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: These categories should be merged back into the original categories as it is misleading to have parallel categories for the same players. It seems that in 2008
user:Jeff79 took a dislike to the
Category:Castleford Tigers players type categories I created back in 2007 and took it upon himself to create a hoard of duplicate categories instead of going through the usual process of proposing that the categories be moved, to make things worse he didn't bother to populate/depopulate most of the categories so we are left with these duplicate categories both partially populated making a right mess of
Category:Rugby league players by club. The reason I believe that they should be merged back to the shorter version is that there is no need to disambiguate by adding "rugby league" in any of these teams. The only team that it is neccessary for is
Harlequins Rugby League due to the existence of
Harlequins rugby union. It is not normal practice for players by team categories to take the form category:club - specific sport - players as can be seen from the various examples listed below:
Support. We only need the sport when we're disambiguating, such as between college basketball teams of the same name.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. I was just trying to get them to match the way categories for rugby league players by Australian club are named. I suppose you're going to do it properly with a bot or something to tidy up all the categories and articles. I'm not very good with bots and things so was going about it the long way. I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of "rugby league" in the categories, as long as it's consistent either way. There are some cases where it will be necessary to include the sport and I thought I'd err on the side of caution and include it for all teams whether they need it now or not in case they do someday in the future. But I suppose if they need to be changed in the future, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. However, if the ones listed above only are changed back, then that will make a mixture of some categories including "rugby league" and some not. It'd be nice if we were consistent across the board with all clubs across wikipedia.--
Jeff79 (
talk) 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)reply
If enough support is gained for the categories to be merged to the shorter form and this discussion is closed, I will propose moving the other categories (except in cases where disambiguation is neccessary such as the Harlequins category).
King of the NorthEast 19:42, 11 March 2009 (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:Crunk rappers
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.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (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:Icelandic-language television series
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. Note, that if the others are to be renamed, someone needs to make that nomination.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep, and Rename the other categories here to 'X-language television series'. 'Television series' instead of 'television show' seems to be Wikipedia standard; see
Category:Television series, of which some of these categories could be subcategories, whereas
Category:Television shows is a redirect.
Robofish (
talk) 04:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename the others per Robofish; the standard in other related categories is "series" (or "program(me)s", when necessary), not "shows".
Bearcat (
talk) 19:20, 15 March 2009 (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:Georgian people
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:Rename. In light of
this recent discussion it makes sense now to do this rename to cure ambiguity, and then all of the subcategories could be speedily renamed to match this renamed category. I know the proposed name is relatively inelegant, but for most of the subcategories it will be far easier to use "Georgian (country) foo" than trying to formulate a "special" naming format for the Georgian categories. I think keeping it simple yet unambiguous is the best solution here.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Of course, this option complicates things considerably. If such an approach is adopted, then for one it's inconsistent with the most recent discussion. Secondly, it means all the subcategories will require full CfDs to change the naming format: they will not qualify under speedy criterion #6. I can state right now that I'm probably not going to do those full nominations (too many scars from
Category:Victoria (Australia)), though I would be willing to nominate them all for a speedy change if my suggestion were adopted. That is one reason I stated we should try to keep it simple yet unambiguous: adopting this rename will probably result in (1) this parent category being renamed, (2) with one subcategory already being renamed to "Georgian (country)", and (3) the rest not being changed at all. A big mess, in other words—just like
Category:People from Northern Ireland, which still has many subcategories that use "Northern Irish" because the nomination was not followed up on and carried to its logical conclusion as applying to all subcategories. (Though I acknowledge that apparently even "Georgian (country)" is ambiguous, so my simple solution to this problem may not be a "good" one.) What about using Category:Georgia (country) people à la
Category:Dominica people,
Category:Republic of the Congo people, etc.? This would permit the changes to still be made speedily rather than slogging through a complete CfD that reformulates the name for every one.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Reply. Thanks for the pointer on my talk to your comment. The concern seems to be solely that the follow-up work cannot be speedied (though I'm not clear why), which seems to be a poor reason for choosing any option. Better, surely, to get things right? If this CFD settles on the
Category:People from Georgia (country) option, I will make the necessary cleanup nominations. Nite that in any case the subcats of
Category:Georgian people use a variety of formats:
Category:People by city in Georgia (country) (which already uses my suggested format),
Category:Ethnographic groups of Georgian people, and several "Georgian fooers" categories. These will in any case need separate attention. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)reply
That's fine if you are willing to nominate the others. My only remaining observation would be that these are nationality categories, and someone can be of Georgian nationality and not be "from" Georgia. But that's probably a minor point not to be too worrisome.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Rename to
Category:People from Georgia (country) per BHG's explanation. This is consistent with the practice of disambigating the Caucasus country from the US State. However the name change would need to be made to numerous subcategories. Can I assume that will follow?
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't see this as necessary; the adjective "Georgian" would and could never be applied to a subcategory pertaining to the US state.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (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:Transiting planets
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 to
Category:Transiting extrasolar planets. I know there was discussion on whether to use "exoplanets" or "extrasolar planets", but the main difference of opinion had to do with the size of the category name, nothing more. I went with "Extrasolar planets" because that's what WP seems to use on the various articles I read. In addition, I didn't go with "detected by", because as was pointed out in the discussion, that can mean to read "first detected by".
Kbdank71 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I proposed renaming the
Category:Transiting planets to
Category:Transiting exoplanets because it is more specific because this category is only used for exoplanet articles. Transiting planets can also occur in our solar system, which are the planets Mercury and Venus can transit the Sun as seen from Earth.
BlueEarth (
talk |
contribs) 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment it's only a two planet difference, why not also contain Mercury and Venus?
76.66.201.179 (
talk) 04:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Mercury and Venus are not important for transiting planets, this category is provided only for exoplanet articles that were transiting their stars as detected by transit method.
BlueEarth (
talk |
contribs) 21:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Then it should be renamed
Category:Exoplanets detected by the transit method, which is a far different animal, because several exoplanets detected by other methods are also transitting planets. That is not your rename rationale, and not the implied content of the suggested new name.
76.66.201.179 (
talk) 04:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)reply
subcategorize with
Category:Extrasolar planets detected by the transit method seems like the way to go, which would make a exoplanet by discovery method cat, and keep a planet cat by property/orientation category. (and would keep Mercury and Venus as members, since a two planet difference isn't big enough for me to exclude solar planets)
76.66.201.179 (
talk) 05:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I think that exoplanets detected by transit method (without 'the' between by and transit) would be better since it takes up less space in the category bar than extrasolar planets detected by the transit method.
BlueEarth (
talk |
contribs) 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not sure the "detected by" bit is helpful, as it may imply "first detected by". Some planets were first detected by transit and followed up by radial velocity later, some were detected by radial velocity and found to be transiting later. "Transiting extrasolar planets" is more concise without sacrificing the grammar as "extrasolar planets detected by transit method" does.
Icalanise (
talk) 08:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm going for this format, but instead of transiting extrasolar planets, we should go for transiting exoplanets as I originally going to rename to this as per my first comment just below this section title. As transiting extrasolar planets is a long category text with three words, transiting exoplanets has only two words and take up less space in the category bar.
BlueEarth (
talk |
contribs) 19:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)reply
An another reason why I chose transiting exoplanets because I’ve been finding transiting exoplanets as a text more frequent in websites outside of Wikipedia than transiting extrasolar planets.
BlueEarth (
talk |
contribs) 22:49, 17 March 2009 (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.
Culture
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 most per nom.
(I'll be deleting the 2 brass band categories
boldly, an action which should not be considered part of this closure, even though the action was suggested by the nominator here. Therefore
G4 should not apply to recreation in these 2 specific cases.)
As this group nom intends to deal with setting/preserving a "standard" naming convention amongst like categories, I checked the parents of the ones which would be changed beyond the City, State rename - the primary concern of the nominator as he states below, and which also seems supported by others' comments.
Based upon that. the following would seem to require further discussion, and so are excluded from the Rename result, and should instead be considered No consensus:
And finally, while going forth with the rename for
Category:Philadelphia R&B and Soul musicians, I don't see any other category like this, and its further existence may warrant further discussion as well.
To be clear, this closure does not preclude these exceptions being immediately relisted for further discussion. (I honestly expect that they probably will be.) And that includes those which the nominator suggested for deletion, but which were really not much discussed. -
jc37 07:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: For conformance with "city, state" parameters, and general cleanup. There's a lot here, but once I started pulling categories from
Category:American culture by city, it was hard to stop. I'll save the Religion, Media, and "in fiction" subcategories for another day. Some specific notes:
The "brass bands" category contains only the "brass band bandleaders" category, which contains only one person; I would delete those.
I recommend changing the L.A. art category to "Arts" so it can go in the "Arts by city" tree.
All other non-profit categories contain the word "based."
The Lancaster film/TV category contains only one film, Witness, and is probably unlikely to contain another any time soon; I would delete that.
Rename all per nom and support the tireless dedication of Mike Selinker to this Augean task.
Occuli (
talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
If only I could divert a river...--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree with Bearcat's remarks below about removing 'occupation-from-city' cats but they need a double upmerge. Suggest an initial rename per nom and relist the city/occupation ones.
Occuli (
talk) 21:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Is there a
concensus established for this format somewhere? If not, can we work on building one on a project page? A number of these categories were just changed from the "-Occupation- from -city-" to the "-City- -occupation-" format 6 months ago. Changing this every 6 months seems like a bit of a waste of time.
dissolvetalk 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Huh. I didn't know that. That does seem worth discussing.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not at all wedded to the "City/occupation" format, and was just trying to get the state out of the middle of the category. But I'm fine with "City/state/occupation" as well, though I think it's a bit clunkier. The nomination Occuli quotes does support "Musicians from City, State," though.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I haven't heard any more support for this, so I'll reaffirm my original suggestion of "Musician from City, State" format. I think we can consider the merits of deleting some of these categories in another nomination, so I'd suggest this be closed on the merits of the state addition.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 22:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete anything "occupation-from-city" rather than renaming; these constitute an unnecessary
WP:OCAT intersection. Keep anything that's already in conformance with the "match category name to the article title" rule; i.e. if the city's article is at
Chicago rather than
Chicago, Illinois, then its categories are correctly named as "X from Chicago", not "X from Chicago, Illinois". Renameonly categories that aren't covered by those considerations.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. --
Kbdank71 14:59, 17 March 2009 (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:Towns with cathedrals in the United Kingdom
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.
Kbdank71 13:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This was originally for all cathedral towns in the UK (which according to
one of the sources surprised even me where contained them). However, i've noticed that there were a couple of villages that had cathedrals and I feel a separate category would not justify this so this is to expand the scope.
Simply south (
talk) 18:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
This category is not to include cities. Villages which include cathedrals (apparently) include
Windlesham and
Clogher from what i have found so far. I also wonder if
Lismore, Scotland counts? Btw the sources used for this and the main category have been the list, the various cathedral categories and
City status in the United Kingdom.
Simply south (
talk) 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Anywhere that had a medieval or CE/CofS/RC cathedral was a town at the time, eg
Old Sarum. However should not this be restricted to major denominations? There are some odd cathedrals of minute groups that currently are not in the category and should not be. A rename to the traditional phrase
Category:Cathedral towns in the United Kingdom would probably be preferable.
Johnbod (
talk) 20:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Your suggestion makes sense but what would count as major and what as minor?
One could just go for Anglican/Church of Ireland/Scotland/Wales (the usual meaning of "cathedral towns") or add RCC ones - that's it for major denominations with large cathedrals in the UK.
Johnbod (
talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify and delete the category by its terms excludes places with city status, which article tells us that city status carries no official distinction. Since that is the case, the category here is a triple intersection of (a) a town or village without city status; (b) has a cathedral (any demonination, perhaps); and (c) in the UK. Since the article shows that (a) isn't much of a distinction, this is overcat. All cathedral towns can be listified and the can be sourced as perhaps tabled with data such as when the diocese was established, the current cathedral building was dedicated, which denomination it adheres to, when it broke from Rome (if at all), and current (arch)bishop.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per Carlos, listify if wanted. This seems like overcategorization for a place.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (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:Spaced repetition software
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.
Kbdank71 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is small with no likelihood of expansion unless many non-notable flash-card applications gain advertising/spam articles that aren't deleted.
Carlh (
talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. SR flashcard programs are quite conceptually distinct from regular flashcard programs, and there are at least 2 indisputably notable and non-spammy ones (SuperMemo for originating it and for its coverage over decades, and Mnemosyne for the research). Seems like enough for a category to me. Not paper, after all. --
Gwern (contribs) 03:30
11 March2009 (GMT)
Delete (listify if wanted) - Categorising by the method the software presents information? I don't see anything close to this in
Category:Educational software. ANd I just shudder at starting this as a trend... -
jc37 11:21, 18 March 2009 (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:Malls built by Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation
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.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete We don't seem to have a precedent for this, so this is mostly a test-the-waters nomination.
Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation doesn't even have an article, and I think it's kind of silly to categorize by that which does not exist; it's putting the cart before the horse. Also, there doesn't really seem to be a precedent for "Malls built by foo", as shopping malls can often be built by multiple developers at once (case in point,
Ashland Town Center which was developed by DeBartolo, Crown American and Glimcher Realty Trust).
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells •
Otter chirps •
HELP) 17:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I still think it's a bit of a grey area. It's entirely possible that Edward J. DeBartolo could've been the leasing agent while another company actually built the mall, and it could be hard to verify who did what. Either way, I'm not big on parentless categories like this.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells •
Otter chirps •
HELP) 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This a variant of the categories deprecated at
WP:OC#PERF, and it is particularly problematic in application to buildings, many of which are built by consortia, or by a prime contractor which sub-contracts all the actual work, or by a client which directly contracts a range of contractors for the different phases of construction. Just how much of the work does a business have to do to for a structure to end up in a "built by" category? There would be no theoretical problem with including a list at
Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation, if anyone ever writes the article. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete performer by performance; although I note that we do movies by director and buildings by architect, which second may be quite similar to this category - although less high brow, perhaps.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - rename per Eureka Lott. It is a stretch to shoehorn this into performer by performance. It is arguably a subcat of
Category:Simon Property Group. As to inclusion one would need a sentence, preferably sourced, such as 'this shopping mall was built/owned/managed by XXX' and most of the articles satisfy this criterion.
Occuli (
talk) 12:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - while I agree that the analogy to performer by performance is weak, categorizing property on the basis of who owns it is in the long run unworkable because property changes hands. Taking just the first mall in the category,
Alderwood Mall, it's been owned and/or operated by Bartolo, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, Simon Property Group and General Growth Properties. So that's potentially four categories in the malls by owner/operator scheme, sitting in a clutterful list at the bottom of the page and not making any sense to anyone. A list which can include dates of ownership/operation is the far superior way to capture this sort of information should anyone actually be interested in it.
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, and per the arguments above. I agree that it seems odd to have a category here when an article on the corporation doesn't yet exist, but the very concept of the category seems problematic as well.
Robofish (
talk) 04:14, 15 March 2009 (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.
Superstars
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.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete - the category for the show is
small with no likelihood of expansion. The competitors category is performer by performance overcategorization. The competitors category was nominated for deletion
once previously (at which time I argued for its retention; I've changed my mind) and closed as no consensus. If retained the show category should probably be renamed per possible ambiguity with for instance
Warhol superstars.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; if retained, the
Category:Superstars should be renamed as most would assume some POV based collection of high end actors, sportspeople, or singers, who are more than mere "stars".
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete both, per nom.
Robofish (
talk) 04:12, 15 March 2009 (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:Labor disputes in Ireland
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) 22:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Well I'm not a "transpondian" but why not if some countries now use labour
Hugo999 (
talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename, standard to use the relevant national variety of English.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 15:00, 13 March 2009 (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.
Basketball players from specific cities
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 per results of
this debate, which ruled against separate basketball player categories by city. The last one follows a similar logic, as there are no similar categories with "Professional" at the front. I should say that these are the only categories of their kind in any sport.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep There are ample athletes from these cities to merit categories based on these defining characteristics, ranging from a dozen to several dozen. Merging only loses useful information and harms navigation.
Alansohn (
talk) 18:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
So I am neutral on the sub-cats for Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Philadelphia. The others (Baltimore & Kentucky pros) should all be upmerged as proposed -- except that the NYC boroughs should be upmerged to the NYC category if it's kept.
Cgingold (
talk) 21:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment If we're going to have categories of the form Booers from Foo, breaking down along geographic subentity lines makes sense to keep the cats managably sized, so keeping cats that have sizeable numbers of articles: Los Angeles, for example, would be appropriate and deleting the small ones or the ones where the state category itself is small seems appropriate.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. --
Kbdank71 16:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Occupation-from-city subcategories should frankly be considered
WP:OCAT. There are better ways to manage category size than that — frex, we really need to fix the considerable number of people-from-city categories that are actually acting as people-from-city-or-its-suburbs metropolitan-level categories.
Category:People from Baton Rouge, Louisiana should only be used for people who are from in Baton Rouge itself; it should not be acting as a replacement for nine separate parish-level subcategories just because those parishes happen to be near Baton Rouge. And on, and so forth.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:28, 17 March 2009 (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.