hereEphebi (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, add the India cats as parent cats: this way we cover both the current and the historical situation, people can approach the articles from both directions, from the original historical viewpoint, and from the "where does the current Pakistan come from" point of view. Category:1865 establishments in India located in what is now Pakistan would be an unwieldy method of giving the same information. Fram (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It would also be false. At this point in time, there was no Pakistan so the category should reflect the historic record. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The political entity wasn't there, the geographical region that now is Pakistan obviously was there. Keeping the Pakistan cat but adding the India cat as a parent category does make it clear that at the time, this was in India, while making it also clear that these things are (or were) located in the region that is currently Pakistan. It is the same for categories like Category:Prehistoric France; there was no "France" in prehistory, there is one now. "What happened in the past in a current entity" is quite a normal question and the topic of many books. Our article History of the United States starts with "The history of the United States as covered in American schools and universities typically begins with either Christopher Columbus's 1492 voyage to the Americas or with the prehistory of the Native peoples, with the latter approach having become increasingly common in recent decades". So it doesn't start in 1776, even though the country only starts then. Similarly, the history of Pakistan doesn't only start in 1947, as can be seen in History of Pakistan. So why shouldn't our categories reflect the same reality? Fram (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Couple things here. 1, what did the people back in Prehistory call the area we now know as France? We don't know. We do know what people in 1865 called this particular area, they called it India. Ergo, the category should reflect the political reality of the time. 2, The reason why this approach should be preferred is a good question. First, it does not change. Borders change, and with a change in borders, that would mean each of these categories would need to be changed and revised. This way, they don't ever need to be changed and revise, each of them represent a historical fact - that this was the situation at that particular point in time, which does not change. Two, we shouldn't be applying historical anachronisms. That goes just as much for the US as for elsewhere. We are working at revising the American articles to reflect the political realities of their respective times, and not reading back into them the situation of the present. This would also apply to East Pakistan, FWIW, so it doesn't just work one way. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the borders change, which doesn't happen that often anyway, all the articles in those categories need to be edited anyway, since they usually have a reference to "Pakistan" in the text anyway ("X, in city Y, currently in Pakistan"). Having then to change the categories as well isn't such a big problem that it whould count in whether we should have them now or not (assuming that the borders change again, all post-1947 cats should be changed as well, adding those from before that time really won't make that much of a difference). Fram (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars shows the borders are undefined. Anyway, no one called in Pakistan. No one had envisioned Pakistan in 1865. It is an ahisotical and false notion. In 1865 there was no way to pick out an area of Pakistan, because there was one Bengal, one Punjab and several other factors. Anyway are you going to be retroactively applying 1960 Pakistan, which was more or less the country envisioned by the founders, or 2010 Pakistan, which is a rump state deprived of one of its main components, East Bengal? The whole idea of retroactively applying Pakistan does not work. Anyway the Lahore Museum is clearly an institution in India. What next, are we going to try calling an 1865 establishment in Konigsberg something established in Russia? When Konigsburg was clearly in Germany at the time, and clearly not in Russia, I do not think that will work. We solve lots of problems by applying these categories based on the geography. It makes no sense to have a category for things established in Pakistan 11 years before Muhammad Ali Jinnah was born. In fact in the article Pakistan Movement we read "The idea of a separate state had first been introduced by Allama Iqbal in his speech in December 1930 as the President of the Muslim League". So these categories predate the introduction of even the idea of a state of Pakistan. The name Pakistan is not even proposed until 1933. In 1865 the place is India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument here and in other categories is that where we have a clear x happening in y year, we should pay attention to the reality in y year. This is a very different issue than how to treat categories that retroactively look at an area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there seriously no precedent or guideline for this somewhere? I'd really imagine that at some point this would've been hashed out over the last decade. For what it's worth, if you look at Category:1776 in the United States, you notice the "years" bar for the US goes back to 1774, but no further. So in that particular case they seem to have made a decision. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. He forgot to tell you about the Manual of Style: WP:MODERNPLACENAME directs us to use the modern name, although the context should be appropriate. It concedes there are disagreements about historic names. These subjects come up at CfD occasionally but if they get picked off one at a time then often it results in a shallow discussion. There are two ways of looking at this category - 1) if you are in Pakistan (today) you can visit the Lahore Museum which was founded in 1865 or 2) the Lahore Museum was founded in 1865 in (what was) Pakistan. Neither view is perfect, and editors are choosing different interpretations, both equally valid. (Just don't think that the choice is about someone trying to 'claim' an institution for one country over another.) Which interpretation is more useful? A discussion is already going here. Ephebi (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge carefully India was not a single polity - there was the Raj and lots of little princely states. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except all the things that are in these categories were clearly in India. Even the princely states would probably count as India. However the things involved her clearly do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I appreciate that with the Cold War between India and Pakistan ongoing, calling them Indian is guaranteed to upset them. Perhaps a good compromise would be to name it after the official name of the territories at the time... i.e. "establishments in Punjab", or "establishments in British India" etc.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The place was without question India in 1865 or 1926. That is an undisputed fact. The name Pakistan was not even proposed until 1933, and the state division not until 1930, so there is no way to object to the merging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "undisputed fact". In fact, it's highly contentious. Couldn't it be called "British India" or something like that to distinguish it from the modern state which is an entirely new entity?--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per precedent, and look for places to paste links to the precedents. – FayenaticLondon 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added 6 head categories for deletion into this nomination, as they will become empty if the mergers go ahead, and 4 more that are very similar (and unnecessary as the contents are already categorised by years in India). – FayenaticLondon 23:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support fully the additions to the nomination. Putting the artcle 1873 in India into a Pakistan category is just bizarre retroactive re-writing of history. Using boundaries and names of the year involved is the only way to create stability for the encyclopedia over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only: There are parallel issues with 'people from <placethatdidnotexistthen>' categories even including the 1974-created English counties. So any decision here may be creating a precedent for other categories. S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a clear statement on Category:Turkish writers that the category is limited to people connected with the modern nation-state of that name. However the issues there are slightly different. I am not sure we have ever decided what to do about sub-national entities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only: Although the category talks about a time when Pakistan did not exist, pre-independence in 1947 and India did. We also need to consider it in the light of the current reality of two countries existing. The article is being read today. I would therefore suggest clubbing these into British India rather than either India or Pakistan. If it is known that the establishment was then in a princely state, a new category with respect to that princely state could be created? Prad2609 (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all [xxxx establishments in Pakistan]]. Merge all [xxxx in Pakistan] to [xxxx in India] (or possibly delete if these only apply to establishments, not to political activities). The interpretation of year and country means different things for these two types of category. Ephebi (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That distinction could be implemented. The [xxxx establishments in Pakistan] categories currently use a template which makes them automatically members of [xxxx in Pakistan], as the template includes standardised head categories; in cases like that we could instead build the category page manually, if people think it is desirable. However, as Category:Establishments in Pakistan by year is part of Category:Events in Pakistan, I think it should only start from Partition. Note that there are no categories for establishments by city, only by country, so we do not have to worry about parents for e.g. "establishments in Lahore in 1873". – FayenaticLondon 11:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We might at some point want a category like Category:1865 establishments in Punjab, but even that is not needed at this point. The things were established in India. That is where they were when they were established.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but not directly to a category for India, which Pakistani perople may consider offensive, as implying that their republic is part of the present India. We need to find a term that is acceptable to both Inida and Pakistan for the preceding polity, ruled by a British viceroy. I would suggest that this should be British India or the Indian Raj. Category:1865 establishments in British India and Category:1865 establishments in the Indian Raj are possible targets. Strictly, this ought not to include princely states, becasue they were (at least in theory) independent states whose relations with the Raj were regulated by treaty. Certainly we cannot have pre-1947 categories for Pakistan, but equally it would be offensive to Pakistani sensibilities to put them in a (plain) India category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 23 December 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:Merge. Single article category, the article itself of dubious notability. No prejudice to re-creation should there suddenly be a run on Pobol y Cwm character articles. Buck Winston (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm amazed that there aren't more people in it. Pobol y Cwm is quite iconic in Wales.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We do not normally have articles on individual characters in modern drama. They normally either get merged back to the article on the drama or to an article listing the characters. The result is that we get a category almost entirely of redirects, which leads to the category beinhg deleted. The nom is probably the best solution for the moment, but the subject needs to be deleted and a comment about why placed on relevant talk pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 23 December 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:Merge. Single-item category with no chance of expansion. The article is already well-categorized except as a sitcom character, which is why that proposed merge target. Buck Winston (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We do not normally have articles on individual characters in modern drama. They normally either get merged back to the article on the drama or to an article listing the characters. The result is that we get a category almost entirely of redirects, which leads to the category beinhg deleted. The nom is probably the best solution for the moment, but the subject needs to be deleted and a comment about why placed on relevant talk pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 23 December 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. Although the nom was a blocked sock, it looks from the rest of the participants like there's consensus to merge Category:CTU agents to Category:24 (TV series) characters. Decisions to merge and redirect the articles in these categories can take place through ongoing discussions. delldot∇. 06:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Categorizing five fictional characters by the fictional agency for which they work is overcategorization. They can live happily in the 24 characters category. Buck Winston (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge the parent is quite small so this extra level of categorization just isolates five articles and does more harm than good. Pichpich (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- First merge all articles into the character list article for the series, or at least one for CTU (there in fact appear already to be two articles on the series already). Ultimately the objective should be to have one list article on the series (or perhaps a few of them), which can be linked through a navbox. When that is achieved, even the tsarget can be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:03, 23 December 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:upmerge. Although the nom is a blocked sock, the other contributors seem to have a consensus to upmerge based on relevant guidelines. delldot∇. 06:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- We do not normally have articles on individual characters in modern drama. They normally either get merged back to the article on the drama or to an article listing the characters. The result is that we get a category almost entirely of redirects, which leads to the category being deleted. WE are beyondf that stage here. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 23 December 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:The Animals of Farthing Wood characters[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.
Delete -- We do not normally have articles on individual characters in modern drama. They normally either get merged back to the article on the drama or to an article listing the characters. The result is that we get a category almost entirely of redirects, which leads to the category being deleted. This is the stage we have reached here. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 23 December 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.
