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. If a user thinks the target category should be renamed, it can be nominated without prejudice from this result. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. most of the categories' works aren't really about robotics but just robots (see its subcategories). Having it named "Robots in fiction" covers both robotics and robots in fiction (alternatively the latter could be renamed to "Robots and robotics in fiction" but I don't think that's necessary). Fixuture (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if merged it should use "robots and robotics" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Largely overlapping concepts. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2015 (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:Upmerge all. Courcelles (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with 3 or less entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all with no objection to recreating later if they can get up to 5 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Categories with one or two members are pretty useless. kennethaw88 • talk 01:26, 3 September 2015 (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:Split. Pigsonthewing or any other template editor, let me know if I need to downgrade any protections, as I don't feel technically totally comfortable doing this. Courcelles (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This will help identify which modules need their protection level downgraded since, in theory, the only modules that should have full protection are those that have cascading protection. (Then, we might want to visit renaming these categories later, but for now, I support the heart of the split.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2015 (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:Split. Pigsonthewing or any other template editor, let me know if I need to downgrade any protections, as I don't feel technically totally comfortable doing this. Courcelles (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Increase granularity to assist in identifying templates to be template-protected. Alakzi (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The usefulness of this is common sense. ~ RobTalk 20:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This will help identify which templates need their protection level downgraded since, in theory, the only templates that should have full protection are those that have cascading protection. (Then, we might want to visit renaming these categories later, but for now, I support the heart of the split.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2015 (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:Employees of the New Mexico Legislature[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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NONDEFINING. Technically all State Representatives and Senators would receive paychecks from the legislature but, based on the earlier nomination of Category:Employees of the Alabama Legislature, this category is intended for unelected staffers. The only article in the category is Shirley Hooper who was a clerk for the state legislature after college but is notable for being elected 25 years later as secretary of state. 1 unsourced sentence in 1 article seems like a tenuous basis for a category. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. This isn't a characteristic that would normally get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — the only person in it didn't get a Wikipedia article for that fact itself, but for something else she did 25 years later — so it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic on which we should be categorizing people. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2015 (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.
