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. I hear the point made by doncram, but it seems that it has not been made well enough concretely to persuade people that 'creatorship' can be judged suitable clearly to support categorisation at the present time.-Splash - tk 22:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Redundant to existing categories for television producers, writers, directors, etc. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be a television show creator is simply different than to be just any producer, writer, or director. Creator is an often-used, regular term. I spot-checked some of the 48 bio articles in the category and found they all included clear mention of the person specifically being a creator of one or more shows. --doncram 00:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they "create" the show but they do so in their role as a producer, director, writer, what-have-you. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term does seem to be used to refer to a person with a role in developing a series of program, but I wonder whether it is a bit subjective. Can anyone point to a reliable source with a definition? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What exactly the "creator" did is at times unclear. Some shows have multiple creators, and so many shows are non-starters, that it might be hard to find a television producer or director who has not been the creator of some show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is an industry term, commonly used, included in IMDB database. You could say that to be an actor is at times unclear...what about an actor whose scenes were all cut from the final edition of the movie, or from all but the director's cut edition which was never released widely? Or from all but the "Deleted scenes" section of the DVD. So usually one just goes by what the movie credits say. What it takes to get a producer credit varies too. What it takes to get credit as a set designer or grip or accountant many other roles also is subjective....many tens of thousands of persons actually work on major movies and there are limits to how many get explicit mention in the ending credits to a film. Each contractor / subcontractor might get told how many of their people can be explicitly mentioned or how many lines may appear; anyone in the industry knows that it is sometimes unfair, too. At a pre-release showing/party for a movie, there will be lots of people attending who worked on the movie and they might be seeing whether or not they got listed in the credits then and there. Anyhow, "creator" is clearly a well-defined role, well enough defined for it to be commonly used in the industry, no matter whether it is as neatly defined as some not from the industry would like. --doncram 11:25, 30 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 1 entry. ...William 15:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This is a small town with a population of just 128 people in the most recent census, according to its article, and there's no sourced indication that it was ever much larger than that either — so I can't see much prospect for growth here. Generally, "People from individual city or town" cats aren't warranted until a reasonable number of people can actually be filed in them (there's no specific cutoff, but my own personal rule of thumb is at least five or six people already written, and a discernible prospect of growth beyond that); until then, people should only be catted by the county that the town is located in. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Might have reconsidered if there had been a Category:Coalmont, Pennsylvania, but given that the town as a whole is small enough not to warrant a category, having a "people from" category seems superfluous. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 1 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:RENAME to Category:Intersex literature. -Splash - tk 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested rename to Category:Intersex literature doesn't resolve other duplication and mis-description issues. With a rename to Category:Intersex literature it simply duplicates Category:Intersexuality in fiction and Category:Novels about intersexuality. It also mis-describes: the 3 pages that are in this category are all examples of non-fiction, so the current description of the category seems inappropriate. It reads, "This category should only contain literature (prose, drama and poetry) that deals with or features important Intersex characters or issues." I appreciate that my suggestion may not be the only satisfactory possible outcome, but the broader issues need attention Nsw2042 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the way that the category system works as a lattice. Removing one part of that framework messes up the system and isolates material. The non-fiction pages should simply be categorised in a new category, but without removing this category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might understand it better if there wasn't so much duplication and so many sparsely populated categories. Nsw2042 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Literature about intersex as the literature isn't itself intersex, and this provides consistence with "Works about intersex" and "Films about intersex". Nsw2042 (talk) 01:28, 22 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, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNsw2042. We may at some point need to split between fiction (etc) and academic works on the subject, but that would be something to do in subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw in favour of proposal to rename as Category:Intersex literature, as still unresolved. Nsw2042 (talk) 13:41, 23 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:REDIRECT to Category:State Highways in New Zealand. As I understand the matter, this is to decide the question of whether to captalise the 'h'. I see that there is evident consensus to alter that aspect accordingly. I would say that it appears to establish a certain degree of 'case by case' treatment in this set of categories. -Splash - tk 22:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Possibly a C2A, but I thought it safer to bring it here because of the more general situation I'll mention below. These are all designated New Zealand State Highways (capitalised as such), and are part of the New Zealand State Highway network. As such, the capitalisation of the category should match.
At the moment, there are only three "by country" subcategories of Category:State highways, and it is understandable that the general parent category uses a lower case "h". A lower case is appropriate for Category:State highways in the United States, as individual states tend to use "State Route", "(Statename) Route", "(Statename) Highway", and numerous other systems, so in that instance the term "highway" seems generic enough to be lower case. The third country subcategory is India, and Category:State highways in India is inconsistent; the terms "highway" and "Highway" are used seemingly indiscriminately in by-state categories - as such, some work is probably needed to see which, if either, capitalisation is official there. If there is no definitive answer to that, then perhaps for ease, it may be that the three "highway" categories could be changed to match the 11 "Highway" categories. This would affect Category:State highways in Odisha, Category:State highways in Puducherry, and Category:State highways in Tamil NaduGrutness...wha? 10:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tempting, but probably better to keep to the State H/highways in Foo style of the other places with equivalent categories. Grutness...wha? 03:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Not a huge difference between this and Peterkingiron's proposal, so we would do better to follow the naming convention. Renaming from the current title is definitely good; "state highways" is good as a generic descriptor, e.g. "State highways in Indiana", but "State Highways" is needed when the official name includes "Highways" as a proper noun. Nyttend (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A capitalised "H" appears to be correct for the articles, but I see no reason to extend it to the category. Consistency in category names makes life easier for both readers and editors, and since the uncapitalised form is also correct, it should be retained for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 18 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:purge species articles, then see what's left. Feel free to make a new nomination without delay once the purge is complete. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some Gecko's and some Jacky dragon's are kept as pets. Perhaps the link been Category:Pets and Category:Domesticated animals is the real problem? Many items within Category:Pets such as pet books, robotic pets and cartoons characters are not domesticated or not animals or neither. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as with other similar categories, any non-extinct species can potentially be kept as a pet. Articles about animals as pets belong in Category:Animals kept as pets and its sub-categories and articles on individual pet animals belong in a sub-category of Category:Individual animals. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear out remove everything that is a species article, since this is not a defining characteristic. Delete all the empty categories thus processed, and then collapse all the individual pet articles into Category:Individual X per other articles on individual animals being categorized into "individual" categories. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
purge of any species articles, then if something remains, reframe a category structure as needed. My guess is, we won't need so much nesting, so delete afterwards.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
clear/delete if emptied/rename others using Category:Dogs as pets and Category:Cats as pets as models. Those categories are clearly about the keeping of pet animals, rather than about individual species which may or may not be commonly found as pets. All categories left/needed after sluicing down these stables should be renamed per the parent Category:Animals kept as pets to the form Foo kept as pets or - better - simply as Foo as pets. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 1 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.
Category:Court system of Balochistan, Pakistan[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: These are one-article categories that should be merged into the main parent category (of the articles). If the need arises, they could easily be recreated. Green Giant (talk) 17:22, 19 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, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice to re-creation if it can be properly populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 29 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.
Category:Liberal parties in the United States[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Because it's more accurate naming which means Modern liberalism in the United States User:Adn1990 03:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The United States is only one nation in the Americas, Canadians and Mexicans routinely like to remind us citizens of the United States that we are not the only "Americans" and we are not the only North Americans. United States is more precise. Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until we rename all "American" categories, I think that this reason makes no sense. For now, Wikipedia usage is that "American" is used as the adjectival form of the United States of America - usage which makes as much sense as "the United States". עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Montanabw. Ambiguous categories will end up collecting everything in the New World -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Nomination is confused as to names of countries and areas. In the meantime, nominator is wrongly emptying categories and moving articles around to fit his plan regardless of the outcome of this discussion. When I put some of the articles back to their original locations with explanations, nominator promptly moved them again with no explanation, again emptying categories. Nominator is out of order. Hmains (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To say a party is "liberal" is too complex a claim. The Democratic Party was not liberal by any definition in 1861, so why are we labeling it as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator created the destination category "Modern" a few days ago, and tried to do away with the old category by blanking it (see two warnings on the nominator's talk page about blanking categories) -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 'Modern' is simply ambiguous. American is accepted as an unambiguous adjectival form of the United States but the former is preferred since one of the parents is Category:Political parties in the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REname but to Category:American liberal parties. I suggest this because I assume there are no Ancient American liberal parties, so that "Modern" is redundant. If there was formerly an American Liberal Party, it would no doubt be a member. The real problem with liberal and conservative in American politics is that the disticntion is a POV one and may vary from issue to issue. That is why we deleted people categories on liberals and conservatives some considerable time ago. This is not an issue in British politics as Liberal and Conbservative are party labels. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My problem is with the label "American", as "United States" is more precise, per Vegaswikian's comment above. As for "liberal", it's vague, but we also have Category:Conservative parties in the United States, where a similar argument could exist, but I think that debate is beyond the scope of this merge or move request. Montanabw(talk) 20:28, 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.
