The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category is completely empty and hence of no use. 89.139.177.244 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Should be tagged with {{db-catempty}} template, assuming it wasn't emptied out of process. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:50, 3 December 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 is functionally pointless after the reduction of character articles. There are only three who don't fit into it, so it should just made into a single category. TTN (talk) 20:25, 29 November 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:Delete. Overly broad inchoate category capturing everything from lawmen who killed in the line of duty to characters who accidentally caused a death to fictional demons. Unlike its sub-categories, which are much more focused and can for the most part be seen as occupational. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now, it's a useful container category. We could create more sub-cats to diffuse however. Have you looked at how it matches to our non-fiction structure?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First recategorize contents in subcats for anyone who fits, then purge, then merge to Category:Fictional characters by behavioral attribute. I concur that "killers" is rather vague, and a cannibal and an assassin have little in common (also, perhaps other people killed the food and the cannibals just ate it?) But I hope someone is willing to at least clean the category first and diffuse it to subcats as relevant, as otherwise potentially valid categorization could be missed, then the remnants (e.g. people who just, in the course of some novel, happened to kill someone by accident or in self-defence or ... it ends up being not defining, as sadly, many of our fictional heros still end up killing - wed' have to add Gandalf, and Frodo, and Bilbo, and Yoda, and Chewbacca, and ... I struggle to think of a sci-fi hero who hasn't killed someone.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see a reason for a container to hold Category:Fictional assassins together with Category:Fictional hunters; throw The Valiant Little Tailor into the mix (it clearly qualifies) and it continues to grow more absurd. Maybe a parent of those who have killed people might make sense, but this is overly broad and in many cases not remotely defining. Seyasirt (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
diffuse / move The act itself suffers from same issue as Fictional drivers or Fictional characters who can fly; nearly anyone can "kill". If I'm attacked in my sleep and wind up killing the assailant, that makes me a "killer" regardless if I'm not at fault. Could diffuse it with categories specific types of killers, like Category:Fictional rampage killers, Category:Fictional suicide bombers, Category:Fictional poisoners, Category:Fictional Typhoid Mary's, or Fictional characters who have committed manslaughter; or evenCharacters convicted of manslaughter. If kept as an profession-specific container, it should be renamed to Category:Fictional characters who are trained killers to better distinguish those who kill professionally (i.e. Wolverine) or as a sadistic "artform" (i.e. Hannibel Lectur), from commonplace amateur/criminal killers. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Purge Useful as a container category, but the individiual articles should be removed or moved to subcats. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete putting various categories that have little in common together (hunters, murderers, special forces, and zombies). Fictional people (and ex-people like zombies) can be morphed into anything - do we need them to be convicted like real people? A useless category in all scores. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:01, 3 December 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: From article Rosaceae: "The family [Rosaceae] was traditionally divided into four subfamilies: Rosoideae, Spiraeoideae, Maloideae, and Amygdaloideae, primarily diagnosed by the structure of the fruits. More recent work has identified that not all of these groups were monophyletic. A more modern model comprises three subfamilies [Rosoideae, Dryadoideae, and Amygdaloideae], one of which (Rosoideae) has largely remained the same." Content inside the square brackets was added by me to complete the context, but you can read the whole article. As shown in it, Maloideae is no longer considered a Rosaceae subfamily under modern models; I understand that Maloideae may deserve an article, even if it's only for historical reasons, but think that categories structure should mirror current taxonomical standards to avoid being misleading.Canyq (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: well expressed rationale for removing the category. Since the 2011 International Botanical Congress, the name of this subfamily cannot be applied to the taxonomic group as it is now understood. The page Maloideae, however, provides an important link to the older literature and should be retained. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:36, 29 November 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:MERGE as nominated. -Splash - tk 21:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of strange, because I know for an absolute fact that duplicate categories are frequently speedy merged at CFD for that criterion without seven days of discussion. But it is what it is, I guess. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, I can't recall seeing that myself, and I would object if I did see them. Speedy actions bypass consensus-building processes, and I am a firm believer that they should only be used where there is a clearly-documented consensus to bypass XFD. However, I don't necessarily see everything that happens at CFD, so if you have some examples they could be evidence of a consensus to add a new speedy criterion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There is no difference in the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2014 (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:Burial sites of Presidents of 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 20:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize cemeteries etc by who is buried there. This looks ("This is a list of...") like an attempt to create a list (inappropriately) in category space. The subcategory should be moved up to here or moved to here. For info: There is List of burial places of Presidents of the United States. For info: A related category was recently deleted (although this category is not as bad as that one was). DexDor (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some of these places are defined by having a president buried there, others are not, and really categorizing places by who is buried there could create category clutter for a few major cemeteries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most are not defining, better suited to a list. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 3 December 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:Rabbis whose tombs have become pilgrimage sites[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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 20:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whether (or not) someone's tomb has become a pilgrimage site is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the person. It's not how we usually categorise bio articles (it's the only "have become pilgrimage" category in EnWP). Inclusion criteria are subjective. I've checked a sample of the articles in this category and all are in at least one other rabbis category so no upmerge is necessary. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that observation calls into question the validity of all "pilgrimage sites" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, this is not defining of the Rabbis in question. Jim Morrison's grave in Paris is a bit of a pilgrimage location, but I don't think we should create 'rock stars whose graves have become pilgrimage destinations' either... Note that Category:Pilgrim Centres is a decently populated category, so if we had articles about the tombs themselves - e.g. if the tombs can pass GNG, then the tombs could be categorized in Category:Jewish pilgrimage sites.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps everything is a pilgrimage site to those who visit it, even McDonald's. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:04, 3 December 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.
Delete - breaking out subsets of players by nickname is trivial. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:46, 29 November 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: /Upmerge: Per other such line-ups categories below. Categorizing by one (part of) one line-up of a sports team is a bad idea. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - breaking out subsets of players by nickname is trivial. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:46, 29 November 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:Green Bay Packers championship games[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 There is no scheme of Championship games by team. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there should be a category structure of subdividing championship games by team. A useful way to subdivide the championship games plus Super Bowls is by the teams who competed in them. Another advantage is that the games would appear under the category for the team in a natural manner. Royalbroil 02:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge back to Category:Green Bay Packers postseason as is done for every other team. Even the largest of these, for the LA Rams, has less than thirty members; the other "large" one have around fifteen. Seyasirt (talk) 14:30, 1 December 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.
Delete - breaking out subsets of players by nickname is trivial. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:46, 29 November 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.
Delete - breaking out subsets of players by nickname is trivial. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:47, 29 November 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.
delete d'oh, I can't believe those are all red links. Seriously? But this one has to go, it's not defining of those places. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 4 December 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.
