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 now as empty. The sole contents have been deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Category for a TV show that has yet to air. No prejudice against recreating at some later time of course. Pichpich (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – its single article is not a valid member anyway (and is being afd'd). Occuli (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Lagrange613 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Occuli (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be no other relationship between these people except for that they all have the last name "Brown" and are involved in politics, which is not a notable intersection.Curb Chain (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcat by shared name. Lagrange613 (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you were from Ohio you would know that Brown is a handy name to have at election time. I see no harm in providing a list for the curious. I don't think this would apply to any other surname in the state. I don't care either way.Roseohioresident (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – per nom. Occuli (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me; he's better know now as Milan the Leather Boy. When I created the category, it was just for the 1964 album. Shocking Blue (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2011 (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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category about a little Brazilian town (Borrazópolis, pt.wiki article indicates a population of 7,877) containing only a subcat (people from). By now, IMHO, redundant. Dэя-Бøяg 14:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the 'people from' should be upmerged to the state, as well. Occuli (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both as there is only one article in the subcat - I have added the latter to the nomination and tagged it, and started a list within the article on the town. - Fayenatic(talk) 23:00, 5 September 2011 (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: Diffusing Category:Mystics by religion or possibly nationality and century (the classic stand-by diffusion categories) is useful, but choosing an overly broad sub-categorization (Western culture) without a larger scheme (Eastern culture, Africa, the Americas, etc.) seems fruitless to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Western" is not defined.Curb Chain (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I don't like the category much (Leonard Cohen????) but "Western" is a perfectly acceptable classification, as for Western art, and is explained in more detail in a note. Yes there should be other categories for other traditions, but "by culture" probably makes more sense here than "by country", let alone "by century". Other categories on this level include "Sufi mystics" and "Hindu mystics" Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response But within art academics, isn't Western art a meaningful classification? Within studies of religion, do specialists talk about Western mystics as a special class? This seems like an arbitrary hodge-podge of persons born in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Western" is a pretty "meaningful classification" within almost any area of the humanities, and indeed Western medicine etc. It means, if you care to put it that way, the works or activities of a "hodge-podge of persons born in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand", and other places outside Europe speaking European languages. It is more useful than trying to decide whether many modern figures with one foot in a religious tradition such as Christianity and Judaism and one foot out should be categorized that way. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Roscelese above; "Western" is ambiguous in this context: is it physical location> is it some divergence from some Abrahamic tradition? is it ethnicity? is it audience? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I emptied after creating Category:Suicide by country. Its contents were better suited to the suicide by country categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common fallacy that categorization is always cleanly hierarchical to one category tree. Just as life is not always cleanly hierarchical, neither is categorization. Also, there is a commons category of the same name, and this category provides the data needed to create and reference the charts at commons:Category:Suicide rates. It is probably one of the most commonly searched for things concerning suicide. The 2 list pages are linked from the resource list for the Commons category. If chart creators, journalists, and other people are to easily know of other such pages that may exist, or that may be created, then this category needs to be kept. The category is also important as a subcategory of Category:Demographics. It is also part of the demography category tree on the Commons. So the suicide rates category is part of 2 important category trees on both Wikipedia and the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.WP:SMALLCAT is another one of those overused, and oftentimes mindlessly applied, rules. Have you looked at Category:Demography? It has hundreds of pages that would be a lot easier to find if put into subcategories like Category:Suicide rates. So, I think this category fits this part of WP:SMALLCAT: "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". But to expect deletionist stupidity to go away on Wikipedia is probably a lost cause. That is why I prefer working on the Commons when I work on Wikimedia projects. Logic seems to reign more there versus illogical rule following. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is no good reason to delete this 4 article category, which certainly has room for expansion. Disussion of other categories is pointless; we are just considering this category. Hmains (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More articles are likely to be added too. I would not have bothered to look at some of those articles for files to move to the commons unless they were already in this category. I found many images that needed to be moved to the commons, and added {{move to commons}} to them. The same could be done with all the subcategories of Category:Demography. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Songs by the band British India (band), not songs from or about India as ruled by the British. I suggest disambiguating to match the name of the band. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:14, 4 September 2011 (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. At the moment, the scope of the category seems a little vague unless you actually look into the category. Given that the street is Broadway (New York City) and the theatre district (which the category seems to be about) is at Broadway theatre, the category should agree with one or the other - presumably the latter. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 4 September 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename I think is ok. Tim! (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. With some rare exceptions, all outlines are incomplete. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 01:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No page can be classified as incomplete or complete by the nature of wikis where they are changed realtime.Curb Chain (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete I don't understand why this would exist... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. I will get rid of the Wikipedia namespace drafts. They don't belong in article namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say keep for maintenance, but the category seems to be based on arbitrary indiscriminate criteria; so upmerge. If anything this should apply to stub outlines, but then again WP Outlines is better off employing quality ratings for that. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, add all members to the head category. (Membership is currently implemented by transcluding Template:Expand outline.) WP:WikiProject Outlines were notified by the nominator on 4 Sept. (To empty the category, edit the template, then nominate it at TFD as it would have nothing left.) - Fayenatic(talk) 08:04, 7 September 2011 (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.
