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:Merge. Upmerge single item to both parents per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge per nom Single eponymous article. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 14 May 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.
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:Wheelchair racers at the 2008 Summer Olympics[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:category was already deleted speedily under G7. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There were no wheelchair events at the 2008 Summer Olympics SFB 19:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Can probably be speedied as it is now empty. Tassedethe (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm presuming this was probably a misnomer for wheelchair racers at the 2008 Paralympics. It's also an empty category as things now stand, and the nominator was actually the original creator in the first place — which means that this doesn't require discussion, and instead can be speedied under either C1 (empty category) or G7 (author requests deletion). Bearcat (talk) 06:16, 14 May 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.
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: I want to harmonize the members of Category:Bird taxonomy, but this isn't quite a C2C matter. It makes sense to use the "Bird taxa" syntax rather than "Taxa of birds" for conciseness, if nothing else. This does fit established naming in other categories, such as Category:Fish taxonomy and Category:Insect taxonomy. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 13 May 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:Cincinnati–Northern Kentucky metropolitan area geography stubs[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.
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: I am failing to see any useful distinction between these two categories. In fact, the division of subcategories between these two seems to be essentially random. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom - There is a real distinction between "scholars" and "academics", and there are disciplinary differences that lead to one term versus the other. But in practice there's such huge overlap it doesn't make sense to ALSO have distinct subcategories for "scholars" and for "academics". --Lquilter (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge not a clear enough distinction that merits a split here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:37, 13 May 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.
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: Since these are all adults. Also per [1] and [2]Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do female/women accountants "account" differently? How does anyone's sex have anything to do with one's abilities in accountancy is simply beyond me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename: "female" when applied to humans is only applicable if the parallel category is "male." Otherwise, women is preferable style. However, if there is no "male accountants" or "men accountants" then Carlossuarez46 may have a point that the category could be deleted altogether. But either way, ditch the "female"thing. Montanabw(talk) 03:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename but not deletion. Women accountants are poorly represented as partners in accounting firms and their position within the industry is a matter of discourse and research. gobonobo+c 16:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename but not deletion. Quis separabit? 20:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom woman is a much better term for all adult professions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 20 May 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.
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: These are all adults, better to have women. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: "female" when applied to humans is only applicable if the parallel category is "male." Otherwise, women is preferable style. Montanabw(talk) 03:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renaming per MOS consistency. Quis separabit? 20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename women is the preferred use in most such descriptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 20 May 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:People descended from Joseph Loomis[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: Squillions of other categories-by descent have been deleted in the past, so I see no reason to keep this one. However, it may be appropriate to rename it to Category:Loomis family. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete oh my. Do not rename, these people are not part of the same family, unless you're talking WAY extended family... We can ask the category creator but I see no linkages between these people in the article text, esp given the dates span 400 years, so my guess is they are all distant cousins. What's next, Category:People descended from Charlemagne? If so, add me, and the bulk of other people of Northern European descent, as we're all descendents of the great king... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Genealogical trivia; I see no sign of a family per se either. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep or rename These people are certainly part of the same family, by virtue of their descent from the common immigrant ancestor. The criteria for inclusion being said common descent and also having their own Wikipedia article -- in essence, being noted people descended from Loomis. -dav4is (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "no sign of a family" I mean that I see no evidence that this grouping of people is of any importance as a group. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Their importance will become apparent through the large number of noted people descended from this one man. Perhaps I could make that point better in the introductory paragraph of the category itself? -dav4is (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hi Dav4isl, a great many people are descended from other famous people but we can't use category trees for genealogy. This is the essence of a non-defining trait - in the lede of these people's articles does it state they came from Loomis? When reliable sources talk about them do they say so and so, whose 5th great grandfather was Loomis, did X? We can't use categories in this way for geneological decent and it would add a huge amount of clutter. I'm quite sure that there are at least 10 articles of people Obama can be shown to be a descendent of, which would add 10 more categories to his article...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hi; It is fairly common for biographies and articles about people to mention their antecedents, e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Scott_Loomis#Ancestry_and_early_lifeThis is hardly a "genealogy"! But it does bring out a (potentially) defining characteristic: That people descended from certain others are (or may be) predisposed to greatness. I can certainly make this point explicitly in the category article itself. -dav4is (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More: Since you mention "genealogy" twice in your last append, I assume that this is your chief objection. What I am doing is nothing like a genealogy. It is not my intent to create articles for each of the descendants, but simply to note in extant articles where appropriate that someone is descended from Joseph Loomis. -dav4is (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then note it in the article. There are oodles of facts that we note in biographies that we would never create as categories - this is a prime example of such.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said for almost any category: it's an oddity of fact. This is contrary to the intended purpose behind categories: i.e. to "help readers find other articles about [or related to] the same topic as the one they were reading". I assume that you are not against all categories per se? Simply noting what you call an oddity of fact in an article does not help the reader find others like it. -dav4is (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, whether a particular category has any likelihood of being of use to you has no bearing on the matter. Utility is relative: Others may find it very useful. (Pardon the pun.) -dav4is (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We avoid descent categories as such. "Immigrant ancestor" has a very US-specific bias, and ignores that some percentage of Loomis's current descendands live outside the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Joseph Loomis was an immigrant is one of those "oddities of fact" mentioned by Obiwan, above and is not the reason for the category, nor has place of residence any bearing. -dav4is (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is not a genealogy site, nor does Loomis's line of descendants appear to be of such import that a category be created. Quis separabit? 19:33, 20 May 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.
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.
As the one that created this category, if the consensus of Wikipedia users is that we are not to have these kinds of categories anymore, then I would be ok if it was deleted. --Devin Murphy (talk) 03:14, 13 May 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.
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: "below a town" is a rather vague way of describing the scope of a category. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, the current name is problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 20 May 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:15th-century Jewish physicians of Portugal[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.
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 (category was empty at time of close).Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Walker Films was deleted at AfD for non-notability. --Finngalltalk 20:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in light of deletion of Walker Films. Quis separabit? 15:26, 20 May 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.
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:Deaf film production companies of the 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:delete (category was empty at time of close). Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Walker Films was deleted at AfD for non-notability. --Finngalltalk 20:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in light of category deletion (see [3]). Quis separabit? 20:39, 19 May 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.
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; there seems to be quite good arguments here why we should not categorize a film by its distributor(s). Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I initially categorised this under Category:Films by studio, but then realised that Millennium Entertainment is a distribution company rather than a studio. I don't know if there are other categories of films-by-distributor, but it seems like a recipe for category clutter, because films are presumably distributed by different companies in different markets. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there are many other categories with distributors, Category:Relativity Media films is an example, it's a production as well as distribution company but we always add categories to those which are only distributed by co. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Assassin!: A move would require a consensus here, and so far all we have is us 2 throwing ideas around :) Let;s wait for more input. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I never thought :). --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm I'm not sure if I like the idea of a "films by distributor" tree, which would potentially add new categories to thousands upon thousands of films. I'm also not sure if the company that distributes the film is defining for it. Why not just focus on film production studios, and only categorize films by the studios that produce them. Someone should notify the films project.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure if it is easy to say that a distributor is not a defining characteristic for a film. Studios often buy distribution rights to independent films and provide them with a lot of recognition. To use this case as an example, Millennium Entertainment bought the independently produced Bernie (2011) as seen here for distribution. I've read film news that talk about how distribution can be a success or a failure, so I think it can be a key factor in whether or not a film gets recognition. In addition, major studios can function as producer/distributors or just distributors. I think it would help to make a distinction between production and distribution. Maybe rename this category to Category:Millennium Entertainment film distributions? And for other companies, we would have "Category:<company> film productions" as applicable? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the defining issue aside, it's utterly unworkable. As the Variety article states, Millennium bought "U.S. distribution" only. And I suspect, based on what the announcement says, they may have well bought U.S. theatrical distribution rights only. Films get distributed in countries around the world. There are theatrical, home consumer, television, educational, and now, online (VOD/DTO) distributors. Should the U.S. theatrical distributor merit a category -- but no one else? It won't work, and there's very good reasons why we haven't walked off this particular cliff, to date. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 14 May 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.
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 was uncategorised when I found it, so for now I put in Category:Italian families. It is an oddly heterogeneous mixture: 4 brothers, one son, several companies they founded or were influential in, and some products thereof ... but no apparent head article. I don't see how such diverse set fits in the category tree, so I suggest renaming this as a family category for the people ... and doing something with the other articles, tho I don't know what. Any ideas? BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created the cat although I am profoundly unaware of the niceties of hieracrchy etc. I also created several of the articles and am still in the process of expanding the articles. What is a Head article? Should I create one? Will this solve the problem or merely ameliorate it? I have no opinion about what should be done with the cat. Thanks. Chienlit (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Ceirano family, I think the Trump family tree is similar, it includes people and business ventures they have started, eventually a subcat could be created just for the businesses.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:33, 13 May 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.
