< February 4	February 6 >

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Usama Mukwaya to Category:Ugandan film directors

Nominator's rationale: pointless single-article category for the Ugandan film director Usama Mukwaya. Fails WP:SMALLCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Relisting comment: Originally, I closed this for the nomination on a 'no objections and none seem likely' basis [1]. However, there are now a number of articles in the category besides the bio, so we need to look at this again.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 23:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete, no merge- the director should be in the merge target but the other contents should not. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:03, 6 February 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: merge to Category:Companies established in 1988. Of contents, one was already in a proper subcat of the other parent, and the other was manually added to Category:Real estate companies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Real estate companies established in 1988 to Category:Companies established in 1988

Nominator's rationale: Not part of a tree of real estate companies by year of establishment. Tim! (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to both parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted for now; not part of a series. Category:Real estate companies appears to be heavily populated, so it might sustain a year of estab category tree. I am not sure whether that would be a good idea, but at some point it may be worth considering. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 9 February 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 initial depopulation of this category makes the !vote here an unfortunate mess. If it's still believed that a merge (as suggested by one editor) or a delete is necessary, a fresh start here is probably best. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This category is now surplus to requirements. The people that were in this category are now all in "Chetnik personnel of World War II", and a nationality category (mostly "Serbs of Montenegro"). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this is a redundant category. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 07:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repopulate. The category has been emptied out of process, and the nominator has presented CFD with a fait accompli. Unless the category is repopulated, editors cannot assess its usefulnes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

---

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

Relisting comment: I have repopulated the category from Special:Contributions/Peacemaker67

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 21:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• keep The nominator has said nothing about the other parents of this category, including Category:Montenegrin people of World War II which will be without this subset of people Hmains (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A full upmerge (possibly excluding History of Montenegro) might be appropriate. When the nom did loses the national (then provincial) data. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 8 February 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Physics disambiguation pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation pages (e.g. Conjugation) are just for linking to similarly named topics. The dab pages themselves are not about any particular topic. If Wikiproject Physics have an interest in a particular dab page then it can be tagged on its talk page and hence placed in Category:Disambig-Class physics articles. We don't need this category as well. For info: Example of previous similar discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_13#Category:Syracuse.2C_New_York_disambiguation_pages DexDor (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator and per the Syracuse precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the disambiguation pages aren't about physics, even if some (or even all) of the linked articles are. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If even some of the linked articles are about physics, that's enough grounds for WikiProject tagging. I hope that is done before deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is what Category:Disambig-Class physics articles is for, and the ((WPPHYSICS)) banner with the |class=dab switch -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete other projects tag talk pages; physics doesn't appear to merit an exception. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional cancer survivors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Uselessly vague. How long must a character live after a diagnosis to have "survived" cancer? If a character is diagnosed and lives 6 months before the cancer kills them, did they survive 6 months? If diagnosed, then killed by something else 5.9 months later, did they "survive" cancer? SummerPhD (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Survivor is far too vague. Fictional characters with cancer would be a better name. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is having cancer a defining characteristic for any of the characters you wish to add? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For neither of the two articles currently in this category does this appear to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic. WP:DNWAUC (essay) applies. DexDor (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete It's not even clear that either member is a cancer survivor (unless you play by superhero comic rules). At any rate it's a tiny category. Mangoe (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the walter whites defining characteristics; is that he is a cancer patient; same as the Jigsaw killer and captain mar-vell. That's already half a dozen examples. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A dozen is twelve. That's three, not six. You still haven't explained how these are cancer "survivors" and your assertion that it is a defining characteristic ("appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article") of these three is merely your assertion. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Another of the unneeded "fictional characters by tiny once-mentioned foo" categories by this creator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To me the inclusion of Lex Luthor just shows that this category is out of hand. Lex Luthor appears in lots and lots of fictions where he has never had cancer. I have watched two TV series and a movie with Lex Luthor, and in none of him did he survive cancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's like having a category for Moms, Fictional characters with backyards, People who own pickup trucks, Video characters who wear eyeglasses. People, places and things have a large variety of aspects and characteristic but that doesn't mean that each one should exist as a separate category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 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: delete, and replace with ((India-spacecraft-stub)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:ISRO stubs to Category:Spacecraft stubs

Nominator's rationale: Neither Category:ISRO stubs nor ((ISRO-stub)) was proposed at WP:WSS/P. Neither would have been approved, since there are too few articles (there are just two as I write this). I therefore propose that all transclusions of ((ISRO-stub)) be replaced by ((India-spacecraft-stub)), and then both ((ISRO-stub)) and Category:ISRO stubs should be deleted. If it is decided to keep Category:ISRO stubs, it must be placed into the proper parent categories, and not inside itself as it is at present. Redrose64 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and delete replace with appropriate stub templates ("India-spacecraft-stub" or "India-stub" depending on what is the topic) -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 06:21, 8 February 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Non-ordained ecclesiastical officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is part of Category:Anglican clergy, but holds biographies rather than articles on offices. It should be deleted under WP:SMALLCAT, as it only holds John de Brantingham, a 14th-century non-ordained clergyman, and Henry Filmer, a churchwarden which is non-defining; both are adequately categorised without this category. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't get the first line: it's about officers - why would it be strange that it contains people who are officers? Re smallcat - it has the potential to grow; the Anglican church has been around for a long time. Re adequacy - I would find it strange to find a church warden in a category of Anglican clergy as no holders of this office are ordained clergymen. Reasonable people would expect to find only ordained clergy in such a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re officers: sorry, I meant to point out that it is (mis-)categorised under Category:Anglican ecclesiastical offices. Re the churchwarden, you were the editor that put Filmer into this category in Sept 2013. As an alternative to deletion, to avoid what you now find strange I suggest it could be renamed as Category:Non-ordained Anglican clergy; this would exclude churchwardens and officers in other non-defining offices. – Fayenatic London 11:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still confused @Fayenatic london: How is Anglican ecclesiastical offices a mis-categorisation? Is not a prebendary an officer? Re the alternative suggestion (non-ordained Anglican clergy), I could not acquiesce; it defeats the purpose which is to hold those officers that are not ordained. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as small cat, or if kept rename to make it clear this is about Anglicans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is a misconceived category. De Brantingham appears to have been before there was a Church of England. He was English, but not Anglican. The offices that he held imply that he was ordained, despite apparently non-canonically having a marriage. I do not think that a churchwarden counts as a church official; or if it does that this was a notable office. Every parish church had two. At one period this was an onerous unpaid office, so that people were reluctant to serve for more than one year, so that any ratepayer was liable to have to serve, making service in this office very common. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete As PKI says above, John de Brantingham's offices imply ordination, leaving us with a single person whose notability is his martyrdom, not his office. Wardens are elected to short terms (technically every year in the US, typically a three year term in practice) and while a large portion of the American founding fathers probably held the office, it's because they could hardly escape it. It's not even vaguely defining. Mangoe (talk) 23:49, 8 February 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: procedural close. This is a place for discussing categories, and the nominated page is not a category. If the nominator wants it renamed, please use WP:RM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming List of fictional U.S. states to List of fictional states of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Fictional states of the United States. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 07:44, 5 February 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: merge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bács-Kiskun County-related lists to Category:Bács-Kiskun County and Category:Hungary-related lists

Nominator's rationale: This category contains only 3 articles, and seems unlikely to expand soon, so it fails WP:SMALLCAT. Best to upmerge to both parents BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 5 February 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.