Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 29 July 31 >

July 30[edit]

Category:Unreferenced Fishes articles[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 to Category:Unreferenced WikiProject Fishes articles. – Fayenatic London 07:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Launchballer 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time" as is the nature of such admin categories. 2.99.143.182 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does it have a capital F on Fishes? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment placed notice of this nomination on the wikiproject talk page. I'll defer entirely to what the fish (fishes?) people think. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept, it should have "WikiProject" as part of the name, as this is not about the topic fishes per se, it is a wikiproject cleanup category. The head category is Category:WikiProject Fishes articles -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrative categories are allowed to remain in place even if they're empty — because the fact that they might be empty today doesn't mean they aren't going to be needed and populated again tomorrow. The capitalization of "fishes" does potentially warrant a renaming nomination, but that's a separate matter. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 1 August 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:Arkansas articles needing references[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: deleted. Any category marked as "empty" for at least four days is subject to WP:C1 speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Launchballer 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. 2.99.143.182 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment threw up a notice on WT:ARK. Again, I'll defer to those WikiProject users who actually use this project. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a wikiproject cleanup category, so should carry "WikiProject" as part of its name -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrative categories are allowed to remain in place even if they're empty — because the fact that they might be empty today doesn't mean they aren't going to be needed and populated again tomorrow. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this would only be populated by Template:WikiProject Arkansas which is now deprecated; it states that WP United States should be used instead. There are very few similar categories by topic, see Category:Articles lacking sources. – Fayenatic London 08:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would delete it if there is currently no template in use that could populate it. If a template is created or revived to populate it, then it could always be re-created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 8 October 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:Charlotte Hornets (1988-2002)[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. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The NBA's Charlotte Hornets organization does not draw any distinctions between its pre-Charlotte Bobcats and history and its present incarnation that renewed in 2014. The franchise recognizes its history from its inception through the present. This category is trying to draw a distinction in time period when in fact that is incorrect. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That seems similar to a lot of categories that we recognize at WP:CHICAGO. (Category:Chicago Packers and Category:Chicago Zephyrs),--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony, you're missing the point. There is no article Charlotte Hornets (1988-2002) because the franchise's history and recognized all-time roster, coaches, etc. are shared with Charlotte Hornets, which is the same name. Also WP:CHICAGO has no bearing on this in any way. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no articles for Chicago Packers or Chicago Zephyrs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because those articles redirect to a current franchise (Wizards). There is no old C Hornets page because from a historical perspective they are considered part of the Bobcats/Hornets history. Same name as current version, no need for RD or article Rikster2 (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Original Hornets are now the New Orleans Pelicans... they are not the same team as the current Hornets. Spanneraol (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not how reliable sources are describing it. Per NBCSports.com (underlining added for emphasis): "This means, retroactively, the New Orleans Pelicans were an expansion franchise that began play in 2002. From 1988, their history belongs to the Charlotte Hornets who were formerly known as the Bobcats ... This is a much more logical and satisfying reflection of NBA history and records."—Bagumba (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the NBA made the decision that the history and stats of the "old" Charlotte Hornets belongs to the "new" Charlotte Hornets while the New Orleans Hornets history/stats belong to the Pelicans (see [probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/20/charlotte-hornets-assume-historical-records-from-new-pelicans/ here]. We have clear precedence here with the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens. Pretty clear cut in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NBA may be attempting to re-write history but that doesnt change reality. An obvious difference with the Browns/Ravens situation was that the break there was made at the time of the move... here this is a retroactive decision. In the early days of the N.O. Hornets they were definitely considered the same team. Spanneraol (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is the NBA's decision on this. We as fans can like it or lump it, but at the end of the day Wikipedia isn't the place to draft policy counter to decisions we don't like - it is merely an encyclopedia. The nuances of the moves will be covered in the article, but the categories are somewhat blunt instruments. The Hornets' media guide will be coming out in a month or two and all the Hornets' records, player register and history will be in it. There is no significant difference with the Browns - any made is artificial in my opinion. In the end, both were just decisions made by the leagues to keep a community at the forefront of their franchise. Less publicized, but there was a similar outcry in Charlotte when George Shinn moved the team as when the Browns left Cleveland. Officially, the lineage is Charlotte Hornets>Charlotte Bobcats>Charlotte Hornets and New Orleans Hornets>New Orleans Pelicans. That is what the record books will say and that is what an encyclopedia should reflect (with exposition on the franchise movement that took place real time contained in articles/category descriptions. Rikster2 (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldnt be rewriting history or ignoring facts just because the NBA made a PR move to try to bump up the fan base in Charlotte. These were not the same teams, different ownership groups, different players.. Contemporary news sources at the time of the move of the Hornets to New Orleans stated it was the same franchise... last years media guides contained all that info... Them changing it for this year doesn't eliminate all the history or change what really happened. The encyclopedia should reflect what happened not what some PR flack decided should have happened. Spanneraol (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that last year's information should be upheld rather than this coming season's is a subjective opinion as to which history we should abide to. Going by what the NBA currently has listed as team history is not subjective, it is fact, and we are not the dictators as to which we feel should be on Wikipedia. Charlotte Hornets is the only article for the team because is encompasses the history of the original team, then the Charlotte Bobcats, and now back again to the Charlotte Hornets. The New Orleans Pelicans, like it or not, no longer shares its history with the 1988–2002 incarnation of the Charlotte Hornets. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what your argument says to me is that we should keep it until the new media guides come out in a month or two ("Your argument that last year's information should be upheld rather than this coming season's is a subjective opinion as to which history we should abide to. Going by what the NBA currently has listed as team history is not subjective, it is fact, and we are not the dictators as to which we feel should be on Wikipedia")? Rikster2 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument is that we shouldn't let the NBA decide what the history is or should be.Spanneraol (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the lineage is disputed by different parties should be reason enough to keep this separate. The franchise move is quite similar to that of what we see for Category:Wimbledon F.C. players. The two new entities are both distinct from the old entity. Just because the name of one of those entities is the same as the former doesn't mean we shouldn't distinguish them (e.g. Negro National League (1920–31) vs. Negro National League (1933–48), Virginia League (disambiguation)). SFB 17:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there was no decision by the sponsoring league that the new Wimbledon club was an extension of the old. And the Negro and Virginia leagues are totally different leagues that had the same name (like the difference in the various National Basketball Leagues). The only identical situation (new club, old name, agreement between league and both affected clubs) put forth so far is the Browns and that is being handled by combining both iterations like I am proposing here. Calling it "PR flack" belies a pretty specific agenda here IMO (not directed at SFB specifically). Rikster2 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The first secondary source has shifted how they represent these franchises based on the NBA's decision on this. Take a look at this page and this page at basketball-reference.com, a reputable source of statistics and game information. Once both primary sources (NBA.com, team sites) and secondary sources (basketball encyclopedias, ESPN.com, etc) all reflect things this way I think WP faces significant risk at not reflecting things the same way (with exposition in the articles spelling out how the decisions were made, etc.). You will have users constantly "fixing" things (with plenty of RS's to back it up). Just food for thought, I have said my peace. Rikster2 (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Yes, this is a mess. Yes, it's an historical anomaly. And, yes, the NBA and the two NBA franchises involved have agreed that the original Charlotte Hornets' history belongs to the current Charlotte Hornets. While that may represent a "re-writing of history," it nevertheless is how the NBA has decided to handle the situation and Wikipedia is not supposed to make judgments in violation of reliable sources. Here, the reliable sources (i.e., the NBA and the two teams concerned) say that the two Charlotte Hornets teams are the same. That's good enough for me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reliable independent sources like basketball-reference.com are also changing their records to treat all incarnations of the Hornets to be part of the Charlotte Hornets history. Per this NBCSports.com article, the Cleveland Brown's of the NFL set the precedent when the Browns became the Baltimore Ravens in 1999, but the later expansion franchise that resumed being the Cleveland Browns retained all of the pre-Ravens history. Deleting this would be consistent with Wikipedia precedent at Category:Cleveland Browns, where there is not a distinction between the current Browns and the one that moved to Baltimore.—Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, Category:Charlotte Hornets (1988-2002) is currently an empty category.—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It shouldn't be. This probably was caused by someone who wants the category deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or somebody just doidn't know any better (or reads the newspapers and knows the franchises are considered the same). I just reinstated the category to the one page it was on (Bob Bass) til this discussion is over. Rikster2 (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep franchises that change locales or names get separate categories, so we don't falsely place articles about people or other things into categories into which they don't properly belong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "so we don't falsely place articles about people or other things into categories into which they don't properly belong" → Charlotte Hornets (1988–2002) and Charlotte Hornets (current) are the exact same franchise with the exact same shared history. There is no distinction between them, according to all reputable sources (especially the NBA itself; see Bagumba's quoted point above). What would be false is creating separate categories for the same franchise. Furthermore, the 1988–2002 article is a redirect to the correct/current article. I'm ridiculously befuddled as to anyone's rationales for !keep on this discussion. They're all proclaiming precedences in naming conventions that, when broken down, logically point to the DELETION of the proposed category. Such is Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well it's not the "exact same franchise". Yes they retroactively acquired the records of the former team, now based in New Orleans, but they certainly werent the same team. That would imply that the team operated, shut down briefly and then reopened for business... Thats not what happened... the owners moved the team to N.O. with the same management and personnel... then a new team owned by new people set up shop under a different name... eventually acquiring the trademarks of the old franchise.. but to say their is no difference between them is simply not true.Spanneraol (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tom Danson: might have something to say about this. It would appear that the category creator was not notified of this discussion. - Hoops gza (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose When the Hornets left for New Orleans in 2002, they clearly left. There was no team in Charlotte for 2 more years. This creates a clear break, and should be reflected in names. We categorize based on reality, not myths spread by the NBA. We do not use official names, and we do not base categories on narratives of the past that are clearly false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those of you pushing to keep really need to propose a split of Category:Cleveland Browns and its various sub-categories. It is exactly the same situation (the "old" Browns are currently the Ravens) and so far as I know are the only 2 situations like this. We should consider both together for consistency, not have 2 different applications of logic (or lack thereof). Rikster2 (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the "exact same situation" in that the Browns/Ravens split was announced at the time it happened... and the Hornets thing was done years later. Spanneraol (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a legal agreement that the "old" Hornets records and history belong to the "new" Hornets. Regardless of when that settlement was reached, it is the same situation. And, please let's all stop pretending that this is akin to now saying the Nazis won WWII. Those of us who actually would have to "enforce" this category once WP differs from primary and secondary sources are trying to make sure we retain some sanity. Nobody is saying the road that got us here should be rewritten, we're just arguing for a category structure that actually makes sense to users. Rikster2 (talk) 13:46, 13 September 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:Cities with millions of inhabitants[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:OR. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (a) temporary (Detroit as an example), (b) subjective (count city limits or something else - we have several lists based on different counting), (c) not defining - is Detroit less notable now with under a million? Will San Jose, California be more notable once the millionth person is added?, (d) why "millions", quite arbitrary, why not Category:Cities with 1,329,154 or more people? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - about as arbitrary as it gets. Rikster2 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary. kennethaw88 • talk 03:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arbitrary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary; we do not subcategorize cities by their population size. The fact that we might list cities by population size does not mean we have to categorize them by population size too, as not every list on Wikipedia automatically gets a corresponding category. In addition, this has been tried before under a different wording and got deleted then too, so this could technically be speedied as a recreation of deleted content. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Arbitrary, because it does not define how many millions. We have several list articles, giving differing figures and rankings. We might possibly havce one category for the relatively small number with a population of more than (say) 3 million, but I would oppose having one for 3-5 million; 5-10 million and over 10 million, because they are not sufficiently permanent characteristics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
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:Deputy speakers[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: merge. – Fayenatic London 08:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A duplicate category. All sub categories and the page are legislative deputy speakers. Shyamsunder (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on nominators basis. Some pruning may be required as I can't see any proof that the Belgian VP is the deputy speaker on Senate (Belgium). SFB 18:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The claim being made is that the deputy speaker of the Senate holds the title "vice-president" of that body, not that the vice-president of the entire country (I don't believe that Belgium even has a VP, in fact) becomes the deputy speaker of the senate. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. This is really just an unnecessary and unhelpful duplication of another category that already existed, and could technically have been speedy-merged on that basis — but since we're here, we're here. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Strangely all current articles are about people called Vice-President of legislatures. For example, the British Deputy Speakers are already in the target. I suspect that this all results from someone splitting the target according to the lcoal title, rather than (more usefully) theri function. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 5 August 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:Akron Aeros[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. Precedent is on the side of the supporters, and this close is no bar to a fresh nomination. – Fayenatic London 08:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Minor-league baseball team that was renamed last year. Same city, same ballpark, same affiliation—the only thing that changed was the branding. - Eureka Lott 01:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. It's standard convention in instances such as these. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC) I misread the original nomination. I agree with Muboshgu, Spanneraol, and Rikster. I'm changing my !vote to oppose per their reasons. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is it? I'm not so sure. See, for instance, Category:Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees players and Category:Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders players. And I'm sure there are other examples. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's standard to have separate categories for each version of a team.Spanneraol (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - generally name changes get their own category with former names as sub-categories within it (eg - Baltimore Bullets, Capital Bullets, Chicago Zephyrs and Chicago Packers players are sub-category Washington Wizards players). Rikster2 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom -- If that is a standard adopted in sport, it is illogical. We do not do that for alumni, where alumni of merged or renamed colleges are deemed to be alumni of the successor. The rule should be "one franchise: one category". I have voted thus frequently before and my impression is that has usuallyu been the outcome. It would be different if the team was relocated to a new city at the same time. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This is the overwhelming practice when an institution only changes its name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a second, it absolutely is NOT the overwhelming practice. It's not the practice with baseball (see California Angels/Los Angeles Angels), basketball (see Washington Bullets/Wizards), hockey (Anaheim Ducks/Mighty Ducks of Anaheim) or American football (New Jersey Gladiators/New Jersey Red Dogs). It also does not appear to be consistent practice for footy (Brighton & Hove Albion FC/Brighton United FC) If one wants to drive to a new consensus on this, great, but it is not current consensus across the board. Rikster2 (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There have been lots and lots and lots of discussions which have upheld similar mergers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not for sports teams.Spanneraol (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes—for sports teams. Most of them association football. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • If Association football has a different heirarchy than four other major sport projects it doesn't mean that its' conventions must be adopted across all others. But as I noted in my examples, it doesn't appear to be consistent across footy - and I didn't look that hard to find my example. Rikster2 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I didn't say it must. I've merely suggested that I would favour it doing so. It's pretty consistent for footy when the categories in question have been discussed at CFD, which I think is the overall point of citing them as precedents of a sort. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • If I'm looking at the current similar CfD in footy and see a comment like "the consensus mentioned is for soccer teams only; other sports are therefore irrelevant. The consensus can be found at CFD, including this very recent discussion" dismissing opposition from editors who are active in other sports, then I have to say that the opposite is also true - a convention adopted for football is irrelevant to other sports. Turnabout is fair play, after all. When I look at another similar CfD for footy, I see three people advocating merge (basically the same cast of characters as this CfD), ignored opposition and then closed (by you coincidentally). This is incredibly weak consensus being built in my opinion. And if you look at WP:CONSENSUS, usage over time is a form of consensus, and for the 4 major North American sports merging goes against the prevailing usage and you see plenty of opposition to the idea. Truthfully, I could support an RfC calling for merging these categories beneath the top division level, but I am very opposed to doing this at the top level. The different names have historical significance. Top level franchises just don't change names often, whereas minor league franchises are quicker to go this route. Rikster2 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Your opinions are fair ones. It's OK to disagree. I'm not claiming that there is a strong consensus to do this one way or the other; I'm simply advocating for one to be adopted. (BTW, you seem concerned that I closed a CFD for which I have since suggested that I agree with the result. If you can find any admin who would have closed that particular discussion differently (i.e., not resulting in "merge"), I'll agree that that is a live issue.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree that we should adopt a convention of one category set only when a franchise changes only the name but does not relocate to a different city. I can understand having separate categories when a relocation takes place, but here it's just an arbitrary name change; everything else is constant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it is all well and go to propose adopting a different naming convention and pursuing consensus towards it, but a CfD discussion is not the forum for that. I'd suggest an RfC. As near as I can tell, there is no actual policy governing this. Rikster2 (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course there's no policy—there's policy for very little on WP. Did you mean to refer to "guidelines"? I'm permitted to express an opinion in a forum such as this that a guideline or convention (i.e., a generally applicable practice) should be adopted by the categorization system. It's entirely appropriate to do here—whether or not there is consensus for it is something a closer has to assess. General consensus for conventions for categorization is established very regularly at CFD. In fact, most of the guidelines for categories have had their genesis in CFD, not RFC. It's the participation and consensus that is important, not the forum in which is was established. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 20 August 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: Kenyan Sign Language family[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: upmerge. – Fayenatic London 17:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete category. There's no such language family. The only to that were included were Kenyan and Somali. The Somali one is an isolate and not part of said family. AcidSnow (talk) 02:28, 31 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_30&oldid=1085527081"