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 and delete as nominated. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Criteria for inclusion seems subjective and nebulous, and insufficently defining to be split off from the main category here. In the case of the second, all the contents are already categorised in the main category. The BushrangerOne ping only 23:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You're saying that the Fantasy genre is subjective? You don't say. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, that the way the "Fantasy societal" genre is defined in relation to "Fantasy" alone leaves a lot to be desired (and is somewhat weasel-wordy too). - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neutral comment. I am staying neutral in this. However, I did support this sub-category previously, because the MMORPG categories seemed fairly nebulous, so this sub-category seemed like one possible way to refine these categories. I set up the "societal" sub-category in order to distinguish fantasy MMORPGs which have a fully-realized society, as opposed to those which simply utilize fantasy characters without providing a full societal setting. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And hello WP:OR... - jc37 04:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point - you can't refine them. There is no such thing as a "societal MMORPG" as a genre. - The BushrangerOne ping only 05:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The definition of the parent is clear, the daughter cat can neither easily be distinguished nor is it clear this is a real-world method of subdividing the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and delete both as too vague and insufficiently defining. Robofish (talk) 21:22, 16 July 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.
There are hardly any other categories combining film and theatre, and this one was created in 2004 long before its sub-cats. The contents were split into Category:Jewish film and Category:Jewish culture starting in 2009. Since that split was finished, the original 2004 category is no longer needed.
After this proposal, there will be one-step navigation between each of those three categories, which is better than the two-step navigation at the moment (up to the nominated category and then down to another sub-cat).
Although the three sub-cats are all about acting, there is no lead article for Jewish acting. Moreover, it is more common to categorise "Film & television" together, as television is also a medium that has actors, but Category:Jewish television has been left out of this category.
This is a re-nomination following CFD June 14 which became confused. I am making this fresh nomination at the suggestion of the original creator of the category. – FayenaticLondon 21:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, provided all the Restructuring is also done, for the reasons given by the nominator. Nothing is lost and everything is improved. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:00, 18 June 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:Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per naming conventions, this category should not be using the abbreviation "MLB" but the full name. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 17 June 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: Only two articles and two subcats., eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 17 June 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: Redlink artist —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a duo formed by the leaders of The Guess Who and Bachman-Turner Overdrive, and while there is no article for their collaboration, the two themselves are quite noteworthy. (See Burton_Cummings#Bachman-Cummings.) Also, every album article should have an artist category, regardless of whether the artist has an article.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Pending creation of the redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 19 June 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: Only a main article and two subcats, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:40, 17 June 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: Only two articles other than the main and one subcat. This is all navigated with a footer and eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this was kept when there was no consensus at this bulk nomination in 2010, but named even then as one that could be singled out for deletion. I have added the template and the Wikipedia book to the category, but nevertheless agree that the navbox template suffices for navigation. – FayenaticLondon 16:25, 18 June 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:Campaigns and theatres of World War II[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:09, 19 June 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: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as ambiguous, see Restorationism (disambiguation). Ambiguous terms can have an article located according to the primary meaning, but categories should generally be more specific. In this case I would question whether there is clearly a primary meaning, and if not then the main article ought to be moved, but even if that stays put, I still oppose moving a category to such an ambiguous term. – FayenaticLondon 16:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the current term is more clear, the alternative is not as clearly religious in nature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 28 June 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: I think this one, if the description in the subcat is anything to go by, is for articles that are subjects in Pliny's Naturalis Historia. This is an unnecessary level of categorisation. Do you think whatever replaces Wikipedia in 2000 years will have a category for all the articles covered by Wikipedia?. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For several reasons. 1, any natural historian is concerned about what was known and when. Knowing the extent of Pliny's Natural Historia is crucial to an understanding of the advance of natural sciences over the ages. 2, yes, any successor to Wikipedia will incorporate and revise the information contained within Wikipedia. This is how most encyclopedias work, they build and expand on the previous work. 3, this is another example of a very interesting (and to me, useful), category that represents the work that wikipedia should be doing. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We generally do not categorize articles for appearing as topics in particular works, as here. This would be much better dealt with by a list that sets out the various topics discussed in Naturalis Historia. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete to preserve the info in the form that is generally accepted here. – FayenaticLondon 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly listifying). Placing a category on an article that does not mention the subject of the category is a misuse of the category system. It is like a performace by performer category: the place performed by beign dealt with in the book. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do we even have an article on this encyclopedia? Naturalis Historia Encyclopedia is a redlink and has no deleted revisions in the database. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with option to listify. The key issue here is that categorization should follow mention in articles, and if we have a place where mass categorization has occured without mention in articles that is a sure sign that the connection is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 5 July 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.
