Category:Hiking trails in the United Kingdom[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge as above, and leave a redirect to prevent it happening again. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to parents. This is an odd category as it only contains long-distance footpaths.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2013 (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:Rename. All the items in this category are illuminated manuscript combat treatises. This category is a sub-cat of Category:illuminated manuscripts so I propose using the word "illuminated". I think this word is a clear enough distinction from the printed illustrations in the direct members of the other parent category:combat treatises, so that the word "manuscript" is not required. This failed to achieve consensus at CFD 2007 April 18, but needs renaming to mention the distinguishing feature i.e. combat/ military/ martial. – FayenaticLondon 20:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support almost anything to change the current name, but this is the best choice. The last time there were strenuous if ill-informed objections that "illuminated" meant only fully-painted images embellished with gold etc, but that is not how it is used in the museum or art history worlds. Category:Illustrated manuscript combat treatises would do. Hastividyarnava, a manual on elephant-keeping, does not fit & would need a new home, probably in the main Category:illuminated manuscripts, although it is true that Islamic & Asian MS are usually described as "illustrated" not "illuminated". Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert, I have fixed your spelling, but shouldn't that rather be a vote for double upmerge to both parents? If not, why do you want to remove these from the Category:martial arts manuals hierarchy? – FayenaticLondon 20:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is named so it can cover any illuminated manuscript. There is no particular reason to think that this contains a particular kind of manuscript, so it should be upmerged based on what its name actually is. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Combat treatises are at least as distinctive as the other manuscripts by subject sub-cats, and the names are mostly uninformative, so they would easily be missed. The nomination, reviving the previous one, is to turn the category into something useful. If you think there is a reason why the group of 7 illuminated combat treatises do not deserve a sub-cat of Illuminated manuscripts and Combat treatises, please address that issue. The "particular reason to think that this contains a particular kind of manuscript" involves looking at those 7 articles - all except Hastividyarnava, a manual on elephant-keeping. Johnbod (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed that the latter was in there because it covers "how they should be trained for use by the nobility and for the purpose of war", but I agree that it does not belong in a sub-cat of combat treatises. It's only been in that category since December… when it was added by your good self, Johnbod! I think that at the end, the nominated category should be redirected to "illuminated manuscripts". – FayenaticLondon 08:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert, in this case we are starting from a mismatch between (a) the category name, (b) its stated purpose, (c) its parents and (d) its current members. As (b), (c) and (d) coincide, they override (a), so that's the one that we need to bring into line. Moreover, the category purpose has been consistent for years, as it was the point of the previous CfD. – FayenaticLondon 08:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents. Purge where necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what are your objections to the proposed sub-category? Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it's a fairly small category, I would have no objection to upmerging to both parents. – FayenaticLondon 08:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would - it has 6 Illuminated combat treatises & might well get more. That is an adequate number to avoid "small and likely to expand" in WP:OCAT. The names are mostly extremely unilluminating (joke!) & except to experts convey no indication of the subject: MS 862, Cod. 44 A 8, Codex Vindobonensis B 11093 etc. I also want to keep the manuscripts head cat uncluttered. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I stick with "rename", to be followed by re-creation and re-directing to "illuminated manuscripts". – FayenaticLondon 17:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There's enough here now to support a category, and clearly it's a specific genre with room for growth. As for the title, "Illuminated manuscript combat treatises" is internally redundant, and also more cumbersome than "Illuminated combat treatises". "Combat treatises" are clearly a type of manuscript. And "illuminated" ties the groups together as a particular type of treatment of manuscripts. --Lquilter (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
either leave it alone, or else do some research on actual terminology before moving stuff If you think we need a category called "Illuminated combat treatises" just create it, no need to rename a completely unrelated category. What is behind this is presumably the misconception that "illuminated" is just a fancy word for "illustrated" when talking about "medieval manuscripts". Yes, Johnbod has consistently laboured under this misconception. I am not asking every Wikipedian to be an expert in the field they contribute to, but it is possible to be obstinate about it, too. I have given up trying to talk sense to Johnbod, who is fond of going around calling all possible and impossible things "illuminated" for no better reason that he apparently likes the word, but there is really no reason to now take this out on a specific and accurately named category for no good reason. All of this has nothing whatsoever to do with "combat treatises". There are illustrated (not "illuminated") combat treatises, but illustrated manuscripts are a class in themselves, manuscripts which contain substantial illustrations. Combat manuals are just one, just one, of numerous types of illustrated manuscripts. If you must create a category for these, call them "illustrated combat treatises", not "illuminated", or show me one combat treatise that is in fact widely described as "illuminated" rather than "illustrated". Also, google the term Bilderhandschrift please. --dab(𒁳) 10:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query: It seems like there is some reason other than Johnbod to believe these are "illuminated" and not merely "illustrated": Specifically, they are subcategorized already under "illuminated", and a non-Johnbod user (Fayenatic london) made the proposal. So I hear you saying that "illustrated" is the better term than "illuminated" for this genre of combat manuscripts. But then do we need a larger category tree resolution to deal with the fact that these are subcategorized under illuminated? At least, can you explain to us non-experts how the category tree should be laid out? Because otherwise it is really difficult to understand this dispute. --Lquilter (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see from the history of the page Illustrated manuscript that it was created by User:Dbachmann (signed "dab", above) and merged to Illuminated manuscript by Johnbod in 2007. Talk:Illustrated manuscript has an argument about whether there is a difference; TL;DR, nor the archives of Talk:Illustrated manuscript about categorisation, but I have no objection to changing the target name to Category:Illustrated combat treatises since both Johnbod and dab have suggested that word instead, and these books have pictures as opposed to pretty borders. Nevertheless, the article says "In the most strict definition of the term, an illuminated manuscript only refers to manuscripts decorated with gold or silver, but in both common usage and modern scholarship, the term is now used to refer to any decorated or illustrated manuscript from the Western traditions, so I'm inclined to stick with the word "illuminated" which is in the parent category. For another example, the article Swiss illustrated chronicles says "They were luxurious illuminated manuscripts". I did Google the German word but did not arrive at any material which helped me see a difference. As I said before, the nominated category should then be undeleted and redirected to Category:Illuminated manuscripts, corresponding to the merged articles. – FayenaticLondon 19:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty simple really. Dab, a native German-speaker who knows much less than I do about illuminated manuscripts but much more about combat treatises, is confused by the difference between German and English usages of the term "illuminated" (and equivalent), and just won't be told, no matter how many library catalogues etc he is pointed to. Category:Illustrated combat treatises would be progress at least, instead of the current nonsense. "Illuminated" is of course a sub-set of "illustrated", but it is normal practice in English to class European medieval and Renaissance manuscripts with even very minor pieces of decoration or illustration as "illuminated", which the rest of our category structure rightly follows. However "illuminated" is rarely used for non-European (really meaning non-Christian or Jewish) manuscripts however much gold they have in them, which is what the elephants are doing here. The usage of Bilderhandschrift need not concern us here, but the British Library Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts contains thousands of MS with far less extensive and fancy decoration or pictures than the MS in this category. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2013 (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: This category wholly duplicates the scope of its parent, Category:Manned missions to Mars - to the point where all of its contents are already categorised in its parent as well. The BushrangerOne ping only 19:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, "expedition" does not exclude robotic expeditions, so the usage in the category is incorrect if it only about manned expeditions. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Expedition may or may not be a manned expedition, and is unclear in other case. Other categories are sufficient. N2e (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need for upmerge. As noted in the original nom, all of these articles are already in the proposed target. - The BushrangerOne ping only 05:42, 3 April 2013 (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:Split. Plays, screenplays, teleplays and short stories are not genres, but forms of literature. If the split is made, I'd also move novels. Category:Poems is not currently in the nominated cat but would also belong in "literature by form". – FayenaticLondon 17:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some overlap with parent category Category:Literary genres, which does cover Poetry as one of its genres. Dimadick (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that when I was making the nomination, and noticed that it has the sub-cat Category:Poems, as opposed to Poetry, as the category that holds individual works of that form. – FayenaticLondon 13:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. The distinction is very important. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2013 (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:delete. I'mma go with "April Fool's Joke."--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Listify and delete. It does seem to be a notable motif in all five entries, but certainly not defining for all of them. I don't want to make a big stink over this, but a list within the article Fart, Flatulence or in Flatulence humor would be a better and sufficient way to keep the information. – FayenaticLondon 16:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I disagree, of course. Two things: First, I have become accustomed to using (and having students use) categories to peruse our articles--it is simple, useful, elegant. The risk is overcategorization, but the risk of lists is a kind of trivialization, if you will, my second argument. Maintaining lists, whether stand-alone or incorporated, is more difficult and often necessitated by "drive-by trivial mentions" (as I like to call them). For instance, a list might invite someone to add Song of Myself because of the divine afflatus, or Moby-Dick, because Ishmael likes to be on the front deck--those are valid fart references/interpretations, but they are so minor that they should not lead to any kind of inclusion. Lists invite such, categories don't. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think both are prone to non-notable additions, although I accept that novice users can more quickly figure out how to add to a list than how to add a category. If the list is started well, with a summary that sets out the significance of the notable gust, this should deter trivial entries. Perhaps we could tabulate them with date and author. An embedded list within a more substantial article is probably safer than a standalone page. Dante's Inferno could stand in such a list, but IMHO should not be kept in the category as it's not defining for that masterpiece. – FayenaticLondon 16:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or rename Category:Farting in literature [added] or "Flatulence in ...". Dante can probably be dropped, but where is Rabelais? There may well be others. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rabewho? I'm fine with a rename, BTW. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Dante. Wonder what fartbrain put that category in there: I've taken care of the windbag's contribution. Thanks Johnbod. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this is heading for a rename, the new name should probably use "flatulence" rather than farting, following Flatulence and Category:Flatulence. The page Fart is specifically about that particular word. For the rest of the name, I think this should follow the pattern Foo—or rather "Frrp in literature" (see other members of Category:Literary motifs or Category:Fiction by topic), rather than "Literature about Frrp" (see Category:Literature by theme). Although the whiffs in question seem to be the main topic of four works just added to the category, they are just notable jokes within the narrative of the original members. So IMHO the new name should be Category:Flatulence in literature. – FayenaticLondon 05:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Farting in literature Quite the long literary history of the subject (Aristophanes mentions it as a tired cliche), but I am quite sure this isn't about individual farts. Dimadick (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wait a minute is this whole conversation an april fools joke? It sometimes reads like it. In any case, I'm with the nom - listify and delete. Farts are not defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, farts are defining, how else would you smell the literature? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2013 (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 with subcategories under WP:C2E. – FayenaticLondon 13:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: aldermen is the plural form. Wikix (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose. The rationale is correct, but a) the nominated category is not properly tagged, and b) the 13 sub-categories are neither tagged nor listed here. If the nominator wants help in fixing this, please leave a note on my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ATX-NL has subsequently added further sub-cats using "Aldermen" rather than "Alderman". If s/he does not reply then I think we could take this as consent to rename the existing categories. – FayenaticLondon 08:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I apologize for my mistake.--ATX-NL (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2013 (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:delete. The discussion demonstrates that a list will be a lot better than a category, and does not make a case to keep both. I will provide a link at Talk:One-Test wonder to the deletions in case it helps to populate the list. – FayenaticLondon 16:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Wonders" is subjective and the concept is woeful especially as some of these players seem to have played in more than one Test but did perform especially well (another subjective view) on one particular occasion. Taking this to its logical conclusion, where are the categories for players with two Tests, 15 Tests, 88 Tests, 136 Tests and so on? Defies WP:COMMONSENSE and adds no value whatsoever. --Jack | talk page 10:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, over-categorisation sums it up well. It is creation of a category for the sake of creating a category, in a nutshell. ----Jack | talk page 12:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cheers Jack. Does this raise the future question of what we should do with the article as well? Is the article even viable - particularly when there is no definitive list attached? Bobo. 19:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you Bobo - without a full list the article is nothing more than random trivia. *If* it is to survive it needs to include the full list of "one-Test wonders", probably as a table including player name, national team, dates and location of their sole Test match with opposition team, and possibly a column of "notes" that would include the trivia currently included in the article. Not sure how readable a table of 400 names (and counting) would be though! Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Table headings: Name | Nationality (by Test nation) | Season of only Test match | (First) date of only Test match | Opponent | Score (inn. 1) | Bowling figures (inn. 1) | Score (inn. 2) | Bowling figures (inn. 2)
Or alternatively: Name | Nationality (by Test nation) | Season of only Test match | (First) date of only Test match | Opponent | Combined batting score | Combined bowling figures Bobo. 17:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What else is needed? Footnotes would obviously suffice in exceptional areas. Bobo. 17:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you will forgive my rustiness in creating tables:
Name
Nationality
Season
Date
Opponent
Score (inn. 1)
Bowling figures (inn. 1)
Score (inn. 2)
Bowling figures (inn. 2)
Bransby Cooper
Australia
1876/77
March 15, 1877
England
15
–
3
–
To order the tables appropriately (chronologically), should we have a column for "cap number", as well? In this case, where would Cooper be ordered? He's third alphabetically by those who appeared for Australia in the debut Test, but overall..? Bobo. 17:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something like that - I think the match date should include the complete dates the match took place over (in your example, 15–17 March 1877), and I would have the OTWs numbered in chronological order of appearance, with Cooper and Ned Gregory at 1 and 2, up to Ian Blackwell as the most recent permanent member. Of course it is possible to create sortable tables so that you can click on individual columns and sort alphabetically, or by country, etc. But we're getting ahead of ourselves here - I would wait and see what is the general feeling among the Wikipedia community for creating such a list. Although personally speaking I think it would be of more interest than some of the more obscure cricketing lists currently on Wikipedia: "list of Jamaica women ODI cricketers", "list of cricketers called for throwing in top-class cricket matches in Australia" and "list of cricketers who were murdered" spring to mind... Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On second thoughts, that seems much more logical. Cheers. Bobo. 23:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create the category - I should mention that the term "one-Test wonders" has not been created just for Wikipedia, it is a commonly used term for players who have only played one Test. I'm not entirely sure how it can be described as "subjective" - the contents aren't "diverse" at all, none of these players have played more than one Test match, contrary to the suggestion above, and I'm not sure I follow the logic in saying "there are no categories for players with 88 Tests": after all, the concept of the "one hit wonder" in music is well known, it doesn't mean that you would delete the category just because there isn't a category for acts that have had seventeen hits, for example - it is a fact that many people have an interest in "uniqueness", whether in music, sport, or any other field. Having said all that, it is also true that many of the earliest members of this club, particularly from the likes of what were then still colonies like West Indies and South Africa, happen to be on the list simply because there was virtually nothing in the way of organised cricket in their countries at the time, and many of the players appear to have been picked from "whoever was available locally" at the time, rather than on their abilities. I was adding players to the category because it only contained some of the better known names, and I don't see the point in having an incomplete category: in my opinion it should either contain a complete list of all the players who fit the bill (I believe there are around 400 of them to date) or the category should be deleted - I have no objection to the latter if that's the majority decision. Richard3120 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are already lists of Test cricketers by nation (such as this and this which already contain the data on how many Tests they've played for. Maybe this could be used as the basis of lists of cricketers who've only played in one Test. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very true, although you have to be careful with these lists: many of them don't appear to have been updated since about 2008, and the player data is very out of date for recent and current players for each country. Richard3120 (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question This is a notable intersection, reported on, using this exact (and therefore NPOV) terminology in RS every so often. What guidance does policy or guideline give us as to deciding if the contents are best off as a list, category or both? I'm too tired/lazy to check. --Dweller (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2013 (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: Contested speedy. As there were, in fact, two rovers on the mission (Spirit and Opportunity), this needs to either become pluralised as proposed, or renamed to Category:Mars Exploration Rover mission (which now that I think about it might actually be better). The BushrangerOne ping only 05:03, 30 March 2013 (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:Shopping malls in Huntsville, Alabama[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. – FayenaticLondon 15:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only four malls in the town, not quite enough for a category IMO. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category creator's response: The reason I created it was so that the ones in Huntsville wouldn't get mixed up with all the other places in Alabama. Is there a better way to subcategorize? Would the category include places such as the (since renamed) Haysland/Hamilton Square (a strip mall), Loveman's Mall, and Heart of Huntsville Mall (both historic)? If a broader category is necessary, I would propose still making a smaller geographical area than all of Alabama - Perhaps "North Alabama" - and stipulate the counties in the set - perhaps the present 256 area code. -- ke4roh (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They don't always need to be subcategorized by region. Category:Shopping malls in Michigan has only one subcategory — for Metro Detroit, which comprises three counties that each have several malls of their own. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable -- ke4roh (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support dual upmerge as while there is a chance of expansion (The Mall, Loveman's Mall, and a few others) but there's no chance of this category cracking into double digits. - Dravecky (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after due consideration and The Bushranger's persuasive points. - Dravecky (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - After looking through the contents of Category:Shopping malls in Alabama, it appears that both Montgomery and Mobile could have categories with the same number of articles as this one. While it's, as pointed out, not necessary to subdivide, it would seem reasonable enough that, with four potential subcategories here, having the articles categorised as "Shopping malls in Foo, Alabama" would be of more service to the readers than dual categorisation in "Buildings and structures in Foo, Alabama" and "Shopping malls in Alabama". - The BushrangerOne ping only 09:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge as an adequately sized category within the structures for both malls in the state and structures in the city, serving as an effective aid to navigation within those structures. Alansohn (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2013 (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:Theatre education in the United States[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:Merge. Somewhat redundant 2-article category not used in the hierarchies of other countries, the main action is in the daughterCategory:Drama schools in the United States and in the parent Performing arts education category. Le Deluge (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Redundant category. Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2013 (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.
