Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 28 March 30 >

March 29[edit]

Category:American aviation films[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: keep. The nominator mentions a number of miscategorised articles, which can be dealt with through normal editorial decisions. If the result of fixing the miscategorisations significantly alters the viability of the category, feel free to promptly renominate this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American aviation films to Category:Aviation films and Category:American films
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a minor intersection compared to some other subcategories of Category:American films by genre, and also a somewhat nebulously defined one. Is Independence Day -really- an aviation film? Team America: World Police? Really? Best, I think, to have this upmerged to its parents, and the films in it (properly) categorised in both if and as necessary. The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category has 40 entries. The parent category has over 600 entries. Subdividing genres by nation tto which their production is connected is an established practice when you get this large of a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that part of the problem is that a series of IP accounts has been reverting the diffusion of documentary films about aviation, for no good reason, despite requests not to do so. So fwiw, there's about 50 articles in Category:Aviation films that should not even be there. Shawn in Montreal (talk)
  • Comment - I dunno. I'm looking over Category:American films by genre, and this would seem similar to more than a few other subcats. - jc37 02:01, 6 April 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.

Racing teams[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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Formula One entrants to Category:Formula One teams
Propose renaming Category:Formula Two entrants to Category:Formula Two teams
Propose renaming Category:FIA Sportscar Championship entrants to Category:FIA Sportscar Championship teams
Nominator's rationale: These moves would conform to the remainder of Category:Auto racing teams by series. An earlier speedy move of some others sparked discussion that leaned torwards "teams" as being preferred for all, but wasn't 100% conclusive, so I'm nominating these for full discussion. The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I missed those. I still believe that changing these to "teams" and moving individuals to "Fooseries people" would make more sense, but hopefully others will chime in with their opinions. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- but purge of individuals, whos should be categoried as "Formula one drivers" or some other category, according to their role. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This happened to the Can-Am series and I ended up both supporting and opposing it there (I guess the nominators rationale was partially my fault :/ ), but I think much more fleshed out categories like Formula 1 this isn't a good idea. Mainly due to the fact that not everyone who enters Formula 1 (especially in the early years) counts a team. If you change the category to team we'll have to remove the other entrants who don't qualify and then leave them without a proper category or a new set of sparsely populated categories that will probably end up being nominated for deletion themselves. --Sabre ball t c 19:19, 30 March 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:Tier 1b[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: *Rename to Category:Tier 1b program per current convention. Feel free to renom for a more expanded name. - jc37 04:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tier 1b to Category:Tier 1b program
Nominator's rationale: Another situation where the name of the category should deviate from the main article name for clarity and disambiguation. Just "Tier 1b" is rather unexplanatory and ambiguous, and as part of the tree at Category:Human spaceflight programmes, including "program" fits the established pattern of the tree as well. The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 29 March 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:Environmental issues with conservation[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: rename to Category:Environmental conservation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Environmental issues with conservation to Category:Conservation issues
Nominator's rationale: As the editor that created this category I am not happy with the name. It is a sort of "ugly" roundabout way of saying "conservation issue". It is sort of like a double negative but in this case it is a negative cancelling out a positive! Renaming it will make it match Category:Environmental issues and List of conservation issues, and a potential Conservation issue article. Is a speedy rename possible here or shall we wait for 10,000 editors to put in their 2 cents worth? (...that would make it worth $200.) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:38, 29 March 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:T. Damodaran[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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:T. Damodaran to Category:Screenplays by T. Damodaran
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is categorizing films that were written by T. Damodaran. I suggest renaming it to match the format of Category:Screenplays by author. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 29 March 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.

Pupils of people[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: keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz to article List of pupils of Heinrich Schütz
Convert Category:Pupils of Antoine-Jean Gros to article List of pupils of Antoine-Jean Gros
Convert Category:Pupils of Jacques-Louis David to article List of pupils of Jacques-Louis David
Nominator's rationale: Convert to lists. We have a general convention not to categorize people by who they were a student or pupil of. Such information is generally contained in lists, so I suggest converting these categories into lists. We have done this in the past for categories for students of Frédéric Chopin, Bach and Sweelinck, other musicians, F. F. Bruce, and others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schütz - converted as creator of cat and most of the bios I have done as requested, but I actually don't really see the need to delete the cat. The rationales given aren't convincing - what does it serve to delete student of Chopin from the footer of Pauline Viardot for example? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could quickly get out of hand—first someone would categorize pupils, then someone would start a tree for those who collaborated with a particular individual, and so forth. The endless potential is the main reason that we avoid categorizing individuals by their connection to other individuals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the problem is that depending on how we set the bar to qualify as a pupil, a person could be in a large number of pupil categories. On the other hand most people are going to have a fairly limited number of pupils, so it is just easier to create lists than make categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with having a list as well of course, but I also don't see the need for removing the cat. Who they have been a pupil of is one of the defining characteristics for many artists. It's not like every professor a student has ever had at his alma mater would be included, most artists have only been the pupil of very few artists, and only a few artists have a sufficient number of notable pupils to merit a category. Fram (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We have alumni categories, so that the principle of categorising people accoring to how they were taught is established. The problem may be the extent to which the pupil was taught by the master painter, musician, etc. This will vary from some one who had regualr lesson at one extreme to some one who attended the odd master class. Where to draw the line is a POV issue. Perhpas we should Listify for now. In a list article, it may be possible to find a means of distinguishing regular students (who should be in a category) from occasional ones who should not. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the alumni category analogy fails on two grounds. First off, being an alumni of a place is going to be notable to any person who is so, but while Barack Obama as a graduate may be a point to make about Harvard Law School, Henry B. Eyring is unlikely to seem notable to Harvard Business School itself, and he is far more notable than the majority of its alumni who have articles in wikipedia. On the other hand, since a teacher has much stricter limits on the number of students they can teach both at any given time and has an added limited lifetime (while Harvard is compared to some schools young, and Harvard Business School is quite a bit younger than Harvard) so there are outward limits. I guess I can see the argument for these categories. I also stick by my earlier assertion that the number of people someone may be a pupil of is less limited than the number of schools they can attend.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retraction of vote on further thought I think that we should keep these categories. Jaques-Louis David had a formal workshop in which he trained his students. I think we should create a super category to put these categories in. We also should establish the following rules. 1-The pupil role needs to be of a noticable duration. 2- in almost all cases if the pupil/teacher relationship occured within a larger institution, that institution should be the basis of categorization and not the pupil/student relationship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I noticed that I had not actually voted, so now I will. The pupil-student relationship is clearly documented in the arts. A lot of artists are trained by masters, as opposed to in colleges or universities. This was especially true before 1950 and still does occur. These categories are all large enough to justify. If the category is potentially small a list probably would be preferable, but in one of these cases there are over 50 people. At that level The workshop connection is more important for the pupil than the student, and editors creating new articles will find it easier to edit the category than go hunt down a list and add the person to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Where reliable sources refer to an artist as "pupil of …", that becomes an identifying category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:36, 2 April 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:Female pornographic film actors[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: keep. No full consensus for renaming - no prejudice against a prompt renomination for renaming if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 03:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Female pornographic film actors
  • Nominator's rationale the guidelines at WP:Cat gender specifically state "seperate categories for actors and actresses are not needed". We do not subcategorize actors by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is currently an ongoing discussion for Category:American female pornographic film actors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Cat gender says that a "gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." This may not apply to mainstream acting, but the actors gender DEFINITELY affects how they perform in pornography. Asarelah (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and the guidelines. Nymf hideliho! 15:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An actress cannot perform a male porn role, nor vice versa. I have to disagree with the guideline. I would suggest that gender is vital in the acting world. I would however support the principle of not splitting the sexes for most professions. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When it comes to porn, gender is a defining characteristic. __meco (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the purposes of the encyclopedia, I don't see the importance of distinguishing porn actors by gender. Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In contrast to the nominator's rationale, WP:CATGENDER pretty much says why the category should exist (and I'm sensing a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 19:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Asarelah.--Lenticel (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the deletion is based on a reading of the actual text of the gender guidelines. To assume that anyone "does not like" this category because they feel we should follow the written rules is to assign views and beliefs with no basis in fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The guideline may say that, but is just that, a guideline, not a rule set in stone. We aren't bound to obey it. Futhermore, was there even a consensus discussion about that guideline to make it so that actors shouldn't be divided by gender? And is what a pornographic actor does really even "acting" in the conventional sense of the word? I really think that the term "performer" is a better word for the category in general. Asarelah (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Porn actors are not really the same thing as "actors"—they are quite different professions, really. I agree with not dividing actors by gender, but porn actors is completely different and it makes sense to divide by gender for obvious reasons related to the profession. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Asarelah. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename per Asarelah. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:20, 4 April 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:Early Settlers of Michigan[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: rename to Category:People of the Michigan Territory. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Michigan early settlers to Category:People of the Michigan Territory
  • Nominator's rationale This elimanates the multiple problems with the current name. 1-It is inprecise, no one knows what time it actually covers. 2- we instituted a non-arbitrary rule for inclusion, that is the change of the political status of Michigan to a state. 3- we eliminate the current names attempts to exclude Native Americans and Metis. 4- We avoid including people who died or left what would be Michigan before 1805 in the category. At present we have a category with no clear beginning or end, now we will have one with both where both limits are logically defined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We also have the problem that Early settlers is no where defined. We will end up using different time frames for different locations, so we might as well face this fact and use time frames for locations clearly grounded in historical events in those locations, that is the start with granting territorial status and the end with the granting of statehood.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just realized that the name is even more obscure than I thought. I thought it was "Early settlers of Michigan" but it is actually "Michigan early settlers". This makes it unclear if they are Early settlers in Michigan, or people who are natives of Michigan who are early settlers elsewhere, or maybe a mish-mash of both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what about settlers to the area before it became Michigan Territory? (such as when it was part of France) 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Settlers in the Michigan Territory. A headnote could indicate that this includes people who settled before the territory was declared. I am proposing "settlers" to exclude native Americans. It will require the settler to ahve arrived before it became a state. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamant opposition to the settlers proposition The plan for a category to exclude Native Americans is not good at all. We do not categorize by race. We do not make race specific categories. That is what the proposal boils down to. Anyway, what of the Metis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment those in the area when it was under French control belong in Category:People of New France. Michigan was not a distinct political entity at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Rename Hmm, this falls between Category:People of the Northwest Territory and Category:People from Michigan so not a real clear naming format, but early settlers implies Native Americans. I'm going to go with Category:People of Michigan Territory since the intent is to group people that moved there, not those from there. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 4 April 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:Defunct companies[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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Defunct companies to Category:Companies
  • Nominator's rationale even though companies can in theory last for ever, in fact a large number of companies last less than the life span of most people. They also tend to merge so often, and be aquired in complexed deals it is hard to decide if a company still exists or not. What if one company buys another, but then uses the name of the company it aquires? Some may say "but we need this as a parent to Category:Companies by year of disestablishment", however we have Category:Musical groups by year of disestablishment but do not have Category:Defunct musical groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom - being defunct is hardly defining for the vast, vast, vast majority of companies. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an integral level of the vast Category:Former entities tree. As to the question of which identity survives a merger or acquisition, that is dependent on the article, as some articles attach the organization to the name and others the name to the organization. I think JPMorgan Chase handles its history well, US Airways sloppily, and Bank of America poorly, but that is a problem for articlespace and not the categorization system. - choster (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per my reasoning in the museums and art gallies in the nomination below. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom, and per the convention to avoid current/former splits. If Alan Liefting wants to recategorise them manually (to avoid having to diffuse the parent categ), then that's fine too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know we do not like current/former splits, but I think it is useful in this case. We have "living people", the rst beign dead. I do not see why we should not do the same with companies. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have living people because people have privacy rights and sue when alive. Companies are different issues. There might be an argument for the category Category:currently operational companies on the grounds that these are ones that are most likely to have agents try to turn the articles into advertisements. However the inclusion criteria would be slightly different than just the opposition of defunct companies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is one of exceptions when current/former split is actually useful. Beagel (talk) 20:56, 6 April 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.

Defunct Museums[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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Defunct museums into Category:Museums
  • Merge Category:Defunct art museums and galleries to Category:Art museums and galleries
  • new Category:Defunct museums in the United States to Category:Museums in the United States
  • Nominator's rationale First off, let me say I know that this is in some ways a radical nomination. I will propose this merger on all the sub-categories. It should be understood that those will be upmerged to the relevant museum categories by location. At heart though the issue is, is the fact that a museum no longer operates a defining characteristic. We do not have Category:dead people. I know that this is in part because "people all die. Institutions, places and other things can last for ever." I would say this does not apply to musical groups, which explains why we do not have Category:defunct musical groups. I am not sure about Category:Former musical groups. I do not think we should have that either. So the question almost seems to approach "do most such institutions at some point disolve?" I think with museums disolvment, merging and the like is common enough that this is not a useable category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment even if we decide to keep this category I think we should remove it from the former buildings by type category. A defunct museum could be as a building A-some other use, B-an empty, unused but still standing building or 3-a new museum that is totally not linked to the old one. A museum becomes defunct because it ceases to function as an institution, not because the building is leveled or destroyed. While sometimes the later can lead to the former, there are other museums that move to new buildings either intentionally or in response to destruction of the building by outside forces.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a larger problem that cuts across many, many categories: an organization or institution can become very identified with the building it occupies, but one may persist or the other perish or the relationship between the two change. We have never achieved consensus on the best way to segregate the institutional and the physical natures of churches, schools, libraries, customs houses, brothels, fortresses, clubs, lighthouses, and so on. That is also why Category:Former buildings and structures by building type is distinct from Category:Buildings and structures by former use.- choster (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could see an argument for merging out of existence the second category and keeping the first. Art galleries by their nature are much more tansient than museums. Often they exist to promote the work of one particular artist, and thus may not last long after that artist dies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I just learned that Category:Defunct musical groups was deleted at some point. Is there an easy way to find the CfD discussion on the matter?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not easy at all, because there seems to have been no systematic archiving of the first few months of CFD (in early 2005). But after a lot of burrowing, I found it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&direction=prev&oldid=10548355#Category:Defunct_music_groups --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. It's rare that an institution's being defunct is defining, I doubt that this is the case for any of these. The only value in seperating out "defunct" in these cases that I can see would be "so that you know which ones aren't visitable anymore", and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to an upmerge and weak support for deletion. At present Category:Art museums and galleries and Category:Museums contain articles of a suitable broad nature with everything neatly place in the sub-categories. It makes absolutely no sense to then place defunct museums and galleries into the category. It is sort of giving them a somewhat more elevated status with all of the actual operating museums and galleries relegated to the subcategories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once they are upmerged, they can be rediffused back down into the subcats as needed. The upmerge just ensures that all the articles currently in these categories wind up somewhere in the 'main' cat tree, instead of floating in limbo. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's the case then I am ok with an upmerge, but it seems a roundabout way of dong it. To my way of thinking depopulating by reassigned them seems a more elegant way of doing it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom, and per the convention to avoid current/former splits. If Alan Liefting wants to recategorise them manually (to avoid having to diffuse the parent categ), then that's fine too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- There is a big difference between a museum and a defunct one. I can visit a museum and study its collections. I cannot visit a defunct one! This is a living/dead distinction. Yes, institutions can last for centuries, but some do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mr. Kingiron, as noted above wikipedia is not a travel guide. Aiding the potential traveler is not our function. We exist to dispense knowledge, not to aid the grand tours of the elite. Realistically most readers have no potential to visit the vast majority of museums. On the issue of upmerging, we upmerge to avoid limboizing. We then either redefuse, or remove the duplicate category. Also, since this category has a complexed sub-cat set, we will probably need to look at ways to merge those subcats to the mirror categories. For example Category:Defunct museums in the United States to Category:Museums in the United States. I have added that to the nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't agree that museum dissolution and merging is so common as to make this an unusable category. Personally, I know of a single museum that has dissolved and none that have merged. And who says we oppose current/former category splits? Is this written somewhere? We have Category:Extinct species‎, Category:Extinct languages‎, Category:Defunct brands‎, Category:Defunct record labels, Category:Defunct publications, Category:Defunct websites‎, Category:Discontinued products, Category:Former sports entities, Category:Defunct organizations, Category:Defunct companies, Category:Former countries‎, and lots of others. Kaldari (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, of all that WP:OTHERSTUFF, at least seven of those listed are categories that really should be done away with. "Who says...?" - a lot of CfDs over the past while have. Saying that we can't change and discard unneeded "present/past"/"current/defunct" categories because others exist is a classic case of demolishing the house while it's being built (although the more appropriate metaphor here might be "denying demolishing because the house, however rickety, stands). - The Bushranger One ping only 09:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The cornerstone of a musical group is the music, which lasts forever, so it is less meaningful to have a "defunct musical group" category. On the other hand a defunct museum means that you can not walk up to it and visit it, a very useful distinction. One closed museum that I know of is the Morse Museum in Warren, New Hampshire, not that anyone would write an article about it, but there is a book. Apteva (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand a defunct museum means that you can not walk up to it and visit it, a very useful distinction. - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Whether or not you can visit it or not is irrelevant to categorisation (and, presumably, if you were using Wikipedia as a travel guide, you'd read the article and see that it was closed). - The Bushranger One ping only 09:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how long does a museum have to not been operational before it is "defunct" and not just "being renovated" or "gearing up for the next exhibition cycle"? Just because a museum exists as an extity does not mean it is currently allowing visitors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are some definite problems here. For one thing, I wish the museums and the art museums that existed in antiquity were split to their own sub-categories for clarity (to help navigation). And speaking of helping navigation, I think the by country tree should be deleted, but keep/create "by city" instead. (Though only for a large number of articles, no small cats, please. But beyond that, I guess I'm not seeing why these should be deleted. If the sprawl that the nom is concerned about happens, I suppose we could revisit this. - jc37 04:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the "by country" division is used for virtually everthing. Why on earth would we want to put all museums in non-major cities into one huge international category. This does not even make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, by city is common enough as well. But that's not why I suggested it. Rather than just comment in a discussion, I tend to actually go look at the categories in question. And when I did, I found that they are (mostly) 3 or so deep in subcategorisation of categories empty except for the next step down subcat. (And several of these city cats aren't holding much anyway, hence my smallcat comment.) So what I'm saying is, let's get rid of the "middlemen", and upmerge these to help navigation. - jc37 05:55, 11 April 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:Highlander immortals[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: Consensus to upmerge to Category:Highlander characters and Category:Fictional immortals. The Helpful One 15:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Highlander immortals to Category:Highlander characters and Category:Fictional immortals
Nominator's rationale: All of these characters are also in Category:Highlander characters. There are not so many of them that they need to be divided in this WP:CRUFT manner.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:49, 29 March 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:Sesame Street Muppet monsters[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: merge. If the category can be filled in an expanded, and sourced, manner in the future distinguishing "monsters" from Statler and Waldorf (whatever the recepients of their heckling might think!), no prejudice against recreation, or of the creation of Catgeory:Muppet monsters if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 03:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Sesame Street Muppet monsters to Category:Sesame Street Muppet characters
Nominator's rationale: While I support keeping the humans and Muppets separate, there aren't so many Muppet characters on the show that we need to divide them in this WP:CRUFT manner.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Unlike the Highlander immortals in the discussion above this, Category:Sesame Street Muppet monsters is not an intersection, just a split. I agree that there are too few Muppet characters to need a split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Is there even a clear line of which are and which are not monsters?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there are, and believe it or not, even references too. (Besides the fact that many even are called "monster".) See also: Wikia:Muppet:Sesame_Street_Monsters and The_Sesame_Street_Monsters!/Wikia:Muppet:The_Sesame_Street_Monsters!. It's clear that only certain characters (certain muppets) are called monsters. - jc37 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't WP:OC. And CRUFT = IDONTLIKEIT. So what exactly are the policy reasons to delete/merge? - jc37 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We've frequently deleted subcategorizations of TV characters. For example, all the Oz characters were previously divided into prison guards, gangs, etc. This seems no different to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no, these are distinct creatures. Just because they are portrayed through puppets by a puppeteer, doesn't make them any less a fictional life form. See also this comment by the head writer (Joey Mazzarino): "You know, I think all monsters share some genetic code. But they're not related in a brother/sister kind of way.". So I don't know if I would call it comparable to social constructs like "gangs". (But without further reference, I'll stop short of WP:OR and call these an actual species or race of creature.) - jc37 22:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't see it as a cruft issue, but an "is it really need?" issue. Of the 38 articles in the parent, 14 fit under "monster" - and yes, 11 of those are double catted and 3 are not in the "monsters". Properly catting would drop the parent to 24. And it would also be reasonable to split out the "animal" characters at that point - 7 more dropping the parent to 17. That's without getting into if the stubs cover notable characters or not. The splits seem unneeded, and since the current split isn't really being applied, the parent seems to work well enough. - J Greb (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. Honestly, this should probably be a separate cat Category:Muppet monsters, since some monsters appeared in various Henson productions, and elsewhere, and some (outside of cameos) exclusively on Sesame Street. In a perfect world, where every character eventually has an article on Wikipedia, then what I would think would be the way this should be subcatted is both Category:Sesame Street Muppet characters and Category:Muppet monsters would be parents to Category:Sesame Street Muppet monsters. But due to a lack of articles on muppet monsters outside of sesame street chars this unfortunately leaves these all to be small cats at the moment. As such, I wouldn't oppose the merge, as long as it doesn't prejudice (re-)creation in the future should the article base of such creatures be expanded. (In other words, if we have more such articles to build such a category scheme in the future, then this categorisation should not then be automatically speedily deleted per G4.) - jc37 22:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- Neither category is not over-large. The place to distinguish monsters from non-monsters is in a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what is the technical definition of a mupper monster? Also, why do we have articles on characters within the show played by Cookie Monster?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator. Steam5 (talk) 07:25, 3 April 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.

General Hospital families[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: merge all. The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Spencer family (General Hospital) to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Scorpio/Jones family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Quartermaine family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Hardy/Webber family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Corinthos family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Cassadine family to Category:General Hospital characters
Propose merging Category:Baldwin family to Category:General Hospital characters
Nominator's rationale: There are not so many articles here that they need to be categorized in this WP:CRUFT manner. The "family" tree should be reserved for real people, such as the Category:Baldwin acting family. See below for more soap opera family categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all This is anothjer example of horible family categories. I am not sure why we have let so many family categories of fictional people that do not warn they are fictional come to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment many of these categories are about half redirects all linking to the same article. There is also ongoing discussion of the question if all these articles are needed, and it appears likely that we have articles on unimportant, non-notable characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per nominator and per John Pack Lambert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per John and BHG. Steam5 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 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.

Current heads of federal subjects of Russia[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: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 5 April 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.

Verbotene Liebe families[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: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Lahnstein family to Category:Verbotene Liebe characters
Propose merging Category:Brandner family to Category:Verbotene Liebe characters
Nominator's rationale: There are not so many characters that they need to be subdivided in this WP:CRUFT manner. The "family" categories should be reserved for real people. See below for several similar One Life to Live categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We should reserve family categories for real people. If the families within these shows are so notable people want to differentiate who is in which, and article that does that is much more useful than a category. The reason for family categories is that they link close relatives who do divergent enough things to make a joint article impracticle. This does not happen when you have people in a fictional work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge per nominator and per John Pack Lambert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 29 March 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:Gondola lifts in Hong Kong[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: no consensus. It appears that there may be a consensus for upmerging all the national sub-categories of Category:Gondola lifts, but since only one of those categories was nominated here, that cannot be an outcome of this discussion. Editors who want to pursue the idea of upmerging all the Gondola-lifts-in-Foo categories should feel free to open a new discussion on that idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Gondola lifts in Hong Kong to Category:Gondola lifts in China
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. Recently created category split from the China category. The HK category contains only one article and will never have more. There are several gondola in China that need articles, so that category has potential to be populated. Gondolas do not present any political issue where separation makes sense, so an upmerge from the territory to the country is a natural fit. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no article or article request on any gondola lift in China. We don't merge categories of different countries, say the Isle of Man or Gibraltar into the United Kingdom, just because there are too few articles. Jeffrey (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note: There are currently 10 subcategories under Category:Gondola lifts. Australia‎ (1 P), Ecuador‎ (1 P), Germany (2 P), Hong Kong‎ (1 P), Japan‎ (13 P), Malaysia‎ (2 P), Singapore‎ (1 P), Switzerland‎ (2 P), Taiwan‎ (2 P), and United States‎ (3 P). We may perhaps merge the Singapore and Malaysian ones, or the Swiss one into the German one, too, if we accept Schmucky's proposal. Jeffrey (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are the same country. HK and China are. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • I'm not sure whether you are a native speaker or not. In English we don't normally consider dependent territories like these as part of the sovereign countries. Jeffrey (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an amazingly overbroad statement! There certainly is no "standard English language" way of considering dependent territories! It always depends on the subject and upon context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I said normally. There are always exceptional cases. Jeffrey (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I don't think what you said is true as a default case. This is not a subject for which there is a "normally" in English—it always depends on the subject and upon context. The English language has a lot of traditional grammar and usage "rules", but this certainly is not one of them! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my understand the usual usage of the English word 'country' covers dependencies, and dependencies aren't normally considered part of the metropolitan country. French overseas departments may appear to be exceptions. Yet French overseas departments aren't dependencies. But yes your understanding could be different from the mainstream. Jeffrey (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: There is no precedence on Wikipedia to merge HK's topical categories into the Chinese counterparts. The Wikipedia precedence is to make HK's categories subcats of the corresponding by country categories for the same topic. The same rule applies to all dependencies. Jeffrey (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bold assertion. Sorry, but it isn't true. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Comment there's no articles for China, and HK is a separate customs territory, so appears is many country heirarchies on Wikipedia. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But being a separate customs territory is irrelevant to a gondola. There are more gondola in the rest of China, that is the category with the potential to avoid SMALLCAT. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • For Wikipedia purpose there is currently no article for any gondola in China. Jeffrey (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all country categories to Category:Gondola lifts, per JPL, there's so few of them, is there a need to separate by country? They can also be upmerged to the respective country/region based transport categories closest in purpose (I suppose in this case, it's rail) 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the other country categories aren't nominated, nothing can be done with them with this nomination in its current form. Jeffrey (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You sure do know a lot about cans and cants and precedence, 30 day old account. CfD makes bold umbrella decisions quite often. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Merge with the China category (first preference) or upmerge to the main gondola lifts category (second preference). I agree with Schmucky's rationale that China is a better category than Hong Kong, but the category isn't necessary yet until articles on the other gondola lifts are actually written. Once a few more appear, then they would each belong in the Gondola lifts in China cat. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     19:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The one article in the HK category was in the China category yesterday. I'm surprised there aren't other articles, quick research showed me China has the top two gondola lifts by elevation in the world. My time for writing articles currently is non-existent but it'd be easy to fill a cat there. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Agreed that the China category is certainly viable, however my understanding of categories is that they're intended to be navigation aids more than topic tags. The question is whether the articles should exist before creating the category, or whether the category is okay with just one article. I'm not sure, so my first preference is closer to the status quo (putting the article in the China gondolas category) . – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viability cannot be proven by assertion. Jeffrey (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fairly obvious strawman, even for you Jeffrey. Viability is determined by assessment against our policies and guidelines, nobody suggested otherwise. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     23:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is another much older cable car system in Hong Kong's Ocean Park, and a decommissioned system on Hong Kong Island's Mount Parker. Jeffrey (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do we have articles on the two above unnamed features? I could create a category Category:Outhouses in the United States and argue there are thousands, but the question is are there enough to be notable enough to have articles to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there are. I have created them just now. I don't think they're unnamed systems. Jeffrey (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Upmerge to Category:Gondola lifts per JPL's logic of getting rid of country breakdown entirely. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to WP:SMALLCAT, "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". I think this is exactly a case of part of a large subcategorisation scheme. Jeffrey (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There are currently three articles in the nominated category. (There's probably one more decommissioned system between the Victoria and Wellington barracks.) Further, there is no evidence that there will be any article to fill the category for China. Jeffrey (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • These were created after the CFD was started here, and all of them suit the Gondolas in China category. Since there are so few items in the parent category, there's no need for it to be subdivided into smaller categories like Hong Kong. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits›       06:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refer to my comment above on the provisions of WP:SMALLCAT. Jeffrey (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one on Mount Parker clearly doesn't fit in the China category. (Unless the Wikipedian community agree that the word 'China' may mean a geographical region, which the country is part of.) Jeffrey (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why wouldn't it? Mount Parker is in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is part of China. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     22:55, 6 April 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:Unorganized areas in Quebec[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: rename all. The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Quebec to Category:Unorganized territories in Quebec
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Abitibi-Témiscamingue to Category:Unorganized territories in Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Bas-Saint-Laurent‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Bas-Saint-Laurent‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Capitale-Nationale to Category:Unorganized territories in Capitale-Nationale
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Côte-Nord to Category:Unorganized territories in Côte-Nord
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Lanaudière‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Lanaudière‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Laurentides‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Laurentides‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Mauricie‎ to Category:Unorganized territories in Mauricie
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Outaouais to Category:Unorganized territories in Outaouais‎
Propose renaming Category:Unorganized areas in Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean to Category:Unorganized territories in Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean‎
Nominator's rationale: These are called territoires non organisés in French, and in English "unorganized territories". In the text of articles in this category, the term "unorganized territory" is used (I didn't check all of them, though). There is an unorganized territory article, though it is mostly about the US. There is an article specific to Canada that is titled unorganized area (Canada), I don't know if "area" is used in some other province of Canada; it's not used for Quebec. P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, that would seem to be "per nom" since I just supported the nom. Aufrette's most recent statement makes it even more clear that the initial nom is correct.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 5 April 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:Cramer family[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: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Cramer family to Category:One Life to Live characters
Nominator's rationale: This is the third in the series of families for One Life to Live. I'm making this a merge nomination like my votes below.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:22, 29 March 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.

Buchanan Family[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: merge to Category:One Life to Live characters. The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 5 April 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.

Lord Family[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: merge to Category:One Life to Live characters. The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Lord family
  • Nominator's Rationale This is a fictional family. The failure to make this clear in the category title is problematic. Equally problematic is that about half the articles here are redirects. Having this category undermines the clear lines between real and unreal we strive for in qikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:One Life to Live characters. These TV show character categories are not so heavily populated that they need subdividing. Also, purge the redirects.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete a fictional family should not be taking such a confusing name. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:One Life to Live characters per Mike Selinker. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support the merger of any articles to the show character article that are not there. I would also point out that this and the Buchanan family have a large number of overlap articles, which makes it even less clear why we have both categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mike and BHG. Steam5 (talk) 07:33, 3 April 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:2012 in UK politics[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: rename. It's possible that the entire tree should be renamed to "United Kingdom" (spelled out), but if desired that should be another full AfD with all the cats under Category:Years in British politics. Until then, this has consensus that it should conform to the rest. The Bushranger One ping only 03:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2012 in UK politics to Category:2012 in British politics
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Opposed speedy as below

Category names should be concise as possible whilst avoiding abbreviations. "UK" is very seldom used in category names which would leave "2012 in United Kingdom politics" or "2012 in politics in the United Kingdom" both of which are very unwieldy and do not add anything to "2012 in British politics". One can see the need for "United Kingdom Acts of Parliament" to clearly distinguish from the 18th century Parliament of Great Britain. The proposed name matches its sibling categories Category:2012 in British music, Category:2012 in British sport and Category:2012 in British television all of which use the naming conventions of their particular trees. Instead of saying "we ought to be renaming the older cats in this direction" and creating the new category with a different name, Mais oui! should have nominated those categories for renaming. Tim! (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'British' and 'United Kingdom' are not synonyms, as you know very well. UK or United Kingdom is correct and inclusive. "British" is most certainly not. It is highly unwise of Wikipedia to allow so many sectarian category names: we are explicitly advised to avoid controversial category names, but some people just go out of their way to be provocative. "British" should not be allowed in any cat names that are meant to denote a UK-related cat. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mais Oui. 'British' and 'United Kingdom' are not synonyms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. We use "British" as the adjective to handle the subcategories of Category:Years in the United Kingdom or for that matter subcategories of Category:United Kingdom. I think it's a reasonable solution but even if I thought it wasn't, I would oppose a lone exception. If we want to implement something like the "Georgia (country)" solution, we need a centralized debate on the topic. Pichpich (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency and per Pichpich. It makes zero sense to have this one category different than the other subcategories of Category:Years in British politics. WP categories always use "British" to mean "of the UK". If that's going to be changed, it needs to be discussed on a much broader stage than an opposed speedy rename for this single category. (It appears that the category creator knowingly created the category to be inconsistent with the others. I think that's going about a desired change bass ackwards—if one wants to change a category format, one needs to get consensus for the change via nominations and discussions rather than just creating categories that are different.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename definitely makes sense for reasons of consistency. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency -- Last year's sibling is Category:2011 in British politics. If you want to move to "UK", you need to nominate them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match sister cats.--Lenticel (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Lenticel. Steam5 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 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:Automated Office Management[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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Automated Office Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:19, 29 March 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:Deceased Hong Kong actors[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Deceased Hong Kong actors to Category:Hong Kong actors
Propose merging Category:Deceased TVB actors to Category:TVB actors
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Based on lots of previous discussions, we don't divide divide people by occupation categories into "living" and "deceased" (or "current" vs. "former") subcategories. If we did so for all categories it would be a real pain because it would require many categories to be updated when a person dies and constant patrolling of the categories to see if it includes any since-deceased people. These can simply be upmerged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought: I thought it would work, because they're not acting anymore, but they're still famous. I think it would save space, since they're not alive and we're not looking for them it would save time by not confusing with alive actors and deceased actors. People might think it wastes time with the confusion. If it is a deceased category, then we would know that we shouldn't look there for the living actor.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought 2: It wouldn't cause any trouble for you, other people would be willing to sort the categories.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom we just don't split occupational categories like this into living/dead; as Good Olfactory says, the maintenance that would be required across thousands of categories if we did would be dreadful. There is no reason to make these categories exceptions to the long-established general rule. BencherliteTalk 17:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is a bad idea. The "there not acting any more but they're still famous" claim has two major flaws. 1- the rule in wikipedia is not "fame" it is "notability". While most famous people will pass notability rules (there may be some exceptions, but they are rare) many notable people would not pass fame rules. The bigger problem though is the "there not acting any more" claim. We also have a large numer of retired actors who either went to other careers or who just decided they were too old, did not need to earn more money/who knows what. Yet we do not have Category:Former actors. We strive for categories to be a in/not in set of criteria where once someone is in that category they are never out. Thus we highly discorage former, current, present, deceased and similar categories. The acceptions are the about 3 Category:Living people and closely related categories that exist because of special concerns related to the biographies of living people categories. Also we have a set of categories such as Category:Former Muslims and Category:Former Christians. However even these are supposed to only be used for those who become athiest/agnostic/secular humanist/non-religious. If someone converts to another religion they should be put in a convert category. For articles on places and things we allow a bit more in the way of categories like Category:defunct universities and colleges in New York. I think the reasoning is because in theory universities do not have to die, but all people die. I am not sure we have ever really figured out why we have the defunct categories and if it makes sense to have some of the ones we do. That is a discussion that is long overdue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought 3: Some people would be willing to.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guarantee of that. Users come and go in editing. Users forget about required tasks. Users lose track of the thousands of categories that would need updating. And so on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would work for actors, but not politians or some other historical figure. There's a distinction politicians can be deceased without a category, because politicians are more historical. Often actors need the category to differentiate, people will often know that a politician is dead through research, but people rarely research actors if it's work related, they might be not as well known to everyone.It would help with identifying. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your claim that it would work for actors but not others. Acting as a profession has been around for a long time too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general public of Wikipedia would be interested in whether or not someone is alive by what category the article's in.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they would be, perhaps not—but even if they would be, it's not an answer to the other concerns raised above about developing this type of scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:58, 3 April 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.

Florida mayors[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Cooper City, Florida to Category:People from Cooper City, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Naples, Florida to Category:People from Naples, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Ocala, Florida to Category:People from Ocala, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Propose merging Category:Mayors of Ocean Breeze Park, Florida to Category:People from Martin County, Florida and Category:Mayors of places in Florida
Nominator's rationale: One-entry categories of cities that are of a population and geographical size that being mayor of them does not make one sufficently notable for an article in and of itself, and are, therefore, unlikely to be expanded. Could be argued to fall under the WP:SMALLCAT exemption but given the above, I believe these are best folded back into the parent categories, without prejustice against recreation if additional mayors of these cities become notable enough for articles. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There is no precedent that says all places with a notable mayor need a mayors category for that one mayor. Mayors categories are held to small cat rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Local politicians are generally NN. Mayors of New York are clearly all notable, but those for little cities will rarely be. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 30 March 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:Kent County Early Settlers[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: merge both to Category:Michigan early settlers. There are other proposals on the fate of Category:Michigan early settlers, but there is clearly a consensus not to divide "early settlers" by county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Kent County Early Settlers to Category:Michigan early settlers
Propose merging Category:Saginaw County Early Settlers to Category:Michigan early settlers
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/WP:SMALLCAT. Small categories with little chance for expansion, no established category tree, no need to be seperated out from the parent cat. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 29 March 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:United States Early Settlers[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: merge to Category:American pioneers. Editors may wish to further sub-categorise to Category:American pioneers, but there seems to be no dissension from the nominator's contention that these categories are duplicates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:United States Early Settlers to Category:American pioneers
Nominator's rationale: This was objected to at a speedy for decapitalising with the comment that it should be looked at more thoroughly, as there wasn't a United States at the time some of the people here were doing their settling. Aside from that, the distinction between "pioneers" and "early settlers" seems a bit dubious. Propose upmerging to the parent American Pioneers category accordingly. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 29 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_29&oldid=1085527038"