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, and given the striking of Otto's comments, there's barely a discussion at all. Let's pretend this never happened, and if someone wants to nominate again, we'll start afresh.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:Nominator's rationale:Discuss - Another example of two nations separated by a common language. The parent category is capturing individual episodes of series composed of clips from other episodes of the series, which is how our article defines it. The British sub-cat is capturing programs that are composed of clips from other programs, similar to The Soup in the US. So first question, are either of these of the sort of defining nature that would warrant categorization and if so how do we resolve the ambiguity? I tend to think that given the commonness of clip episodes that it's not all that defining and that it's more common to think of them as episodes of a series rather than in association with other clip episodes, e.g. a clip episode of say The Simpsons is going to associationally lead to other Simpsons episodes rather than say a clip episode of Happy Days or Xena. At the genre level I'd say that there is probably encyclopedic value in a category that captures shows composed of clips from other shows. I'm leaning toward delete the episode-level category and keep and rename the series-level one. But I con't know what a good name for it might be. Clip commentary shows? Clip-aggregate shows? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA17:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the nom: delete the one sort and rename the other sort. Chute! (television programme) (one of the British ones) is described as a 'video clip programme'. Give or take spelling, would this mean anything in the US (distinct from 'clip show')? Occuli (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:* It's hard to tell; searching for any particular term involving "video" and "clip" results in slews of false positives. Perhaps something like Category:Video clip television series (with variant wording for nationality subcats) and a description along the lines of "Category for television series that aggregate video clips from other sources, often with humorous commentary"? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA17:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK we have TV Burp (which exactly fits the 'variant wording'). There are also things like America's Funniest Home Videos which ought to be categorised as something like this (instead of being under 'Home videos'). (I haven't seen either of the British ones, as I have exhausted my lifetime's supply of patience with Graham Norton - 5 minutes or so - and the Chute one seems to be for children.) Occuli (talk) 10:41, 12 September 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:Merge to one parent. This is grouping by state companies that are already included in the aerospace tree by more accurate subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 7 October 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.
Category:Chemical companies based in Massachusetts[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Clothing companies based in Maryland[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. Upmerge to both parents as OC small. This is the only by state clothing company and the need to break these down by state needs to be established. I'm not convinced that navigation would be aided by this detailed of a break out. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 7 October 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 was proposed, technical nomination found doing cleanup. This was included in a previous discussion. While that resulted in a merge, this category remained tagged. Since the close did not mention this one and there was little discussion, I'm bring this one here for discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I know little ofn the subject, and do not understand the relationship of these Pharaohs to the texts, but it seems to me that they are a valid group who ought either to be listifired in Execration texts or the category should be renamed to indicate their relationship to them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 10 October 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. This seems like a convoluted or overly long name for this category. I would like to think there is a better name, but I don't see one at the moment. Suggestions? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:37, 7 October 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.
Category:Monoclonal antibody pages needing a picture[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:Delete. Not used since {{Drugbox-mab}} has been merged into {{Drugbox}}. In my opinion, reactivation doesn't merit the trouble because most monoclonals look very much the same, so a picture usually doesn't add any helpful information to the article. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No images are or will ever be available for most monoclonal antibodies; accordingly, {{Drugbox}} no longer requires an image to be provided. Obsolete category. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:56, 10 October 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.
