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: As a raygun is a type of energy weapon, it goes to reason that it would be better off in the more broad category, especially since most of the articles in this category aren't "rayguns" by the classical definition. What exactly a "raygun" is can be up for debate, to the point where the category somewhat fails WP:ARBITRARYCAT. It's also the only subcategory in Category:Fictional firearms, suggesting a category this specific is highly unusual. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:08, 15 September 2017 (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.
Upmerge for now per RD. Grutness...wha? 07:52, 16 September 2017 (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.
Delete for NowJazinda might be a possible second article but that's unlikely to aid navigation. Delete for now but no objection to recreating as the article count grows. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2017 (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: Unclear what this category is exactly for. The one page in the article doesn't really belong.JDDJS (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 04:53, 16 September 2017 (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 leaving it to the discretion of editors to discuss whether the one article fits the target sufficiently (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category, and it's highly debatable if that article belongs in here.JDDJS (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (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 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: Not a popular theme in fiction. It's not defining for either of the two characters in the category. JDDJS (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2017 (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:Horse racing venues in Cypress, California[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: Upmerge to Category:Cypress, California as well. One category which is in a long line of useless categories. TM 18:05, 15 September 2017 (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 as nominated. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There seems to be some degree of confusion over whether this is a category about "Super Robot" (the genre) - the article title would suggest that it's about individual Super Robots, but they don't really need a category. I would say that it's better to rename to something more clear, as subcategories of Category:Mecha anime and manga, and then move all the actual Super Robots and Real Robots to Category:Fictional mecha. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Change Venue/Procedural Oppose Absolutely support this in concept since it's very vague but I would favor first renaming Real robot to Real Robot anime and manga through consensus with an WP:RM. Once that passes, I would definitely favor a speedy rename to the category. (Super Robot is currently a redirect I just added to the category.) Having categories not match main articles generally confuses navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I also changed the capitalization of the suggested rename categories, as the capitalization was agreed to be lower case, and that's how it appears in various sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin: I have merged the article. So if this rename ends up getting done, please set a bot to remove Category:Mecha anime and manga from any article that is already in the Super Robot or Real Robot category.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: There are 105 articles that are in one of these categories as well as Category:Mecha anime and manga. I am closing this discussion as 'rename', but would you please help me understand why they should be removed? Are the "super robot" and "real robot" genres fully subgenres of mecha anime and manga—i.e. is it just a matter of proper subcategorization? Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Falcon:It's basically a matter of proper subcategorization. Both of them are subgenres of mecha anime and manga. The current titles are hard to understand, to the average person, as well as mish mashing the genre and the individual robots together in the same category. Any article in both categories should be removed from the overarching "mecha" category.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:40, 7 October 2017 (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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To correspond with other categories listing studios as shooting locations (Category:Films shot at Pinewood Studios), and to distinguish the studios which are physical locations (which these are) from the studios which are companies that produce films (which these are not). Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom is correct. Current naming leaves the impression that these studios are producers of the film. MarnetteD|Talk 02:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saw new comment below as well, continue support per Trivialist. I expect everyone here would concur. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the comment by MarnetteD. But Elstree studios, in fact, lists numerous facilities in Elstree and Borehamwood. Philip Cross (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to add that since the above !votes have been made, I have since gone through the rest of the subcategories of Category:Films by studio by country to find any additional outliers named similarly to the British studios I already listed. I have added from Sievering Studios to the bottom of the list. Courtesy ping for all who !voted above so they are aware: @Lugnuts, Zxcvbnm, Fortdj33, MarnetteD, Trivialist, Gothicfilm, and Philip Cross:. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2017 (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:Sports venues in Cooper City, Florida[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: Small category unlikely to grow (1 article). TM 17:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:SMALLCAT, 1 article with little room for growth doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2017 (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:Sports venues in Uniondale, New York[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 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:Sports venues in Santa Rosa, California[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.
Support Per WP:SMALLCAT, 1 article with little room for growth doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2017 (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:Sports venues in Santa Ana, California[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.
Dual Upmerge for Now Per WP:SMALLCAT, 1 article wdoesn't currently aid navigation. No objection to recreating if the article count ever grows to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2017 (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: Small category with little likelihood of growing. Also upmerge to Category:Sports in Gary, Indiana. TM 17:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge for Now Per WP:SMALLCAT, 2 articles don't currently aid navigation. No objection to recreating if the article count ever grows to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2017 (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 the category is too small for a fictional universe category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added Wikiproject templates to the talk page of the category. That might increase participation in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2017 (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:NONDEF, none of the articles in this category are defined by their anti tank abilities. There are fictional vehicles that happen to have that capability, and energy rays that could be used for that. Compare and contrast to the articles in Category:Anti-tank weapons, all of which are specifically made to destroy tanks. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added Wikiproject templates to the talk page of the category. That might increase participation in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2017 (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:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT, this category doesn't have to exist. It gets problematic when we get into the topic of "fictional military robotic dogs", which do exist. It would be perfectly fine for these robots to be in Category:Robotic dogs and Category:Military robots. That's if you even consider something like BigDog a dog, for all intents and purposes it's more like a robotic pack mule. There's also no similar category for consumer robotic dogs.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at this time, but the category should be upmerged to its two parents rather than deleted, so the articles are not removed from this category tree altogether. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:19, 16 September 2017 (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:Cuisine of the Mid-Atlantic 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. ℯxplicit 06:22, 10 October 2017 (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:Linux distributions without systemd[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:no consensus. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic for operating systems. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeDistrowatch provides definitive attributes of operating systems, including an "Init system" attribute and a separate attribute for systemd version. This seems to contradict the nominator's rationale. On a different note, an enumeration of distributions lacking systemd is useful for investigating alternatives to systemd-using distributions (again, Distrowatch provides this mode of segmentation). Thus this category improves the utility of Wikipedia. Please do not delete the category. TTK (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Considering how heavy a role systemd plays in the operating system architecture of those Linux distributions which use it, just how horribly divisive it has become in the Linux community, and how many Linux users want to avoid it, I would say this is a special case of a useful category to have.
I suppose if this category is kept, the complementary category should also be created. Though I now see that the systemd article does have a table of its usage by various Linux distributions; perhaps expanding that table to include distributions which have avoided systemd might be an acceptable alternative. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Nominator does not seem to even remotely realize the very difference between distributions with and without systemd, as previous oppose-arguments and this very removal-suggestion stands as sheer evidence. Systemd as replacement for tradiotional init is a clearly a direction that is pretty much everything opposite to Unix-philosophy, as more and more system components, functions are packed into one, as systemd, while also promoting obfuscation leading into situation where users of the Linux-distributions with systemd are slowly but certainly constantly loosing more and more control over the system, converting transparent philosophy and functions into something resembling almost closed source, proprietary-ideology. It's a matter of transparency, simplicity versus obfuscation, binary logs and everything that can not stand the light of the day under excuses like nominally faster bootup times. --Curath (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Nominator's rationale, it is a internal situation in those Linux distributions, not a defining characteristic. Editor-1 (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SystemD is a very invasive init replacement which redefines many aspects of the GNU/Linux operating systems which are using it. The distinction between this and bsdinit or sysvinit (and other simpler init systems) is such that it appears worthwhile of mention. —PaleoNeonate – 04:45, 4 October 2017 (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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To correspond with other categories listting studios as shooting locations, and to distinguish the studios which are physical locations from the studios which are companies that produce films. Trivialist (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support also, a vast majority of the categories in Category:British films by studio also need this renaming from "Category:X Studios films" to "Category:Films shot at X Studios". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my reasoning above. MarnetteD|Talk 02:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, consistent with above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2017 (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 an unnecessary subdivision of a category that already includes the word "states" in the title. Other categories for regions of the United States, such as Category:Northeastern United States, directly contain the articles about each state. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify.) -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't this include Atlantis, Saint Helena and the Azores? Perhaps put "US" somewhere in the name if this is not the intent? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I think that would have to be a larger discussion of Category:Mid-Atlantic states. Technically, none of those are states, Atlantis being a legend, Saint Helena (part of) a territory, and the Azores a region of Portugal. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically Virginia isn't mid-Atlantic. It's on the western coast of the Atlantic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the region is known as the Mid-Atlantic states. For reference, compare to the East Midlands, which are technically northern lands located west of the prime meridian, and the Pacific Northwest, which is on the eastern coast of the Pacific. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but no objection to renaming the underlying articles, per the conversation above. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2017 (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. After reading the discussion twice, I have concluded that those supporting the merge had much stronger foundations in their arguments against its retention in comparison to those in favor of its retention. WP:OCMISC directly does not allow these types of "other" categories as they are treated as nothing more as miscellaneous categories, and the only commonality between the articles in the nominated category is not that they share a defining characteristic, it's that they simply don't share a characteristic with the other diffusion categories in Category:Rodeo performers. There is no requirement to refine categories so specifically that lead to the creation of Category:Rodeo performers (other), and with a population of just nine articles, it will hardly cause a problem to leave them in the broader parent category. ℯxplicit 06:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why does this exist? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. I suspect this was created to depopulate Category:Rodeo performers of all biographical articles; however, as with all "miscellaneous" categories, navigation is not improved by grouping articles together on the basis of not being able to subcategorize them within an existing category scheme. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We are attempting to keep the biographies out of the Rodeo performers category so as to fully diffuse the biographies of performers. The main category only should contain the big overall group articles (Cowboys, hall of fame lists, etc) The "other" is for individual biographies. In theory, it could be renamed if that would ease people's concerns, but the bottom line is that there are people in the offbeat events (Chuckwagon racing) or people famous for other things that are vaguely known to have been rodeo performers but no one knows what specific events, and so on. The main category needs to move toward full diffusion. Montanabw(talk) 05:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While diffusion is a worthy goal in this case, a category can be "only partially diffused", especially when certain topics cannot be cleanly subcategorized. What would be a possible alternative name for the category? My concern is that "people in the offbeat events ... or people famous for other things that are vaguely known to have been rodeo performers" is itself vague and does not give a clear idea of what defining characteristic the subjects of these articles share. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are two opposing rules here. Is it WP:DIFFUSE because this is a diffusing category which says " It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories." Or is it WP:OCMISC Well, these articles in this category do have much in common actually and that is why we categorized them together. These rodeo performers do have much in common as many of them are in multiple rodeo categories and/or have overlapping events, skills, or other such things in common. As Montanabw (talk·contribs) says in her Keep comment prior to me, we are trying to keep the biographies out of the main category to keep it fully diffused. And as suggested, we can rename this category if the problem is just a title that seems too generic if that is what is concerning the nominator. The nominator's question of why does this category exist is extremely vague and uninformative really and provides no substantive arguments. dawnleelynn(talk) 05:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the tension between WP:DIFFUSE and WP:OCMISC, but the latter always trumps the former. WP:DIFFUSE even acknowledges that "it is possible for a category to be only partially diffused—some members are placed in subcategories, while others remain in the main category." Echoing my comment to Montanabw, what would be a possible alternative name for the category? -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Montanabw pointed out, this cat is an attempt to keep the oddballs (I can't think of another word) separate from the guys who compete in bull riding, team roping, etc.--the traditional rodeo sports. There needs to be some category for the ones who don't fit anywhere else. In the future that might change, like if a lot of unusual events become more notable, but that can be dealt with then. White Arabian FillyNeigh 21:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Remove Diffuse Tag from Parent This is a textbook example of WP:OCMISC. Indeed, the keep votes above make clear that the intent is to empty the main article of oddball/miscellaneous articles but we generally group things by what they are. The parent category is incorrectly marked as needing full diffusion: if you look at the header in Category:Categories requiring diffusion, Category:Rodeo performers doesn't meet any of those criteria. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Category:Categories requiring diffusion is a maintenance category, I don't see how it is policy. WP:CATEGORY is policy, and it explains how to use diffusing and non-diffusing categories. And where does it say that WP:OCMISC always trumps WP:DIFFUSE? So if we need to group things by what they are as was said, shall I create a category "Rodeo cowboy museum founders" and put the two articles in it? It will likely never grow. One category for "Chuckwagon racing", which is a legit rodeo event. All of the articles that say they competed in rodeo but don't tell us which event could have a category. So, that category could be "Rodeo generic event" or something similar. Yes, I think those three categories would cover them all. The exact category names I would run by Montanabw of course, as well as this idea. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, on second thought my suggestion really just amounts to the same thing as montanabw's suggestion of renaming the category, and I will let montanabw respond to that question of what we might rename it to. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not written anywhere that WP:OCMISC always trumps WP:DIFFUSE—however, whereas the latter is about how to organize articles within a category tree, the former states certain types of categories, like this one, simply should not exist. Guidance about what categories should not exist, by default, trumps guidance about how articles should be organized within existing categories. The solution here is either: (1) creating a meaningful (i.e. not "other") category that appropriately encompasses these articles, if such a category is useful for navigation (i.e. not overly narrow or small with no potential for growth); or (2) leaving them in Category:Rodeo performers and only partially diffusing that category. A subcategory has to be meaningfully distinct from its main category, and neither "other" nor "generic event" meet this threshold. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our intent is probably partial diffusion, mostly to keep individual biographies out of the main category so it doesn't get bloated. Open to ideas, most of the articles in "other" are either the non-competitive entertainment acts, the "all-around" competitors who can't fit into a specialty and, of course, they quirky stuff. Montanabw(talk) 17:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, and I broadly agree with dawnleelynn's comment below about diffusion. However, since these few biographies just don't seem to fit in any specialty (in some cases due to scope, but mainly due to lack of specific information), it may not be possible to keep every individual biography out of the main category. Unfortuantely, I have not been able to think of a satisfactory name that suitable covers this hodgepodge of articles, and I suspect that was the reason they were put in the "other" bucket in the first place. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Remove Diffuse Tag from Parent. The fact that there are so many "others" simply means that the diffuse tag is wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are not "so many others", there are nine, and considerably less than might have been--There are a few articles of the nine who are simply rodeo performers who did an event, like roping or bronc riding, or some other event, but it's not documented in their article and I searched and tried to find out what exactly was the event they participated in, but I could not find it out. I was successful in finding out a great deal of them, which is why they are no longer in the main category "Rodeo performers" anymore and didn't go into the "Rodeo performers (other)" category. The Rodeo performers category "the diffuse tag is wrong" is not correct. As I copied in above, it is allowed to have a few pages in it if necessary. Let's stick to the issue that was nominated and not start looking for other changes to be made please. Rodeo performers has a huge amount of sub-categories in it and it does not need any changes and it is following the rules in being diffused. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we may leave the discussion about the diffuse tag to another occasion. But that doesn't change the merge vote.Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and yes, I understood it does not change the merge vote, but it is important to keep that in mind as you point out since it is the reason for this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnleelynn (talk • contribs) 15:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, I meant that I agreed with you that it is important to focus on the merge vote and any sideline discussions don't change it (such as diffusion of the parent category). Also, I wanted to add that my previous comment came across a bit blunt after I reread it today, so I apologize. I value everyone's input here. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partial diffusion exists. What we don't want at the end of the day is to have 10,000 articles in the main category. Almost everything needs to not be in the parent category save for the stuff that is so very broad that it cannot be diffused. What DO we do with the theoretical fellow who was a rodeo bronc rider AND a team roper at the same time, then became a stock contractor and then, say, went into politics or TV broadcasting or something? Montanabw(talk) 18:02, 25 September 2017 (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: /Upmerge to Category:Darts. It would be a different story in (e.g.) basketball where you have players, coaches, team owners, officials, and announcers who will all plausibly have biographies and can be categorized but this is just players and non-players. No need for this extra level of categorization. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Though I want to agree, this extra level of categorization creates a link between the two subcategories and Category:Sportspeople by sport. Also, I never realized there were masters of ceremonies for darts! -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:05, 15 September 2017 (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.
Delete – This is a single-article category scheme, and the characteristic of being a footgolfer is not even defining for the subject. In fact, I am not even sure being "head of the UK footgolf academy scheme" is the same as being a footgolfer. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it usual to at least add a deletion rationale?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2017 (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: Very little content. No need for this scheme. As necessary, upmerge. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The category contains one article, which is already appropriately categorized within all three parents. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis it has ample potential for growth. It's a recently recognized sport, but apparently Footgolf has an international body and a American FootGolf League, so I expect there is the potential for other articles at some point. Sionk (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it has potential for growth, and it would be fair to have the category "at some point" when we have more articles, but there is virtually nothing to categorize right now. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:24, 17 September 2017 (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.
