Category:Former members of the District of Columbia Board of Education[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: No need to distinguish in categories between those on the board and those formerly on the board. TM 17:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong do not merge: Former members are far more extensive than current members. Encyclopedia users seeking information on current members should find it easily, rather than have to dredge through ten, twnety, forty former members (who may be dead). - Tim1965 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We don't categorize athletes by whether they are retired or not and there was even a CFD on just such a category....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Categorizing former versus current is maintenance challenge and I don't see breaking down offices between current and former as helpful. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We do not categorize people as former except in the case of religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We rarely allow former categories. We do sometimes categorise by the Parliament or congress of which they were members, but I am surprised that we even have a category for members of a local government body. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; we do not use the category system to segregate former holders of a political office from current ones. The appropriate way to handle the "current vs. former" issue in Wikipedia is with lists, not categories — categories are applied on a "once in, forever in" basis, not a transient one. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We don't categorize by former status. kennethaw88 • talk 03:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge former categories are disfavored (but not forbidden) because it tends to make the parent category a "current" category which are just short of forbidden (given WP:IAR, nothing is really forbidden). Also, as a practical matter, if applied uniformly, virtually every person who is dead, and many just inactive in the activity that made them notable, would get placed in such categories: Category:Former living people and all it's subcats, Category:Former Detroit Lions players, Category:Former pilots, etc.... This adds nothing but a mess to the category tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 19 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:Former members of the Council of the District of Columbia[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: No need to distinguish in categories between those on the council and those formerly on the council TM 17:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong do not merge: Former members are far more extensive than current members. Encyclopedia users seeking information on current members should find it easily, rather than have to dredge through ten, twnety, forty former members (many of whom may be dead). - Tim1965 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Match Outcome to Above Nomination Whether I agree with that outcome or not, these two categories should be treated the same. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge we do not categorize people as former except in religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We rarely allow former categories. We do sometimes categorise by the Parliament or congress of which they were members, but I am surprised that we even have a category for members of a local government body. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; we do not use the category system to segregate former holders of a political office from current ones. The appropriate way to handle the "current vs. former" issue in Wikipedia is with lists, not categories — categories are applied on a "once in, forever in" basis, not a transient one. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We don't categorize by former status. kennethaw88 • talk 03:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comments on the category above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 20 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:delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no other category I can find for "Media by item featured". I note that the editor who added this category also added the same items to either Category:Television featuring tall ships and Category:Films featuring tall ships at which point this becomes indescriminate. Note that tall ships is a term for a type of ship so allowing this would allow for Media featuring all sorts of types of ships split into films and television and whatnot. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should explain that I have no views about this category. I was reviewing red links and found these articles already marked in non-existent categories. All I ask is that if the categories are deleted the articles are taken out of them.Rathfelder (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. They are all related to a single series of television films. I've already cleared out some of the excessive categorization in the categories a bit (each episode/film had the entire series' category structure and external links) so I don't think there's much this category is going to be than these articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assuming there is a reliable, agreed upon non-arbitrary definition of tall ships, which I am not 100% sure there is, this category still has the problem of defining "featuring". Is a film with a few scenes of crossing the ocean, that has one shot of the full mast, featuring a tall ship, or is that just incidental?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Another performance category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "X about Y" type category with all the pitfalls. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 20 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:Household behavior and family economics[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 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.
Merge -- The fact that a university department may have 4 campuses is no reason to provide a category for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 14 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.
