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: Local councillors are inherently non-notable. This category currently has three members. Two are up for AFD (which one might possibly survive). The third member is now an MP. I would not oppose upmerge to Category:Councillors in the East Midlands if others prefer. This is the only current subcategory of that one. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2010 (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:Rename. To match the main article Hornby Railways. In reading the article, it was not clear from the history which is the current name, so I elected to go with that is used in the introduction and the article title on the theory that generally the category and article name should match. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RenametoCategory:Hornby plc. Hornby Railways, as the first sentence says, is a brand, though it was a company name in the 80s I think, and there is no article on the group as such, though the railways article has what material there is on the main company. There is really no main article as such. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can support that now that we have someone who knows the history commenting. Should the section on Hornby Hobbies be split out as an article or do we add a redirect to the section in Hornby Railways?Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2010 (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.
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. Defunct company in bankruptcy. There is no need for the single entry category where the sole article is correctly parented. If in the future the category can be adequately populated, then it can be recreated. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2010 (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:Upmerge. There are too few members in these categories to support a by year hierarchy. for years prior to 2000 I suggest that a by decade scheme should be sufficient. I might agree to letting the 1990s categories alone, however the four categories spanning the 70s and 80s definitely ought to be upmerged. __meco (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This simply means that the category you mentioned will have to be categorized somewhat differently. That is a very standard situation. I'd be happy to leave that up to the editors who have that category on their watchlist, unless this is something that the closing admin deals with. I'm sure they're quite used to this sort of recalibration. __meco (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the business of the nominator to deal with all aspects of the nomination. Obviously taking articles out of correct categories (as a side-effect) is not desirable. Occuli (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support last suggestion or something similar. Categorising everything by year leads to us having a mass of almost empty categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the direction for my suggestion. So we are probably on the same page and the devil is in the details. If the discussion closes endorsing this direction, then the only way an action can be taken will be to upmerge a slew of these and then create some limited subcategories where needed. Not totally following process, but in this case the most reasonable alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much cannot be bothered as the fact that I haven't fully understood the nuts and bolts of the upmerge process. I fully support what you suggest. In fact that was what I intended but where unable to do. I'll probably do this right the next time I make a similar nomination. __meco (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2010 (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: Another essentially empty category by User:Nopetro (now Nudecline). Its sole content Area of freedom, security and justice is not a "European crime." This cat is grouped under the Crime by country Criminal law by country cats, in spite of the fact that Europe is not a country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – another ill-considered contribution by the prolific User:Nopetro, who can create a dozen worthless categories in the time it takes to type a sentence in cfd. Occuli (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (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. Seems like overcategorization as all of these are already categorized under the Soundtrack umbrella in more specific "film", "television", "anime", "video games" soundtrack categories. Not sure that they need to be lumped together in this new category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2010 (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.
Rename per nom. Seems straightforward. No reason to make the Canadian categories any different. The current name is also a bit ambiguous or nonsensical, since the settlement itself has no ethnicity. Good Ol’factory(talk)09:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several reasons to treat this differently. 1. This actually involves settlement in the sense of pioneering and breaking land. 2. Local varaties of English 3. "Populated places" is wiki-speak that must yield in the face of a common name. 4. Proper tense: they were "settled" (in the past) by Icelanders, almost exclusively, but are now "populated" (in the present) by many types of people. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 June 2010 (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:upmerged as nominated, with no prejudice to recreation as part of an organized category scheme. There were only three articles so categorized, and while I don't doubt this could lead to a greater category structure, there would have to be evidence of someone willing to undertake that work for this proceed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given there are far fewer medieval chronicles etc in India, & precedents for similar 20/21st century cats, we probably only need 17th, 18th & 19th to make the full set. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If we do need to merge at all, I would suggest that we merge according to a broad period of Indian History, rather than AD centuries (which depend on an occidental calendar). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2010 (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.
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.
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.
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. The revised proposal didn't produce comments, so perhaps a fresh nomination is in order. I think that would be more likely to produce new comments than a relisting of this messy-ish discussion.Good Ol’factory(talk)23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could see retaining the theory category for now, with the understanding that articles under theory should be moved into topical subcategories as such categories are created. When appropriate, the topical subcategories could have both org studies and org theory as a parent.
I left strategy behind at the last HR exam many years ago ... oh how I hate these essays. But perhaps it makes sense to draw a top-down tree of the whole package: what should be there or not. East of Borschov (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipating future discussion of topical subcategories, and to avoid dumping into an overfilled category, I revise my proposal: I propose renaming this category to Category:Organizational theories. The new scope would be general theories of organizations and abstract organizational studies concepts that don't fit in a more specific subtopic.
Rationale: "Organizational theories" better reflects the proposed, limited scope – it's not an umbrella category.
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.
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia people[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:Merge/delete/rename as indicated. Now that the "FR Yugoslavia" categories have been renamed to "Serbia and Montenegro" categories, there is no longer any reason to have separate subcategories for SFRY people—these can all just be upmerged into the general categories for Yugoslav people. (Most of these SFRY subcategories (with the exception of the footballers) have been quite half-heartedly populated and there has not been a corresponding effort to separate out people from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, nor should there be—the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the SFR Yugoslavia were the same country, which we call "Yugoslavia". The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia went under slightly different names throughout its history, but we don't differentiate in categorization between all of these. It was only Serbia and Montenegro retaining the name "FR Yugoslavia" that caused the confusion in the category system, but now this source of confusion is defunct in the category system. FR Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) was created in 1992, hence the awkward use of "Pre-1992 Yugoslav footballers".) Good Ol’factory(talk)03:12, 1 June 2010 (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.
Rename per nom. Inaccuracy is not permitted so we can't tolerate an article to be categorized as in a specific city when it isn't, and nitpicky categorization of such places by municipality/unincorporated area would be too much of a hindrance. The metropolitan area is the more relevant functioning unit here. postdlf (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2010 (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.
RelistedatWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 9. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
