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, although it's been moot since the 12th when it was G7'd... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dueling films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As the category's creator, I was torn between deleting and renaming as "Films featuring dueling" (as "dueling films" appears to have another, more common meaning, i.e. similar films that open opposite each other). I feel that, with few exceptions, dueling is just not a central enough element to merit a category. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Takes of glove and slaps Clarityfiend across the face Sir! I said, Sir! I challenge you to a duel! Delete This is non-defining for most, if not all those films. Barry Lyndon has a key scene featuring a duel, but it isn't a dueling film. Lugnuts (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cur! As the challenged party, I choose kumquats and banjos on Tristan de Cunha at 11:42 PST. Be there or be square. (The Duellists and The Challenge would fit; best not to think overlong about the Highlander series.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There can be only one! Because the second movie never existed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is generally not a defining characteristic of the film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per John Pack Lambert. Unless you want to focus on documentaries about dueling and movies that are primarily focused on dueling competitions? (in which case Category:Films about dueling would be more appropriate) as opposed to, say, Star Wars, Captain Blood, The Scarlet Pimpernel, The Princess Bride, The Three Musketeers, and every other swashbuckling and science fiction and historical and pirate and fantasy drama? --Lquilter (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2012 (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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Avengers titles to Category:Avengers (comics) titles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be more in line with other subcategories regarding the comic book characters, such as Category:Avengers (comics) images, Category:Avengers (comics) lists and Category:Avengers (comics) storylines. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. There are many different Avengers. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2012 (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: split. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Bad Robot productions to Category:Bad Robot Productions films and Category:Television series by Bad Robot Productions
• Propose splitting Category:Big Talk productions to Category:Big Talk Productions films and Category:Television series by Big Talk Productions
• Propose splitting Category:Gracie Films productions to Category:Gracie Films films and Category:Television series by Gracie Films
• Propose splitting Category:Happy Madison productions to Category:Happy Madison films and Category:Television series by Happy Madison
• Propose splitting Category:Scott Free productions to Category:Scott Free Productions films and Category:Television series by Scott Free Productions
• Propose splitting Category:View Askew productions to Category:View Askew Productions films and Category:Television series by View Askew Productions
• Propose splitting Category:Wonderland Sound and Vision productions to Category:Wonderland Sound and Vision films and Category:Television series by Wonderland Sound and Vision

Nominator's rationale: We normally split these categories into subcategories of Category:Films by studio and Category:Television series by studio.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems like a better way of organizing things. TBrandley 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per nom. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:18, 12 August 2012 (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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:A Band Apart productions to Category:A Band Apart films

Nominator's rationale: Per all other categories of Category:Films by studio. The soundtracks may need to split into their own category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems like a better way of organizing things. TBrandley 15:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per C2C. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:16, 12 August 2012 (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, without prejudice to the creation of a more neutral and inclusive category such as Category:Wikipedians interested in World Rally Championship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedian World Rally Championship fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate cat per WP:USERCAT (category that groups users on the basis of irrelevant likes), underpopulated only member is the category creator AussieLegend (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:USERCAT, an unneeded user category. TBrandley 15:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It seems to me this could be a useful category for collaboration, to find other editors to help improve WRC articles...if it could be populated, of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of potential categories that could be applied to, but this one is specifically for fans, not for editors interested in improving the articles, and it would be pointless renaming it until it is populated. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that would create a situation where "it was deleted because it was unpopulated, thus there's no point in trying to populate a new one". Let's not demolish the house because it's unoccupied. If the category is "specifically for fans, not for editors..." then it won't be populated, yet in order to populate it with editors it would have to be renamed first. Catch 22 anyone? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the World Rally Championship, which I believe is the standard naming format for collaborative categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a cat would seem to be a subcat of Category:Wikipedians interested in automobiles, which has 15 members. Given the lack of interest in that cat, I don't see Category:Wikipedians interested in the World Rally Championship really going anywhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Wikipedians by interest in a sport. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This cat is already in Category:Wikipedian auto racing fans, which is a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a sport. Wikipedian auto racing fans and all of its subcats suffer the same problem as this one in that they are categories that group users on the basis of irrelevant likes rather than by interest in editing specific types of articles. At least 6 of the subcats should be upmerged as they have only between 1 and 3 members and all would need renaming. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Likes" = "interest in editing", I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's "irrelevant likes" according to Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories, which uses Category:Wikipedians who like red foxes as an example. Simply liking something isn't an indication of an interest in editing something, which is why "fan" categories are inappropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly rename I was the one who created it, and I think it just needs to be advertised a little more to be successful. TollHRT52 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2012 (AEST)
• 17 days after nomination, there is still only member in this cat. And it's still an inappropriate cat per WP:USERCAT. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being a fan of something is not the right way to form a user cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2012 (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 C2C/C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following the approach used at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_29#Years_in_Benin, the name French Upper Volta should be used for 1947-1958, and Republic of Upper Volta for the years 1958–1984. Tim! (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2012 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rajput people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete per our longstanding consensus that biographies aren't categorized by caste. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 23#Category:Nair people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 12#Category:Kamma people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 1#Category:Goud people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 17#Category:Maratha people for a few examples. The few categories that are currently included under this will need to be upmerged to Category:Rajputs while the bios will all just have to be removed. —SpacemanSpiff 06:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per precedent. Mangoe (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep this category. This category should remain and all those names whose verification reference is available in their respective articles, should be categorized in this list. Siddharthkumarwikipedia (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep this one. Agree with Siddharthkumarwikipedia. If there is proper verification, then its not the violation of wiki policy for biographies and hence there should be no problem with this category. Cplleague (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- this is an issue that has been debated time and again. To the best of my knowledge, it has always had the same result and that is for reasons which are amply explained in the earlier discussions such as those highlighted by SpacemanSpiff.

  As an aside, is it common to find very new users commenting at CfD? This is not a forum that I visit frequently but at venues such as WP:ANI it would often be thought to be unusual. Those of us who frequent Indian caste articles are, of course, well aware that issues involving the Rajputs and also the Brahmin castes do often produce a significant disparity in the heat/light ratio, with the heat tending to come from SPAs etc. Do we really need to revisit this consensus quite so often? Category:Marwari people is another example in similar vein - do I need to nominate it separately or can it be combined here? Is there some meta-process available? - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Marwari people is a ethno-linguistic group, therefore it isn't covered by our past precedent to delete. However, all caste-bio categories (as evinced from the 100% delete rate at CfD and the consensus at WT:INB -- linked in earlier CfDs) should be covered by this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : If Marwari people is an ethnic group then Rajput is also an ethnic group which Indians call caste or biradari. It should be noted that caste is defined by birth. If I am born in a Rajput family, I will remain a Rajput. Caste can't be changed. So, Rajput is also an ethnic group/ethnic race just like African-American. Categorisation should not be allowed when there is no verification, but if verification is present, then there should be no problem at all. Siddharthkumarwikipedia (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You may find User:Sitush/Common#Castelists to be informative. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, caste is in fact not necessarily defined by birth. You may disagree with that, of course, but it is how it is and has been discussed both frequently and extensively. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't understand what you are saying. My point is that if there is proper verification, then whats the problem in categorizing them as per caste? Like we can take the case of Category:African-Americans. Siddharthkumarwikipedia (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For one, most of the entries are unreferenced, but that's unrelated to the deletion request. The policy based issue is that, we've had consensus a few years back on WT:INDIA to not create these social-group categories based on caste as they are doing more harm than good. And, more importantly, that consensus has been accepted here on CfD to eliminate these categories that serve no encyclopaedic purpose and are classic examples of WP:OVERCAT as it is nothing more than trivial (unlike ethno-linguistic groups etc). —SpacemanSpiff 05:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I please know what harm these categories are doing? I feel that these categories based on castes are no different than others based of ethnicity. Rajput people share common ethnicity, common culture, common history. Then how can this category be different from Category:Marwari people or Category:Rajasthani people ? —Siddharthkumarwikipedia (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• CheckUser comment: Siddharthkumarwikipedia (talk · contribs) and Cplleague (talk · contribs) have both been blocked as socks. I have stuck out their keeps. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why are these all similar categories not nominated all in one go? Won't that be a time saver? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominate them as and when I find them. Pectore took care of a lot of this clean up before, but there were some remnants from then that we still haven't handled. —SpacemanSpiff 14:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with Category:Social groups of India. That's the parent i suppose. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything under that are legitimate categories, there are at the moment no "Foo people" categories left over from the clean up that happened four and two years ago based on the discussions at WT:INB, anything else is a more recent creation (except this one which happened to have slipped by). However, that doesn't mean that we don't have bios showing up under the main Foo category, if that's the case, the respective bios have to be removed. —SpacemanSpiff 15:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm! I see. They look clean. I couldn't find any people as such under them with my random clicks.
I suppose even if this is not the right place to discuss, it isn't exactly a bad place either. Deleting categories of "XYZ people" is okay only until we don't delete articles of "List of XYZ people". Either of the two should stay and for ease of maintenance i think list articles would be good.
I know for sure that Sitush wants to have list articles also deleted. If that is the case, these categories should stay. Shouldn't they? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we have is the misuse of the categories and lists, lists are a bit easier to police, unlike categories. Well, now I just found Category:Rathore is being used to categorize bios and not topics related to Rathore. —SpacemanSpiff 11:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Rajputs are a caste. We do not categorize by caste. Thus we should delete this category. The fact that some other categories may be massively over used with no in-article support does not mean we should allow this category to do the same thing when the basic idea of the category goes against precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2012 (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: rename to Category:Hipparcos objects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:HIP objects to Category:Hipparcos Catalogue objectsCategory:Hipparcos objects

Nominator's rationale: Acronyms and such should be spelled out whenever possible; "HIP objects" is potentially ambiguous. As this category is for objects in the Hipparcos Catalogue, the proposed name is clear and avoids any ambiguity. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is for HIP objects, not HIC objects, both are Hipparcos Catalogue objects -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category defines itself as simply "stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each Hipparcos Catalogue number and matching Hipparcos Input Catalogue number supposedly represents the same object. Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Indifferent – I mean really, how many people will be using this category to find anything? It includes 118,218 stars, so it's not exactly exclusive. A more useful category would be "Stars not in the Hipparcos catalogue". Regards, RJH (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was wondering about that myself. How many stars are we going to have here that aren't in the catalogue? Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Billions and billions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless we actually follow WP:GNG, in which case it will be a much smaller number. As an example, the List of stars in Orion article has a column for the HIP identifiers. There are a grand total of... zero rows... that don't have a HIP number. List of stars in Ursa Major actually has a handful, but they are decidedly in the minority. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if they are renamed, they would be Hipparcos objects, not Hipparcos Catalogue objects. See Category:Messier objects for example. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for catching that - have changed the lede of the nom accordingly - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2012 (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: rename to Category:Juno (spacecraft).--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Juno Jupiter Mission to Category:Juno missionCategory:Juno programCategory:Juno (spacecraft)

Nominator's rationale: There is no "Juno Jupiter Mission" to make this a proper noun. The spacecraft is simply "Juno", and is referred to as the "Juno mission". The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Juno mission seems somewhat ambiguous as there was also Project Juno. Oculi (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That'd be Category:Project Juno. Not to mention WP:COMMONNAME. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why then is the suggested rename not the obvious one to Category:Juno (spacecraft), per its main article and all the contents? (Juno mission is a redirect. Juno Jupiter Mission and Juno Jupiter mission are not even redirects.) Oculi (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, "Program" appears to be the standard (not Mission), so that's my bad there. And except for Kepler, all the by-mission categories are "Foo program". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and upmerge There are only two articles in this, and one of them is for an instrument on the spacecraft. It could all be merged into a single article and the upmerged into Category:Missions to Jupiter. Mangoe (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's to dab. Maybe Juno Jupiter mission for the proper noun issue. Fotaun (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept it does need to be renamed to lowecase-m mission. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there have been other Juno missions -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which ones? Please name them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such as the British-Soviet mission[1], Juno rocket missions[2], etc -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first was noted above, that was Project Juno (and failed). The second is a type of rocket; rocket launches are not refered to as "[rocket type] mission" except for the Space Shuttle (WP:COMMONNAME). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that I have changed the target after realising the standard for the tree is not "Foo mission", but "Foo project"; Category:Juno project is the now-proposed target. However as that does raise ambiguity with Project Juno, Category:Juno (spacecraft) might be preferred. Thoughts? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Increased ambiguity doesn't sound good, so the latter suggestion is probably preferable. If we don't get it right, it will probably be changed again. However, I am content with leaving it where it is. Fotaun (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Leaving it where it is" is a no-go as it's wrongly capitalised. At the very least it needs to be Category:Juno Jupiter mission, but Category:Juno (spacecraft) is probably the best bet, so I'm changing it to that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Juno (spacecraft) to agree with main aritcle name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2012 (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: rename both per nominator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Apollo program television series to Category:Television series about the Apollo program
• Propose renaming Category:Apollo program films to Category:Films about the Apollo program

Nominator's rationale: Matching parents Category:Television series about space programs and Category:Television series about the Moon for the first, and the "Films about..." series for the second, in addition to being clearer ("Apollo program films" could, for instance, very easily mean films developed during the program, not about it.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• rename but shouldn't these be "... referencing the Apollo program" or something like that? Most if not all of these are not documentaries or "based on a true story", but simply use the program as a setting; therefore they are mostly not "about" it. Mangoe (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except "referencing the..." would open the floodgates to any film that used the moon landings as a setting device - for instance, the most recent series of Doctor Who. "About the..." is appropriate here since, even if they are fictional, they are "about" the program. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm OK with that, but it means some significant pruning of the membership. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2012 (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, per nom. The articles have been checked and appropriately otherwise categorised per Pichpich's suggestion as well. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Proposed monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C. to Category:Proposed buildings and structures in the United States
• Propose merging Category:Proposed buildings and structures in Oregon to Category:Proposed buildings and structures in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two subcategories only have a combined 7 articles and the parent category only has 96. I see no need to create by state categories at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge makes sense although I think it should be to both parents i.e. those listed as well as Category:Monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C. and Category:Buildings and structures in Oregon respectively. Pichpich (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to that. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2012 (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 to Category:Buildings and structures in Brazil. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Buildings and structures by condition in Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Since the US has the only heavily populated like category, the question is, should this be considered a series category and expanded for all countries? At this time I'm not inclined to support that direction. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I created this category because it had been added to Category:Buildings and structures under construction in Brazil and Category:Ruins in Brazil but I do have my doubts on its value and would not mind an upmerge to Category:Buildings and structures in Brazil. For large countries with a long history, such categories could easily be populated just like the US and adding this level of categorization instead of keeping everything under Category:Buildings and structures in Foo could be valuable since the latter is often large with many subcategories. (and after saying that, I'm not quite sure where I stand...) Pichpich (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you were being nice and creating a red linked category. I wonder how often being nice creates categories that would not have been created if someone actually thought about the need for a parent category when they created the red link? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've worked extensively on the database reports so I've been nice a few thousands of times over the last six months! I think this is the second or third category I created that ends up at CfD and I'm cautiously interpreting this as a sign of a low error ratio. But it's true that it's tempting to assume that any reasonable redlinked category is a category that should be created (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Categories categorized in red-linked categories and Wikipedia:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links). Pichpich (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This has not much to do with the US. I agree to keep it. --^CH^RI^S4315 18:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Buildings and structures in Brazil. There is no point in coralling together just 2 of the subcats of the latter (unlike the US case where there are many subcats). Oculi (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge for now. If people come up with 2 or 3 more possible sub-cats, than we can revist the need for this category, but right now it is an unneccesary level of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Buildings and structures in Brazil. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 3 September 2012 (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.