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: To distinguish them from ordinary families and surname type categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the end goal drops family, which we want. Since there is no evidence of a need to disambiguate these from other noted families with these last names, I see no reason to chance the names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which are not the families involved here. Just because some families need to be disambiguated does not mean such is needed for all families. We only disambiguate where it is needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, those categories you mention are not in this nomination, so they are not involved in this nomination. I see no evidence we need to disambiguate these specific familes. The fact that some entries in a category need to be disambiguated does not mean we have to disambiguate all of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 26 October 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:Knights of Rhodes archaeological sites in Greece[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one member page; I found one other eligible page but cannot justify keeping this category. – FayenaticLondon 13:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom --Lenticel(talk) 00:26, 23 October 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: unnecessary splitting, and besides, many of these drinks are also taken cold. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom.--Lenticel(talk) 00:25, 23 October 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:Reverse merge "Presidencies of X". Essentially as diffusion to the subcat. - jc37 21:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely redundant. What's the inherent difference between the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and James K. Polk? Nevertheless, Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt is in Presidencies of the United States, while Category:Presidency of James K. Polk is in United States presidential administrations. Presidencies is currently the parent for administrations, so normally I'd propose upmerging administrations into presidencies, but the "administrations" name is better ("presidencies", plural, is something more appropriate for things like the Bombay Presidency), so a downmerge seems more appropriate here. Nevertheless, I'm open to upmerging: the important thing is that this redundancy be removed. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The target name matches the titles of the members worse. The pages contained generally do not include the word "administration". Category titles should follow article titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge one way or the other I'm not wedded to either naming system, but there's no reason to have two. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 01:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to stay consistent with others in Category:Presidencies. The article Presidency explains that the term is wide enough to contain the other sub-cats for executive members, mentioned by SmokeyJoe in his objection above. – FayenaticLondon 20:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as it There is a substantial difference between the content of Category:Presidencies of the United States which comprises single articles about various US presidencies and Category:United States presidential administrations which comprises subcats on various presidential administrations, in turn comprising various subcats and articles--which no other world country seems to have. Mixing these up will just confuse navigation, the purpose of categories. Hmains (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I agree that the category is redundant. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:42, 29 October 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.
