Category:20th-century United States presidential electors by year[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. (The category had been emptied before this discussion was closed.) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- With an election every 4 years, there is not enough content to require a split by century. The category is tagged as a container, but still contains a lot of articles that need diffusing into subcats. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete but I have to question whether any of the elector cats should exist except Category:Faithless electors, as they are the only ones notable for doing this. Mangoe (talk) 01:41, 29 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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, technically the latter part of the proposal may well be considered as a case of WP:SMALLCAT, but the bigger problem is that these two category layers just hinder easy navigation. Most particular, when you're at Category:Finance, a Wikipedia user of average intelligence is unlikely to find Category:Banking or Category:Insurance because they are contained in Category:Financial system which is not very intuitive to begin with and moreover Banking and Insurance are currently no less than 4 levels lower than Finance. Having Category:Financial services and Category:Financial institutions directly in Category:Finance makes things much easier to find. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete per nom. I agree that these cats are unnecessary layers than hinder rather than facilitate navigation. Neutralitytalk 19:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The second is just a container. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first. Merge the second. The first is mostly being used for articles on the financial systems of particular countries; and the global one. It should perhaps become Category:Financial systems with a headnote saying that it is mostly for national financial systems. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 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.
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:since the nomination as proposed is clearly inappropriate, the intent of the nomination is unclear. I suggest a renomination.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funandtrvl's Interpretation Note that the articles were tagged as nominated so I just tagged the Australian category. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification, I do not support renaming Music organizations by country to Australian music organizations. My comment above for: Shouldn't it be Category:Musical organisations based in Australia being renamed to Category:Australian music organisations?? does not support that change either, it is just a supposition of what this request for change should or would be. I do not support that change either, at this time. Funandtrvl (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nomination makes no sense as written. A more clear nomination might work, but this one will not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 5 June 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:no consensus. There's no clear consensus for any one outcome and no agreement that these categories overlap enough to justify a merge. I'm not sure if the categories have been cleaned up since the original nomination, but there's not much overlap in contents at the moment. Overlap in topic is a separate issue, but there's no agreement that such overlap exists. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category, split off from Category:Physical medicine and rehabilitation journals, which now is even smaller. The distinction between the two categories, if any, is very subtle at best. Delete and upmerge to parent cat. Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See further comments below. --Randykitty (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Jeandédé: If there are current articles that are not in either category today but belong here, by all means, add them now. That would help refute smallcat and allow us to see if there is a clear distinction between the two in practice. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Peterkingiron:: my argument to merge is not based on an argument that these cats are too small, but on the fact that the difference between them is absolutely not clear and doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose. Note that several journals are already categorized in more than one of these closely-related cats. --Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to differenciate "Rehabilitation journals" from "Health-profession journals". If you see what I mean? I removed remaining duplicates. What do you think about it ?Jeandédé (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Allied Health Occupations" would refer to the therapists, I assume, but we are talking about journals here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, the content of the categories is different enough and each backed up by a relevant article, though we might merge based on WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 3 June 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.
Both of these categories group chapels by type, as their names make clear. I think the first category was for the subcategories and the second category was for the main articles before I stumbled in with the wedding chapels but I don't see how that separation either aids navigation or is remotely clear from the category names. (If other editors would prefer a reverse merge, that's fine too and I've already tagged both categories for consideration.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 27 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.
