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. — ξxplicit 23:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination could probably be proposed as a speedy C2D (the "main article" appears to be Heritage Documentation Programs), but given the unusualness/specificity of the current name, I thought it might be a good idea to bring this to a full discussion to ensure that this is a change we want to make. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This odd name is a great reason why we should be thankful for the single "HDP" name. I can't see a reason to oppose this. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it's a capitalized proper noun and there are no other countries that call theirs "Heritage Documentation Programs". It's not the generic "heritage documentation programs". If disambiguation must be added (and I don't think it must in this case), it should be added in parentheses at the end, with "(United States)". Otherwise it appears as if WP is inventing a new proper name, "United States Heritage Documentation Programs". Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:48, 19 October 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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a C2D situation, but the reasons are complicated enough that I thought I'd best explain here. The article has been at this title since an early 2013 edit by Buaidh, so it's an easy C2D situation. However, I'm just about to perform a histmerge; Buaidh copy/paste moved it from an earlier title, and while you can currently see the copy/paste move and its history before that time (screenshot), you won't be able to see this within a few minutes of me writing this, so I figured I'd best bring it to a discussion instead of making the C2D reviewer question what I was doing or waiting several days to perform a needed histmerge. Nyttend (talk) 11:13, 12 October 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:merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think this small category can safely be upmerged into the broader Category:Tickling. There are no other parent categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge. There's no good reason to have a category consisting solely of a group of women from Mayotte, a type of monster, and a Mr. Men figure; if you don't know the subjects, you'll read the article about the women and guess that the other two are real, or you'll read one of the other two and assume that the women are fictional. All three might as well be covered in the subject category, which includes the real-sounding Knismesis and gargalesis and the fictional-sounding Tickle Me Elmo. Nyttend (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I was about to oppose per WP:SEPARATE but then I realized these were fictional characters. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the three articles is about a group of real people. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. Real people and fictional characters shouldn't be present together in a typical "Fooers" category; a topic category, like Tickling, clearly contains a mix of subjects, but that's not necessarily the case with something like Ticklers. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! The group article doesn't present the same biographical issues as individuals though. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:34, 13 October 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.
