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:upmerge to parents. – FayenaticLondon 07:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The law firm that an attorney has / had worked for is not a defining characteristic of the individual. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- We might retain the "people" category. An article on the firm would be suitable as the main article for that, but is the firm prominent enough to need an article? I would question whether we even need the "people" category before we have an article on the firm. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2016 (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 WP:CSD#G2. Redrose64 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an article in Category space. I would move it to main space if Black Feminist Thought were not already there. —teb728tc 21:06, 13 April 2016 (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.
Support Cyprus, as a Commonwealth country generally uses British spelling when English is used. Also category consistency applies here. AusLondonder (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2016 (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. – FayenaticLondon 07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are easily expandable categories. --Eleassarmy talk 06:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt so, given the small size of these provinces. But if you know articles that fit in these categories, please go ahead and populate them. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The first target also has architecture, economy, and geography categories, each with minimal contents: these also need similarly to be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: those are already nominated, see discussion in next section below. – FayenaticLondon 22:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realised that afterwards, but failed to come back to edit my comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2016 (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 & delete. I will check that the member categories remain within the province hierarchy. – FayenaticLondon 07:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge Architecture categories per WP:SMALLCAT, they only contain one child category Buildings and Structures. The Economy categories and its child categories only contain Castles (except two Slovene Littoral categories), which are already in Buildings and Structures as mentioned before, so they can just be deleted. A small province of a small country doesn't need that much granularity in its category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are parent categories - subcategories should not all be thrown into the main category, but distributed according to the main fields. --Eleassarmy talk 06:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as long as the result is not to orphan any subcategories. My impression is that this is a careful nom to avoid that, but I have only investigated a sample. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- wanted to oppose on the grounds that Slovenia is not well-represented on en.wiki and as our coverage grows they could become more populated... but all of these categories lead to the same place and hide much more interesting categories (like castles in) from view. One comment - I'd say all the examples of Category:Visitor attractions should be upmerged to the appropriate province cat, so that the castle cats don't lose the connection to their province. Furius (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2016 (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:keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disney owns all series in the category so putting all Disney and ABC shows under the DADT one, will make everything Disney ABC under that category. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK: This merger will help make the category for all Disney-ABC shows, and will also create the one category and make all Disney shows in one, like other Television series by studio categorys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSDIS (talk • contribs) 10:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. DADT is the syndicated distribution arm and would confuse those distributed or produced (for) by DADT with shows produced by ABC Studios. TV series by ABC Studios is currently a subcatagory of TV Series by DADT, so those show are in the DADT category already, but keep its historical ABC Studios relationship. Spshu (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; the name of the production company at the time of production should be used, not a later owner. Trivialist (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No more Oppose votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's not how this works. Trivialist (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2016 (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:keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disney owns all series in the category so putting it under the DADT one, will make everything Disney under that category. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK: All shows by Disney TV Animation, Walt Disney TV, and Disney Channels, will all be in one category thanks to this merger, and lets make Category:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television the home all Disney, ABC Studios/Touchstone Television, Walt Disney Television and Disney Television Animation, Freeform Original Productions, ABC, ABC News, Marvel Entertainment, Lucasfilm, some programs originally produced by Jim Henson Productions, Disney Channels and Saban Entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSDIS (talk • contribs) 10:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With DADT being a part (subcategory) of Disney, why would you merge the category into the subcategory? ABC has had pre-Disney produced shows and it might be nice to know the different via categories. Spshu (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please Merge. Disney owns all the owns the shows in the category, Disney-ABC name will be used as a distributor and category only, i want all Disney produced or distributed shows under one category, and will be bigger and better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: When i asked a breakup of the WBTV category, You did the spilt to other categorys, unspilt the non WBTV categorys now, also many production company ware folded into bigger TV studios, so unspilt the non WBTV categorys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2016 (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: – FayenaticLondon 08:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I explained further at the discussion liked above. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2016 (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:Medical and health organizations based in Singapore[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, C2A, as there were no objections. – FayenaticLondon 22:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @AusLondonder: I tried to trace objections to this as a speedy nomination, but could not find the listing in the page history at WP:CFDS at all. Did it "fail" only in that it was never actually listed there? If so, i.e. if there are no objections, then it can be approved speedily under C2A. (I am also inclined to start a discussion to extend the 28-day limit on WP:C2E.) – FayenaticLondon 21:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for that. It most likely means I never actually listed it at CFDS. I tagged it in early March, then I found it again today. I couldn't remember what happened with it. Hopefully this can be speedily renamed in that case. You make a good point about C2E and I would be interested to weigh in on such a discussion. Thanks for pointing this out, you're much more diligent than me! AusLondonder (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear case of the appropriate ENGVAR. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2016 (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:Populist parties in the Czech Republic[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: Bringing these ones in line with Category:Populism in the United States. While the implicit inclusion criteria for political parties as being "populist" were found both too subjective and too unspecific in a previous CfD consensus, where I had nominated the subsequently deleted Category:Populist parties in the United States. A categorization under the political concept of Populism, allowing more specific subcategories to define useful inclusion criteria, however seems perfectly acceptable. PanchoS (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2016 (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:rename as per nom. The suggestion to upmerge arrived too late to receive sufficient discussion, but another discussion aimed at upmerging those with WP:SMALLCAT concerns may be helpful. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest changing the name format of these categories, since "TYPE organizations in COUNTRY" seems to be the general standard for categories that group different types of organizations by country. Compare to the by-country subcategories of Category:Pro-choice organizations. (Possibly eligible for a speedy rename, but since they have all adopted a consistent name format, I think it's better to bring these here.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REname to make it clear that this is about location not nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per the above. Interestingly, the main article for this topic is Anti-abortion movements. A move request in 2014 to Pro-life movement resulted in no consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. But why are the Austrian and Danish ones spelt with "z" instead of "s"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: the Danish one matches the parent Category:Organizations based in Denmark. The Danish and the Austrian one are named that way because that's how they were created. My intent in the nomination was not to get into these distinctions, though they may be relevant issues to work out. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these should be upmerged several categories have but one or two entries... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It is not how such organisations would self-describe. They emphasise the positive, not the negative. That's their call to make. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with a rename to match the article name. There has most recently been no consensus to move the article to use "pro-life", so it's fine for the categories to follow that. I see the issues raised by Laurel above as a debate that is more appropriate for the article in a RM discussion. However, I do think that it's probably too late in this discussion to try to gain a consensus for that. I would not object to an immediate re-nomination if they are renamed as proposed, though. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:44, 18 May 2016 (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:Suburbs of Waratah-Wynyard Council, Tasmania[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 "Localities". This is partially influenced by the result of the original CfD, which received more participation and closed as "Localities". It makes little sense to split the outcome. (non-admin closure)~ RobTalk 04:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: : Creator of category is in full knowledge of the usage of terminology for places has claimed at another CFD that the localities is a more appropriate term, and most of the places mentioned are not suburbs JarrahTree 00:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "Populated places in ... " also omitting Council, which can be mentioned in headnote or "places governed by ... Council". No council has suburbs even if its main town does. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. These aren't "suburbs", either formally or in common usage, and were only moved here because the mover was confused. Localities is the corect terminology. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Responding to the comment above about removing the word "Council", we need to defer to Tasmanian usage here. The names with Council look fine to my South Australia eye, but I understand look strange to a Queenslander and possibly NSW who might have a Council (parliament) governing a shire (geographic area). --Scott DavisTalk 06:11, 28 May 2016 (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.
