Category:Magic: The Gathering expansion sets[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: Only early expansion sets remain as articles, the expansion sets from the block era having been merged into their respective blocks (following an RfC) and then categorized in Category:Magic: The Gathering blockspbp 23:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- I cannot beleive we need more than one cateogry of a commerical product series. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Magic: The Gathering sets, which is not sufficiently populated to need any subcats. (I know that notability is not a CFD issue, but I haven't seen any evidence of notability for any of the category's contents. I have nominated two of the category's articles at AFD (1, 2), and may follow up by nominating more). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:22, 3 October 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 delete per G7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category, no chance of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not per nom but because it's a redlink songwriter and a single entry. Surprising that Blume does not have more entries, but if more appear the category can be recreated. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was this category already deleted when it was just posted at CfD yesterday? Was is up for speedy deletion? LizRead!Talk! 13:37, 28 September 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:The Incredible Hulk (1977 TV series)[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:Rename because the series began in 1978. I tried to create a redirect, but I don't think I did it right. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be best to just match the name of the article, which is currently at The Incredible Hulk (TV series)? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match article without a mention of the year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, as the article has since been moved to include the year. Also, I undid the manual move of the articles from the subject category to a created target, as it was done out of process. - The BushrangerOne ping only 13:23, 13 October 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:for now, rename to Category:Wonderland Trail shelters. If the articles about the shelters are deleted/merged as proposed, then the category can be deleted, either as empty, or, if necessary, after a new nomination.Good Ol’factory(talk) 17:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? This case is different in that the shelters where built for the trail, so maybe if this is kept, it should be renamed to reflect that aspect (Category:Wonderland Trail shelters) and purged of other articles. The historic district is located on the trail, but does not appear to be defined by it. Being a staring point does not appear to be defining. The patrol cabins were built to support the patrol activities and are on the trail so for these this is not defining. If we want to keep anything here the best choice may be to rename to Category:Longmire Historic District or Category:Longmire, Washington and drop the trail article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to soemthing like Category:Wonderland Trail shelters. I suspect that the shelters and patrol cabins would not have articles if they were not on the trail, making their appearance legitimate. WE habitually merge characters in films back to the film (or a list of characters article). I wonder whether the cabins and shelters need separate articles. If they are merged, we could lose this category too. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 28 September 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:do not merge. As pointed out, they are not categorizing the same thing. If a user wants to propose Category:Types of libraries, that may be done in a new nomination.Good Ol’factory(talk) 16:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If not merged into "Libraries by type", at least rename the category using the plural naming convention: Category:Types of libraries. M2545 (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be bad grammar. In this case the plural is "types", not library. Same as "types of rock" or "types of car". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These two categories seem distinctly different from each other. I don't think a merge is appropriate (it'd be like mixing apples and oranges) but perhaps a rename is in order to indicate their distinctiveness. LizRead!Talk! 16:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is those that need renaming. LadyofShalott 00:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maintain name as per BHG. The name is pluralized appropriately. LadyofShalott 00:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose different categorization, one is for types of libraries, the other is for libraries by their type. A library type is not a library. It's like saying "politician" is the same kind of article as "Barack Obama". One is a type the other is an example of the type. -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I cannot see any distinction and observe that several articles are in both, or reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both per BHG. The two categories are quite distinct (one should contain articles about kinds of libraries, the other should contain articles about specific libraries). Additionally, the current title is properly plural as it is – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 03:44, 29 September 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: Empty category duplicates Category:Filipino actors. Text duplicates article David Remo. Appears to have been created for one specific actor. – Wdchk (talk) 12:11, 27 September 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 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.
Comment I thought there was this big push to get dates to be listed like "2009-13". Personally, I don't care for this format but I've seen a lot of recent CfD saying this was the norm now. So, maybe Category:Falkland Islands MLAs 2009-13? LizRead!Talk! 16:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge group nomination at CFD Sept 18 to switch over to the ####–## format. If it closes as rename, then that format should be adopted here too. Note that Liz's proposal isn't quite right: she has used a hyphen, but it should be an endash. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Yes, I must plead ignorance on the differences between a hyphen, endash and emdash. I'll just stay away from dated categories. ;-) LizRead!Talk! 19:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, BrownHairedGirl! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction to learn the difference. I imagine if that group nomination does get approved, there will be a lot of categories to correct. LizRead!Talk! 13:41, 28 September 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 As best I can tell, there are the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - two cats for the same award. Selection of which to keep takes account of which current category has higher population (2 vs 2000), and also that Bronze Star already redirects to Bronze Star Medal, presumably indicating a previous consensus in favour of the longer name. Euryalus (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – while often called Bronze Star informally, Bronze Star Medal is the correct name. – Wdchk (talk) 12:23, 27 September 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:Actors from Beverly Hills, California[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:Withdrawn by nominator. Euryalus (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The intersection of being from a particular place of the size of Beverly Hills and being an actor is not a notable enough thing to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawal. Over the last few days JPL had already opened 7 CFDs on similar topics: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Each of these discussions relates to the same question: how small an area is acceptable for intersections between people-by-area and people-by-occupation?
Per WP:MULTI, discussing the same question in multiple simultaneous discussions is a very bad idea. It simply leads to:
Some discussions closing without all interested editors having commented, because they don't have the energy to repeat their arguments in several different places
At best, this leads to fragmented discussions and exhausted editors. At worst it leads to contradictory outcomes, which gives editors no guidance on how to proceed wrt such categories in future.
So please, at the least, just withdraw this nomination until the others have closed.
It would better still to withdraw all these related nominations, and discuss the issue at RFC. I happen to agree with JPL's view that these intersections of oocupation-with-small-geographical-are are a very bad idea, but I want whatever consensus is reached to be a stable one. That can now be achieved only by centralising the discussion.
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here. I thought we had some sort of understanding that small geographical areas were not good for these types of categories, and just a need to implement it on specific locations. However, we have so many of these categoreis, and no clear way to determine which places work. We also have no clear guidance on what there categories really mean. I guess an RfC might be the best way. I do think we will end up coming back to CfD with specific cases though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for withdrawing. It can be hard to do that, but I think it will help. You may be right that there will be more CFDs once the RFC is over. However, if the underlying principles have been agreed, then the CFDs will be much more straightforward. i hope to have time tomorrow morning (Irish time) to open an RFC, and will post a link here when I have done it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no time to do the RFC today, and I may not be able to get back to it until Tuesday. But I will do it :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 28 September 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.
