< December 6 December 8 >

December 7

Category:Generalized hyperbolic distributions

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to parent category per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles and it doesn't seem to have any growth potential. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 7 December 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:Warner Bros. Animation animated films

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: do not rename. There may be a case for merging Category:Warner Bros. Animation animated films to Category:Warner Bros. animated films or vice versa, but this hasn't been discussed thoroughly (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title is redundant. JDDJS (talk) 21:41, 7 December 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.

subcats of Category:Firefighting in fiction

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationale: The titles are ambiguous - these films, television seires and video games don't fight fires. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:33, 7 December 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:Estimation for specific parameters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge to parent category per WP:SMALLCAT and because specific parameters is pretty vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 7 December 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:Estimation for specific distributions

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT and because specific distributions is pretty vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 7 December 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:Distributions with conjugate priors

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the two categories have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 7 December 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:Trump administration cabinet members

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. (Typically in such circumstances, I would recommend filing this category's technically premature creation under "eager-beaverism" and holding one's breath for another month.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trump is not yet president, so he doesn't have a cabinet. Thus, he doesn't have cabinet members. How is this category appropriate (or, at the very least, how is it appropriately named)? Brianga (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WereSpielChequers: do you mean what we did last time, keep the category per the 2008 CfD? I liked this comment in the discussion then: "Yes, strictly it is premature, but (unless Obama dies or resigns) it is inevitable that the categores will exist." - Brianhe (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we should rename the category to include something like President-elect. But last time we had a blurb in the category "A category for media-speculated future members of the cabinet in the Administration of President-elect Barack Obama." and that blurb persisted till May 2009. I think we are already at a stage when we could describe them as "A category for nominated or publicly announced future members of the cabinet in the Administration of President-elect Donald Trump. But if so please can someone remember to update the category a few months earlier this time, perhaps on inauguration day? ϢereSpielChequers 16:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: WP:CANDIDATECAT discourages potential nominees from being categorized. Reliable sources are difficult ("an anonymous source reported...") and being just considered is not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they aren't even nominees yet (at least I don't think any have been submitted to the Senate for consideration). In any event, renaming takes about 10 seconds and isn't any trouble at all. I think it's worth being accurate on such a high-profile topic.Brianga (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, rename to Category:Trump administration proposed cabinet members? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with that. Brianga (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When is it ever a valid argument on the encyclopedia to keep something that "isn't factual now, but will/might be soon"? Brianga (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we at least get consensus to put the announced nominees in some category finer than Category:Trump administration personnel? Trump administration nominees maybe? - Brianhe (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold. create Category:Trump administration proposed cabinet members and put those who Trump has named there. I think we have a consensus for that already. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have done the necessary per your proposal. - Brianhe (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianga: "Will" and "might" are two entirely different things. Like it or not, this falls under the "will" category. Trump will be President, and there's no argument at all for this category being deleted or renamed after he is President. It doesn't necessarily need to be populated right now, but since it's going to exist in a month and 8 days, why delete it now? That smacks of undue bureaucracy. pbp 15:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of like, or not like. Of course Trump is probably going to be president in a month. It would be incredibly unusual if he isn't. But he isn't today and thus does not have a cabinet. What's very possible is that one of the names floated by the transition team will either not be submitted to the Senate for confirmation (to my knowledge, none has yet been so submitted), or the Senate will decline to confirm such a nominee. For that additional reason, to today categorize any person as being in a category of people labeled "Trump administration cabinet members" is speculative and just plain factually inaccurate. Like I said earlier, adding people to this category after confirmation would be remarkably easy. I'd even volunteer to do it. But it should not be done now. Brianga (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a bit hand-wringing-ey and obstinately bureaucratic compared to "last time". For instance Holder was category tagged as Attorney General and a cabinet member on November 19 (!) and nobody seemed to mind it being premature [1]. Especially now that the Trump nominees have been moved to a "proposed cabinet members" category. In other words this is a time sink. I don't intend to reply here further. - Brianhe (talk) 19:30, 12 December 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:Women award winners

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category that's too broad to be maintainable: as currently constituted, this contains two gender-specific subcategories (Category:Actresses by award and Category:Women Pulitzer Prize winners), and otherwise contains a random partial selection of articles, for which the apparent inclusion criterion is "any woman who ever won any award at all". That's not a useful basis for a category, however, because it's not a substantively WP:DEFINING point of commonality between, say, a winner of the Nobel Prize and a winner of a local "distinguished citizen" award in her own county or city. As always, it is not necessary for every people category to always have a gender-specific subcategory for the women; per WP:CATEGRS, such categories are only appropriate when gender has a defining relationship with the topic (such as a category for winners of a notable Best Actress award), and are not meant to be an automatic feature of every category tree that happens to hold people. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 7 December 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:Arab–Israeli conflict media

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Arab–Israeli conflict media to Category:Media about the Arab–Israeli conflict
Category:Arab–Israeli conflict books to Category:Books about the Arab–Israeli conflict
Category:Arab–Israeli conflict films to Category:Films about the Arab–Israeli conflict

Rationale: The current names of these categories are ambiguous - they aren't about conflict media (or conflict books or conflict films) which is/are Arab-Israeli. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:34, 7 December 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:1970s in Southern Rhodesia

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:1970s in Rhodesia. – Fayenatic London 09:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rational: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, a duplicate of Category:1970s in Rhodesia. --Katangais (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Rhodesia did not exist in the 1970s; it ceased to be as a territory in 1964. --Katangais (talk) 06:52, 7 December 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.
More