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. Kbdank71 13:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom's rationale, and per support for rename at WT:PHARM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per rationale. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:47, 5 April 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.
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 13:22, 8 April 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.
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--Aervanath (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:UpMerge to the parent categories. This series of small categories by country are temporary any not likely to be very large. More value would be had by seeing the full list in the parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Individual projects will come and go but with renewable energy projects on the upswing these categories will remain popoulated and exapand. These categories are a good completeness to the categories for future other-than-renewable power stations, such as nuclear, coal, oil and the like. Hmains (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom until they expand enough to need separate categories. They all contain one article or one/two subcats, not helpful for navigation. --Kbdank71 13:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposal, keep. Currently various types of power stations roll up by sub categories to various by country categories. So these become parts of a series. While there may only one entry for some of those, using categories to place these in multiple other categories seems reasonable. Beagel (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, the entire series is OCAT. By upmerging we lose nothing except an extra category layer. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 9 April 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.
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:relisted due to lack of participation. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename, Upmerge, Delete or provide an introduction that makes the purpose of the category clear. From the introduction, it is not clear that we need this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:14, 2 April 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.
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. Kbdank71 13:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:UpMerge to both paraents. Single entry category with limited growth potential in the short term. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 2 April 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.
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 contents as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:48, 9 April 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.
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 13:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Clearly current as used here is an issue and this is really ambiguous. However looking at some of these, I suspect that we may need a category, but the name of that is not obvious for me. I can live with an upmerge to one of the parents. Even the term Current affairs is ambiguous. The most likely upmerge might be to Category:Political books. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Political books" is probably not a good general merge target, as books about current events are not necessarily books about politics. Otto4711 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. But is there a reasonable target here? If not this becomes a delete since the current name is rather ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the whole. "Current" in "current affairs" is a red herring, and not ambiguous, but vague. Many of these are not political in the narrow sense, & personally I think the books here, though very varied, form a coherent and useful group, which reflects I think a standard grouping in bookshops etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the three types of current affairs does this topic cover? I suggested a rename and not a delete. The current name is not supported by any sources and it is in effect POV. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those definitions on the disam pages are not supported by any references either. I doubt 2 & 3 should be distinguished, & it is those that are covered here. The use of the term is extremely widespread, with 23 million ghits. What POV do you believe the name here is promoting? Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from the same problems that all "books about" categories do, and this one is about something we cannot quite pin down. "Current affairs" is vague which leads to POV categorization. Many would agree that the current economic situation is a "current affair", but what about the true crime book - and how current must anything really be? some of these date to 1990 or earlier. Is that current? Then maybe books about the Soviet Empire ought to be in here as well - since that was current affairs back in 1990 - and all the OJ Simpson books, and JonBenet Ramsey books, and books about AIDS, the Exxon Valdez, Iran-Contra, and nearly anything one gleans from our 1990 articule. If kept, rename to: Category:Non-fiction books on contemporary history because that's what they are (or purport to be). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is misunderstanding the term. "Current" means when the book was written, so books about or touching on AIDS, the Cold War etc could belong here. But the term is used for general political, social & economic issues, & so excludes true crime books on individual cases, I would say. I still would like to know what the supposed POV is. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that might be what the logical meaning ought to be in an abstract sense, but it is not the way the phrase is used in English. The books are those dealing with contemporary topics in public questions, normally economic or political, written at a non-technical level. The category seems also to be used for books that were about such matters at the time they were written, and I am not sure that this is actually correct. If it were, Demosthenes would go here also. So it needs to be used carefully, but that does not invalidate the category. DGG (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what your point is here, since we seem to be agreeing. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Before it amalgamated them, the BBC used to have two separate departments "News" and "Current affairs". The latter was designed to look at issues in greater detail. I am never clear how far back "Contemporary history" is supposed to go back. My main period is called "early modern" (which usually means up to 1800). Modern history can mean anything that is not "ancient" (i.e. post 500 AD), but more usually after medieval (i.e. after 1500 or possibly 1450). Contemporary history is to my mind probably post-WWII, but certainly stretching back consideerably further than "Current affairs". "News" tends to be today's events and tomorrow's waste paper. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what is covered for 'Current affairs'? It is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 5 April 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.
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 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Now-redundant category due to change from Image to File, and all the categories within should be renamed to be file instead of "images" ViperSnake151 Talk 19:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not separate out image files from audio files, etc? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these are still images, now in file space rather than image space. And there are audio files, which are not image files, and should be kept separate. I expect there are video files too. Occuli (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to use "free files", but keep as its own category (don't merge). Its a good way to organize free files by type, which the "All free media" category doesn't do. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:15, 7 April 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:Current members of the United States Senate[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. Kbdank71 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We tend to use templates for current political office holders in the United States. They are generally not categorized. Since we have the template, which did not add this category, as well as at least one list, we can delete this category. US senators are amply included in other categories so an additional one is of questionable value. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current category - use templates instead. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like Category:Members of the United States Senate 2009-2010. The practice of electing one third of the senate measn that long serving senators may have a lot of categories. However this would be the equivalent of categorising British MPs by the Parliament to which they are elected (the current one being from 2005). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorizing Senators on two-year cycles would lead to long-serving Senators being in dozens of categories (Ted Kennedy would be in 25; Russ Feingold would be in nine to date). Even shorter-serving Senators would be in four per term, leading to a glut of categories with no appreciable benefit. It also sets up the notion of doing the same of members of the lower house, which is elected in toto every two years. My (limited) understanding of the UK MP categories is that they exist because Parliamentary elections are much more irregular than elections in other countries. Otto4711 (talk) 12:45, 7 April 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.
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 category is overcategorization since while it is a verifiable fact for a film, it is not very relevant. I raised the issue in January and found support for deletion from three editors. I got around to nominating it for deletion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it necessarily matters in re retaining this category, but how is this different from the various other film formats/technologies in Category:Films by technology? Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Girolamo said it best at the linked discussion: "If we were to fully populate that category it would undoubtedly include the majority of 35mm films shot in the past twenty years. There's nothing innately exceptional or noteworthy about being shot in Super 35 anymore. Maybe back in the 1980's, but at this point it is the de-facto format for 35mm." Since he is familiar with filmmaking technology, I think his assessment sounds reasonable. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prior comments - the vast majority of material shot on 35mm film at present shoots in Super 35. (Virtually all TV and now that DI is so prevalent, just about every non-anamorphically lensed feature.) If anything, it's more the rule than the exception for the past ten years. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:06, 3 April 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.
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 13:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category does not seem that helpful, as both 99 percent of the articles just redirect to Sakura Wars and the template {{Sakura Wars}} serves more use. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 19:04, 2 April 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.
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 for now. Could be reconsidered if user returns to active editing.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. While listed as a maintenance category, this just seems to be a list of categories that a bot is being run against. As such it probably should be a list in user space. Yes, it is hidden, but I'm far from convinced that we want to control bots in this way. So maybe this is a listify request? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:John Bot hasn't edited since Oct 31 2008, and the bot's owner, User:CWii, has barely edited since the epic failure of his RfA, and added several "I quit" type messages on his user and talk page. If they return and can demonstrate why a user category is needed, it can be restored. (for the record, I have about 6 user categories for testing my bot, but once whatever test I'm running completes, I delete the categories). --Kbdank71 13:11, 8 April 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.
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:withdrawn. Kbdank71 12:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: moved to "preparations", the language used in our articles, for consistency. Verbalchat 17:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn due to a series of mistakes on my part, for which I apologise. Please note WP:AGF. Verbalchat 18:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not an expert on homeopathy, but in my experience homeopathic preparations are called remedies. Perhaps the articles calling them preparations should be changed instead. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Only time for a very quick comment right now, but I basically concur with Stepheng3's observation that the standard term is "Homeopathic remedies". If the goal is to broaden the scope of the category slightly, we might consider renaming it to Category:Homeopathic remedies and preparations. Cgingold (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I would agree with the rename (which seems to have already been performed!?) for the sole reason that "remedies" seems to imply that they actually do something. There are many scientists who think any effect they may have are 100% placebo. So "preparations" is a bit more NPOV in that regard. That said, marketers obviously label and advertise these as "remedies", for obvious reasons, so it probably is more common to most people. I doubt the term is used in scientific literature, however (though I don't know for sure). Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly aware of the concern you raise, G/O, and I would agree that we don't want to use a name that is merely or primarily promotional. However, I don't really think that "Homeopathic remedies" is an unacceptably problematic term in and of itself. To begin with, when I said that it was the "standard term", I meant first and foremost that historically they have always been known and referred to as "Homeopathic remedies". In addition, the term "Homeopathic remedies" is vastly more widely used than "Homeopathic preparations", which is amply confirmed by the huge disparity in G-hits: 22,600 for "Homeopathic preparations" versus 1,160,000 for "Homeopathic remedies". Moreover, the scholarly publications indexed by Google Scholar do not eschew the term in the least -- quite the opposite: 921 hits for "Homeopathic preparations" versus 4,270 hits for "Homeopathic remedies". And the term is used even by those who are strongly opposed to homeopathy, as you can see by the following title (from the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 1995): "Why pharmacists should not sell homeopathic remedies".(italics added) In short, that is simply what they are called, and what they are known as by the public, so it seems to me that that is the term we should use as well. Therefore I Oppose Renaming. Cgingold (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename per Cgingold above. Restore contents to category and trout-smack to whomever emptied it prior to nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objection - I only had time for a "hit-and-run" comment before, and didn't even realize that the category had already been emptied - presumably by the nominator. We've actually gone a few weeks since the last time somebody did this, but I'm always taken aback when it crops up. Frankly, it leaves a bad taste. There's a reason that it says right on the CFD notice, "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Doing so effectively preempts the CFD process and makes it very difficult to have an informed discussion of the nomination. If the articles in question have been moved to another category, why was no link provided to that category? Cgingold (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered that the talk page for this category has already been converted by the nominator to a redirect page pointed to Category talk:Homeopathic preparations -- further confirmation that this CFD is regarded as nothing more than a minor housekeeping task. Especially in a contentious area like this, such a presumptuous approach is highly inappropriate. Cgingold (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; to call these "remedies" is POV - what, pray tell, do they "remedy". They are preparations; their efficacy is not relevant to the categorization scheme, unless we start classifying all drugs by some levels of efficacy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to respond to my remarks above in reply to Good Ol’factory? Cgingold (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming, and repopulate category. Per the evidence from Cgingold, these things are commonly known within homeopathy as "remedies", and they are prepared and sold as such. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the common name.
Oppose renaming per Cgingold. Full disclosure Also, not that this is a reliable source for anything, but a Google Scholar search for "homeopathic remedies" resulted in 4,270 results, whereas a Google Scholar search for "homeopathic preparations" only pulls back 921 results. Based on this research, I would conclude that "Homeopathic remedies" would seem to be the more popular name even within scholarly writings. -- Levine2112discuss 01:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming Whether they are effective or not, they are called remedies because that is their intent. We classify Garnishment as a judicial remedy regardless of whether it is effective. People looking for medical advice aren't going to be swayed by the word remedy. Btw, I take a dim view of editors who short-circuit a discussion in progress. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing worth noting is the parallel use of the term "remedies" in Bach flower remedies. I hope nobody is going to suggest that on Wikipedia those should only be referenced as "Bach flower preparations". Cgingold (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this renaming based on WP:COMMONNAME and based on what Cgingold said before 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. Verbalchat 18:29, 4 April 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.
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:Delete. Misplaced article in category space, redundant to Personal injury lawyer; only article it contains is Personal injury, which doesn't need to be categorised like this. BencherliteTalk 14:50, 2 April 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.
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. Kbdank71 12:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Single entry category that does not need to be split out from the parent. Not sure if there would be much growth. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:31, 2 April 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.
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. Kbdank71 12:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Move over redirect to match main article video card (also most common name). Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:30, 2 April 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.
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, open for further renaming if a better name can be found (nothing against nominator, but I'm realizing that simply removing "recent" may not be the best choice). Kbdank71 12:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Since the parent is mostly about the science of these events, an upmerge, which was my first thought, is probably not a great idea. Given the small population, here and in the parent, rename to allow inclusion of all of these events. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid the POV of what is "recent". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 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.
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. I actually would take Johnbod's argument as a very strong one to keep the "recent" qualification in this particular case, however, whether to just keep or to rename to something else using "recent" is not clear. Kbdank71 12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Remove what I believe is an unneeded qualification. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and avoids the POV of what is "recent". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, both the "recent out of Africa model"(RAO) and the multiregional model are "single origin hypothesis", since they support an African origin of humans. The "recent" qualification in the RAO model is used to distinguish the model from the multiregional theory which pushes back the common origin of humanity by as much as 2 million years. The "recent" model dates the common origin of humanity to 50,000-60,000 years ago. Only polygenism, supposes that some human populations have completely distinct and independent origins. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:56, 5 April 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.
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. Kbdank71 12:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Only two temporary entries. No reason to expect this to ever be very large and it is the only subcategory by country. Suggest upmerging to both existing parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, without prejudice to recreation in the future if there are ten or more articles to populate it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 2 April 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.
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 current per nom, no consensus on former. Kbdank71 12:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I'm not convinced that we need to break this small collection of articles apart. If we do, I don;t believe that current/past is the most intuitive breakout.Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nom; we don't categorize on current and former - and imagine when someone decides to break up the paintings (or other artworks) by whether or not they are privately or publicly owned and whether that ownership is current or former. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? This is about collections, not objects. We very often categorize on "former".Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (as creator). Many of the "formers" ceased to exist some centuries ago, but are of historic importance - a good deal more so than the "current" ones in most cases. This is indeed the most intuitive way to divide them - alternative proposals, Vegas? Have you looked at any of the articles? The Reynst Collection was dispersed in the 1660s, the Orleans Collection in the 1800s - isn't this rather a defining difference compared to collections that still exist and being expanded? Others have remained intact, but been in public museums for equally long periods, since the 1660s in the case of the Musaeum Tradescantianum, or 1807 in the case of part of the Borghese collection. We don't usually categorize on "current" but this is not like "people currently in space" or "current heads of government". It is in many cases closely related to one area where we do categorize on "current" Category:Living people, since any change to the status of a collection is likely to follow the death of the owner. One could just rename the currents to "Private collections", but since the formers are actually mostly the more important articles, this would lead them to be tucked away inappropriately as a sub-cat. Both categories are capable of very considerable expansion. The logic for the merging of the "former" category is especially mystifying - there is clearly a difference between something that is a private collection, & something that used to be, and "former" categories are very well established. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the former category per Johnbod, who makes a strong case for its survival. Rename the current one as nom, making the former category its subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly preferable to merging both. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 6 April 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.
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:Delete. I might have said rename, but there is only one entry here and that happens to be up for deletion. If we keep this one, it needs a rename but not sure what it would be to. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm at a loss. Events that are current events and will always be current events? What does that even mean? IOW, incredibly unclear and vague inclusion criteria. Otto4711 (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the description on the category page - and look at the member in question before saying incredibly unclear and vague inclusion criteria. RichFarmbrough, 12:35 2 April 2009 (UTC).
If anybody can present a rationale for this category, it would have to be the guy who created it. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if these a better name. The situation is that articles in the category Current events will by their very nature eventually cease to be current events. For this reason the category is kept empty, and the articles are moved into dated subcategories. However a number of pages - mainly in portal or project space are catted here "legitimately" in the sense that they are always about current events albeit not the same ones over time - which means they pollute the maintenance category using it as more of a project category. There is a deeper problem here that just this cat, and if anyone has time to sort it out before I do, please let me know. RichFarmbrough, 12:35 2 April 2009 (UTC).
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.
