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 and repopulate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Alltel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only includes the company page and a racing driver who was sponsored by the company for a few years, and doesn't appear to have a reasonable potential for expansion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm pretty sure that there were more content when this was created almost 6 years ago. I suspect that most of the content was relocated after Alltel was acquired. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, this category should be merged, presumably the a Verizon category, as it appears that was the main beneficiary of the takeover and break up. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except Ryan Newman doesn't belong in either of those categories, and Alltel is already in Category:Verizon Communications. There is nothing to merge here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wikipedia:Merge what? applies to CfD too! --BDD (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, based on the discussion, I'm going to opine Keep and repopulate. Not knowing what was in here makes this discussion inappropriate. Entities that were part of Alltel are and were part of Alltel. The fact that as a result of a merger they are now part of a new company does not change history. If someone wants to make a case that all parts of the historic Alltel are appropriately only included in Verizon, then they can make that case. But that is not the case in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Repopulkate and Keep -- This was a substantial business, though now defunct. Its disappearance does not remove its historic importance. Accordingly, its former subsidiaries should be categorised both here and under their current parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 6 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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Gala Fairydean F.C. to Category:Gala Fairydean Rovers F.C.
• Propose renaming Category:Gala Fairydean F.C. players to Category:Gala Fairydean Rovers F.C. players

Nominator's rationale: Gala Fairydean F.C. merged with Gala Rovers F.C. to form Gala Fairydean Rovers F.C. during the 2013 close season and now competes under that name. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to reflect the club's new name. GiantSnowman 12:25, 8 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:House arrest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is not about house arrest but rather groups a number of articles about Iranian people. Presumably they are individuals that were placed under house arrest at some point, though many of the articles do not say anything like that. For articles of these people, if they are notable for having been under house arrest, Category:Iranian prisoners and detainees and/or Category:Prisoners and detainees of Iran would be more appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to Category:Prisoners and detainees of Iran. The other two are essentially duplicates, but my target name would cover foreigners detained in Iran. But purge Category:Iranian prisoners and detainees of any persons detained by other countries. If kept, it should be Category:Persons under house arrest in Iran. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iranian people detained by other countries go in Category:Iranian people imprisoned abroad, and that is a subcategory of Category:Iranian prisoners and detainees. I'm not sure how your point about purging the category is relevant to this discussion, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sample I checked are all in more defining categories (e.g. Category:Iranian democracy activists). That a person was (for a short/long period) under house arrest is just one of many things that could happen in a persons life that doesn't need a category. DexDor (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DexDor's argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 8 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.

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. The deletion argument centers around the suggestion that if kept, then consistency demands the creation of such categories for every certain type of official. But that argument is rebutted, and not really a sensible claim anyway, because those other categories, if problematic, can be treated as (and if) they ever arise. This debate need not set some kind of precedent. The keep argument centers on that this unfortunate occurrence is a 'defining characteristic' and has very strongly in their favour that the fact is mentioned in the lede of most such articles. This is a very persuasive way to test whether people are likely to be searching for this categorisation. Therefore, on balance, I do not judge that the arguments demonstrate a consensus to delete. -Splash - tk 22:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:United States presidents who died while in office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The fact that a president died in office should (of course) be mentioned in the president's article, but I don't think it's needed as a characteristic to categorize by (these articles have plenty of categories). See essay WP:DNWAUC. There are no other "died in office" categories in EnWP. For info: There is a list article. The subcat and the list article should be upmerged to Category:U.S. Presidents and death. DexDor (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:DEFINING says "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having", and I think that in all the 8 cases here, that is the case. Another test in WP:DEFINING is "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining"; but in each of these 8 cases, death in office is mentioned in the lead. In 5 cases (Lincoln, Harrison, McKinley, Roosevelt & Kennedy), it is in the first sentence of the article; in a 6th (Taylor) it is in the second sentence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dying in office may be a defining characteristic - the nomination doesn't claim otherwise (although perhaps could have been clearer). This is more about consistency/completeness of categorization; we should either categorize all (types for which we have a category of) elected officials by the way they left office (died, resigned, impeached, served maximum term etc) or none at all. DexDor (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC) DexDor (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we don't even have a category for every type of elected official. Should we get rid of all categories for elected officials? Thincat (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've clarified my comment above. DexDor (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. So, we have Category:Political office-holders by role and in there one subcategory is Category:Heads of government and another is Category:School board members. Are you suggesting that these two should be subcategorised in the same way or that it is only in respect of the way they left office that should be treated identically? At present I can see no virtue at all in this but if there is relevant policy or guidance otherwise I would be happy to reconsider. Thincat (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Question. @DexDor: why do you think we should have an all-or-one approach to categorising elected officials by the way they left office?
            Why not just categorise by whether the attribute in question is defining? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • That a fact about a person is reasonable to mention in the lead is a necessary condition for that characteristic to be suitable for categorization (paraphrasing from WP:DEFINING), but that doesn't mean we should have a category for every such characteristic - otherwise, for example, FDR would be in categories like "32nd head of state of a country" and "leaders who ordered internment". Where a category forms part of a wider categorization scheme that counts in its favour. DexDor (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not advocating that we have a category for every such characteristic. However, in the particular case of this office of executive president, death in office is defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify (if that has not been done) and Delete. Not all in office deaths are the same, this is much better treated by a list. It is also the type of thing that realistically will not grow fast, so if President Obama dies in office, we will have plenty of people willing to add to the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. That is an odd reason. People may be murdered in many different ways, but we don't sub-categorise Category:Murder victims by the method of killing; the shared characteristic is that the people concerned were unlawfully killed, and that's enough. In this case, the fact that a President died in office is defining in each case, so why not categorise by that shared fact? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and in response to BHG, not all presidents who died in office were murdered: FDR, Harding, and William Henry Harrison among them. So JPL is correct in the sense that the amount of disarray accompanying an in-office deaths certainly differs. We generally don't categorize people who die by whether they were or weren't employed at the time of death (or what they were employed doing)- similarlyo, we wouldn't want to categorize on that basis because it's generally not defining of their notability. Is FDR really defined by the fact that he died in office? the question answers itself. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46: Indeed, 3 died of natural causes, and I didn't claim that they were all murdered. I was merely noting another category as a comparator, where the deaths could also be broken down further but aren't.
    As to whether these Presidents were defined by their death in office, the answer is evident in the mature articles on them: it is one of he first facts set out in the article. In the case of FDR, it is in the second sentence of the lead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Before mentioning his death, the article also mentions that he was well known by a three letter acronym, that must also be defining? Not all in the lead is defining; it is often backgrounder material. Take James VI and I that in the lead mentions his reign ended with his death (like nearly every other monarch's) which indicates that terms of office ending in death are not always defining, unless we're willing to support categories like Category:English monarchs who died in office, Category:Popes who died in office, Category:Mayors who died in office, Category:Corporate directors who died in office, Category:Lawyers who died still licensed to practice law, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: SMALLCAT ("will never have more than a few members") doesn't strictly apply here as (if kept) the category might grow (over a timescale of decades). DexDor (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per Carlos and IAR. BHG is correct in that a sitting president dying is rare and that it's often mentioned in the lede, but the broader case of sitting leaders dying (or being killed) while in office is less so - indeed for Kings and emperors it was a somewhat common way to go. As I don't think such kings cats should be created, for consistency's same I don't think this one should exist either - if it's kept it would bely a systemic bias for the US and for the present time - the only neutral formulation would be Category:Heads of state who died while in office but I really don't think we should blow out that tree, it just doesn't feel right. There's the iAR. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a defining characteristic for a small set of presidents, so worth a category. Category:Heads of state who died while in office might be a useful parent, but would not be useful for monarchs or popes who normally reign (or serve) until death. The resignation of Pope Benedict is almost unique. Abdication by British monarchs is also extremely rare. Accordingly, the suggested parent would have to have a headnote limiting it to those elected for a fixed term. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Put yourself in the position of someone, for example, writing an essay about presidents of a country (and assume that you are one of the readers who's discovered categories). How are you most likely to want to group the presidents - by-century, by-party, by-gender (one day) ... ? IMO, whether they died in office would be a long way down the list. Note: If we were talking about "Death of <president>" articles (i.e. articles about the event of the death) then whether that event happened to a serving or former president probably would be a good characteristic to categorize that topic by. This characteristic tends to appear in the first few sentences of the lead, but that may be partly because "until his death in" fits neatly into a "served from <year> to <year>" clause. DexDor (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While having been assassinated may be somewhat defining, simply dieing in office is probably not. As to the listify, the list is at List of Presidents of the United States who died in office. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. Assassinations are notable, natural deaths are not. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to listify. We already have List of Presidents of the United States who died in office. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an appropriate defining characteristic for these presidents, and an effective aid to navigation to across a set of articles that is more than adequately sized. Per WP:CLN, any companion list article only adds to the benefit of the category. For officials who have an indefinite term of office (e.g. Popes and U.S. Supreme Court justices), it makes little sense to track deaths in office as a significant percentage of sitting officials will serve until their death, but for Presidents of the United States this is a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What next, Category:Kings of the United Kingdom who died while in office?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnpacklambert: I guess what's next is another bad hypothetical. There is a very good reason that there is no Category:Kings of the United Kingdom who died while in office or for that matter Category:Popes who died while in office. The overwhelming majority of kings and popes die in office because they serve a lifetime term, not a four-year term of office. There is no benefit or aid to navigation in categorizing UK kings and popes in this manner in that it would overlap almost entirely with Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom and Category:Popes. A pope or UK king dying in office is newsworthy but not defining in his former role as pope / king. Conversely, a pope or king leaving office is strongly defining, which is exactly why we have Category:Popes who abdicated and Category:Monarchs who abdicated. Whether the cause was assassination or natural, the death in office of a President of the United States is strongly defining. Your latest bad hypothetical only further emphasizes exactly why this characteristic is defining and merits categorization. Alansohn (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Alansohn: A minority of presidents die in office and a minority of monarchs abdicate (currently, at least), but that something is a minority characteristic does not necessarily make it a defining characteristic - still less does it prove that it's a characteristic that we should categorize people by (as well as having in a list). DexDor (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @DexDor: The question is if the characteristic is defining, and the answer is a rather definitive yes based on the essential nature of the transition, and the same for the abdication of popes or UK kings. IMO, whether a president died in office is rather high up on the list of characteristics of an American president. We've all heard you repeat your argument ad infinitum, but I'm completely unconvinced. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 19 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.

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 as is. -Splash - tk 22:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tintin to Category:The Adventures of Tintin
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin characters to Category:The Adventures of Tintin characters
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin films to Category:Films based on The Adventures of Tintin
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin books to Category:Books based on the The Adventures of Tintin
• Propose renaming Category:Video games based on Tintin to Category:Video games based on The Adventures of Tintin
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin locations to Category:The Adventures of Tintin locations
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin lists to Category:The Adventures of Tintin lists
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin images to Category:The Adventures of Tintin images

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the categories is The Adventures of Tintin. The films and books category should also follow the convention of Category:Works based on works. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then please change all of them to this format, not some of them. Surely you can see the inconsistency you are proposing above. I suggest the following:

• Propose renaming Category:Tintin to Category:The Adventures of Tintin
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin characters to Category:Characters based on The Adventures of Tintin
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin films to Category:Films based on The Adventures of Tintin
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin books to Category:Books based on the The Adventures of Tintin
• Propose renaming Category:Video games based on Tintin to Category:Video games based on The Adventures of Tintin
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin locations to Category:Locations based on The Adventures of Tintin
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin lists to Category:Lists based on The Adventures of Tintin
• Propose renaming Category:Tintin images to Category:Images based on The Adventures of Tintin

Prhartcom (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only these need two need this change. The characters category follows the convention of Category:Comics characters by protagonist ("FOO characters"), the location category follows the convention of Category:Fictional locations in comics and Category:Fictional locations by series ("FOO locations"), the lists category follows the convention of Category:Entertainment lists by franchise ("FOO lists") and the images category follows the convention of Category:Images from comics (FOO images). It's not a good idea to rename the categories in a way, that makes them inconsistent with the sister categories in the mentioned categories. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, at some point someone obviously goofed. Prhartcom (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per original nomination, which makes good sense to me. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted after re-tagging some pages where the proposed name has been changed from the speedy nomination originally made on 22 Nov. Note: there was no consensus at a previous CFD in 2012. – Fayenatic London 19:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Is there any chance of confusion here? Doesn't seem like it. Additionally, the main article itself seems to refer to the series as a whole as "Tintin" a number of times. They both seem equally common names from the series, so why not use the concise title? Additionally, I would strongly recommend adding a talk page notice to Talk:The Adventures of Tintin to mention this. SnowFire (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I see no need to exchange the brevity of "Tintin" for the longer form, nor to break the conventions noted above by Armbrust. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Like BHG, I see no point in making the category name longer, just for the sake of it. Tintin refers to the subject of the book series, which are colloquially referred without Adventures. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The proposed changes are no improvement, and some would be substantially worse. There almost certainly are some "books based on the The Adventures of Tintin", by other authors; but those most certainly are not the classic Tintin books. Would it be safe to say that the films based on the Adventures of Tintin are all based on the books based on the Adventures of Tintin? Or would it be better to say that the Tintin films are all based on the Tintin books? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:19, 4 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.

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. -Splash - tk 22:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People from Union, Mississippi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL, only one entry. Upmerge to Category:People from Neshoba County, Mississippi or delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Union, Mississippi is located in both Neshoba County and Newton County. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge but not sure which county the one person should go under. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, an upmerge is not called for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the general consensus that when a town is in two counties, a by-city category is permissable regardless of size. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:People from Newton County, Mississippi, where most of town is, and where most of the population lives. A single-article category is no help to navigation, so we would do readers no favours by keeping it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the Bushranger....William 18:25, 5 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.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Time travel television episodes and Category:Buffyverse time travel stories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Buffyverse time travel episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category with no possible chance of expansion. Also stretches the definition of "time travel" to the breaking point if not beyond. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, not delete. Double upmerge to two valid parents, Category:Time travel television episodes and Category:Buffyverse time travel stories. – Fayenatic London 21:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Of the three of these, only one remotely qualifies as a time travel story and even that is on the far end of the definition. One episode involves, in one segment, characters trapped in a short time loop. Another features the erasure of a day, not time travel. The third features one character falling through "cracks" in time. None of them feature time travel as anything approaching a theme. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge -- This is usually a better solution than a plain delete and it ensures that we do not lose category data. We seem to have an unnecessarily large tree on Buffy. This could usefully be pruned considerably. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 6 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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Palestine in World War II to Category:Mandatory Palestine in World War II

Nominator's rationale: CFR in line with all articles and categories on Mandatory Palestine; also to distinguish from modern State of Palestine. GreyShark (dibra) 16:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom which correctly states the facts. There is also Category:Palestine Emergency to consider. Hmains (talk) 04:04, 6 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.

The result of the discussion was: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Martial arts films by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The sub-categories for American, Chinese and Japanese films have not been populated, but nearly every film in Category:Martial arts films would fall into one of those three. This category is redundant, and should be deleted, or merged into the main category. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, see Category:Films_by_country which has many similar examples. While I agree most are likely from those three countries, you also have french, german, british, korean, and indian films which could be considered martial arts, and having those split-outs would be useful. Keep because this is part of a general pattern, where we split film genres by country.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This category is a suitable parent for the 3 "<Country> martial arts films" categories so I don't understand the nomination. Did the nominator mean to include the subcats as well? DexDor (talk) 19:03, 2 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.

The result of the discussion was: keep (i.e. do not rename). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Kings of Georgia (country) to Category:Kings of Georgia

Nominator's rationale: There already exists a category for the all kings & other monarchs of the various Georgian states, Category:Monarchs of Georgia (country), as well as distinct sub-categories (Category:Kings of Imereti‎ etc.) so this category currently serves little purpose. Instead, it should be restricted to the monarchs of the unified Kingdom of Georgia, which also makes the disambiguation unnecessary. Constantine ✍ 16:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment How about rename to Category:Kings of the Kingdom of Georgia to make the scope clear? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a tad redundant and against the (quite reasonable IMO) practice of using the title the monarchs actually claimed and used. There is a difference between "Georgian kings" or "kings of Georgian states" and "Kings of Georgia", which implies a unitary state. We certainly follow this rule with, say, Category:Kings of Greece or Category:Kings of Serbia, even though there have been many Greek/Serbian states ruled by kings. Constantine ✍ 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current disambiguation is part of an almost universal one to disambiguate the country of Georgia from the US state of Georgia. I think we should keep with this disambiguation in this case, even if confusion is not that likely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep to match the universal 'Georgia (country)' naming convention which there is no reason whatsoever to change in any way. Hmains (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- WE have decided on the form 'Georgia (country)' to disambiguate from Georgia (U.S. State). WE should stick to that. I know that the US State has had not kings (except kings of GB), but that is not a good reason for abandoning the convention. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 6 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jacques Dutronc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's not enough material here to justify an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Minimal content to warrant an eponymous category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (As category creator) Is there a guideline about what is enough content or is it just a matter of subjective judgement? If the latter, then keep on the ground that there is indeed enough material to justify an eponymous category. Seriously, it's a category that someone could conceivably find useful and it wouldn't improve the encylopaedia to remove it, and there are a lot of music related categories with less content. Formerip (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OC#Eponymous suggests when articles that are candidates for an eponymous category can be more appropriately categorized by a specific topic, such as a type of work ('songs' and 'albums' in this case), there is no need for the eponymous category as well. 1) The articles are already going be linkable from the artist's article and 2) the subcategories can be linked with a hat note. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:13, 14 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Book 'Life is Worth Swimming by Murray Rose' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate use of categorization. DexDor (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, I'm not even sure what this cat is supposed to be.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree that this doesn't fit with any of the things categories are normally used for ... but did the nominator notice that the creation of this category was only the second edit by an editor who had registered the same day? And that the only content on their talk page is the CFD notification? No welcome message, just the auto-generated CFD notice.

A new editor is likely to feel bitten by this, and research has shown that rapid deletion of new pages is one of the most discouraging things for new editors. I'm sure that the nominator had no ill-intent towards the creator, but if DexDor could spare a few minutes to welcome the creator (User:Bondi1043) and explain why we delete this sort of category, it might help to avoid deterring a new editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a misuse of category space. This is a small category with no hop of expansion. The creator should be looking for other categories that fit the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We generally avoid one-entry categories, and this one does not even make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 23 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.

The result of the discussion was: result. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Optical companies of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: One member, no parents (and far too much text). DexDor (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Eyeware retailers of India and delete the intro text (could be moved to talk?). This is part of a scheme, even if there aren't too many for now, it stands to reason that there are certainly more Indian eyeware companies out there that will be added at some point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no objection to a rename instead of deletion. 19:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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 to Category:T. S. Eliot. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:T. S. Eliot in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category with no likelihood of expansion. One of its two articles was recently deleted and the other is on its way out as well. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge That one article to Category:T. S. Eliot, assuming it survives the AFD discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 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.

The result of the discussion was: merge and rename all as nominated, except for Hungary. Hungary seems to raise some different issues, and I am not persuaded that there is a consensus here about how to handle them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:

• Category:Prehistory of Georgia (country) to Category:Prehistoric Georgia (country)
• Category:Hungarian prehistory to Category:Prehistoric Hungary
• Category:Prehistory of Slovenia to Category:Prehistoric Slovenia

Rename:

• Category:Prehistory of Poland (until 966) to Category:History of Poland (until 966)
• Category:Early history of Southeast Asia to Category:Prehistoric Southeast Asia (or retain “Early history of Southeast Asia” as a separate category?).

Nominator's rationale: Propose merging or renaming duplicate “Prehistoric” categories for Georgia (country), Hungary and Slovenia into the standard “Prehistoric Georgia”, “Prehistoric Hungary” and “prehistoric Slovenia” categories. And to rename two categories; to separate the historic and prehistoric periods for Poland (with articles sorted to the appropriate category eg into Category:Prehistoric Poland); and to rename the parent category for Southeast Asia: NB: “Prehistoric” categories for some countries formerly had only one category “Prehistory of Europe” or “Prehistory of Asia” with no link to either the history of Fooland by period or to Category:National prehistories (though I have not amended any categories listed above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 2 December 2013‎

• Oppose merging Category:Hungarian prehistory to Category:Prehistoric Hungary: the first category refers to a phase in the history of the Hungarian people (which ended around 830 AD), while the second one to a phase in the history of present-day Hungary (which ended around 400BC). Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So the Category:Hungarian prehistory category covers to 830 AD, with much of the category in Category:Medieval Hungary , as the Medieval period starts in the 6th century or c500 AD on. Before that period is not prehistory but Ancient history, hence articles on pre-Medieval Hungary could, looking at Category:Ancient history by country have several alternative formats, cf Category:Ancient China or Category:History of Ancient China or Category:Ancient Italian history or Category:Ancient history of Slovenia; I would favour the last ie Category:Ancient history of Hungary. Hugo999 (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the history of the Hungarian people the period until c. 830 AD is traditionally named as prehistory (there are no written sources of the Hungarians before that date: prehistory is the period without written sources). Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think names of categories should follow overall Wikipedia naming conventions. Or at least the Category:Hungarian prehistory should have an explanatory note that the category is for the pre-written history of Hungary only, not Prehistoric Hungary. Category:Hungary before the Magyars should be a subcategory of it, rather than being a subcategory of Category:Prehistoric Hungary as at present. And Category:Hungarian prehistory should also be a subcategory of a Hungarian category eg Category:History of Hungary by period; at present it just has one parent category Category:National prehistories

I think there is a misunderstanding: the scope of the two articles are sharply different, as I explained above. I think Johnpacklambert's proposal below is a solution. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no objection to the merger of 'Prehistory of Slovenia' to 'Prehistoric Slovenia', just make sure that the subcategories are also renamed accordingly. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe Category:Hungarian prehistory should be renamed to Category:Prehistory of the Hungarian people to make the scope of the category more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johnpacklambert, thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunatelly, I cannot rename categories. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the closing Admin can.

• Comment -- this is an area where uniformity is not going to be feasible, due to the very different dates at which history starts in different places. History depends on the availabilitry of written sources. I would however support JPL's suggestion on Hungary. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Support either Category:Hungarian prehistory or Category:Prehistory of the Hungarian people, with an explanatory note indicating that the category is for the period before written records, and including Category:Hungary before the Magyars; with a reference to Category:Prehistoric Hungary for the Prehistoric period of Hungary. Hugo999 (talk) 02:10, 14 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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. If the convention in the tree should be changed, then that is a new discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:International badminton competitions hosted in Spain to Category:Badminton tournaments in Spain

Nominator's rationale: The category should follow the established convention of Category:Badminton tournaments by country, which is "Badminton tournaments in COUNTRY". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per convention of Category:Badminton tournaments by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per naming convention. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. Rename Category:Badminton tournaments to Category:Badminton competitions per C2C, Category:Sports competitions by sport. And all subcategories also. Leave the name Category:International badminton competitions hosted in Spain, and it will be better to rename in Category:International badminton competitions hosted by Spain per format "by host" using for football, see Category:International association football competitions by host and subcategories. NickSt (talk) 20:48, 8 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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Amusement rides manufactured by Prime Play to Category:Amusement rides manufactured by Prime Interactives

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. WhiteWater West opperates this division under the "Prime Interactives" name, and the category should reflect that. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:15, 2 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.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Lists of drama television series episodes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Harper's Island episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category with no chance of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With no objection to recreating category later if separate episode articles are created. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 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.