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: keep but merge Category:Anglican bishops of Edmonton (Canada) into it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Anglican bishops of Edmonton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. One member. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - however, not for the nominator's rationale. I knew that the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton would have to be part of a pattern, so two clicks later I found Category:Anglican bishops of Edmonton (Canada). Therefore this category is redundant and its only member is adequately categorised elsewhere. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC) On further reflection, there are no other Anglican dioceses called Edmonton and so the disambiguation is not required and it should be a reverse merge into this category. Amazing what a night's sleep does to one's thought processes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and reverse merge Category:Anglican bishops of Edmonton (Canada) to Category:Anglican bishops of Edmonton; the category tree goes Category:Edmonton > Category:Religion in Edmonton, so the (disambiguation) is unnecessary and runs contrary to the rest of the tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reverse merge as proposed by Bushranger. The corresponding article is Anglican Diocese of Edmonton so disambiguation is not necessary. Pichpich (talk) 21:49, 27 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Regis School of the Sacred Heart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Contains ten files and one article. The files, many of which are not particularly useful, can be copied to Commons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Articles eligible for Commons have now been moved; one article and one file remain. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essentially a one article category, which there is no reason for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 28 June 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: upmerge to Category:Television program poster images. Category:Television images is a container category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pictures from Balika Vadhu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: one member page and wrong page name. The word "image" is used. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Balika Vadhu images as part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Television images. I don't think that images by television series is an established sub-categorization scheme, at least not in cases where there is only one image to categorize. The image should be in a category, but it does not require its own image category. If there is ever enough material to justify creating Category:Balika Vadhu, the image could be placed there as well. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:26, 19 July 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:Puerto Rican independence activists. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Puerto Rican Independence advocates of the 21st century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only four articles. Need to listify and/or "articleify" to Puerto Rican independence movement. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:SMALLCAT is not a policy, it is only a guideline. With that said, I clarify that the nomination is without merit: WP:SMALLCAT has nothing to do with the current number of members in the category (which is the basis the nominator is using as his delete rationale). WP:SMALLCAT has to do with the potential for growth.

WP:SMALLCAT has to do with potential for growth, and to see growth it would be more reasonable to nominate if the category had been steady at only 4 articles after, say, one year, not after one week (the category was created on 6/19/2012). The category is only 1 week old and -- like any other recently created category -- it just needs time to grow, but 1 week would be an unreasonable expectation. "Growth" does not occur within 1 week, but more reasonably, within several months or a year. It is an undisputable fact that, for any category, if there were hundreds of candidate entries, someone would had already created the category many moons ago. So, obviously, categories don't start large overnight, as is the case with Category:Puerto Rican Independence advocates of the 21st century; they need reasonable time to grow large. As such, the nominator's size argument is meritless.

In addition, just because 4 is small number of articles compared to, say, 100, doesn't mean a category nomination should be based on that number. For example, the Category:North American countries will never contain more than 4 members (Mexico, Bermuda, USA, Canada), yet no one would consider nominating it for deletion just because it contains "Only four articles", as the nominator claims.

Also, the nominator's propose alternatives are his own invention: nowhere does WP:SMALLCAT say anything about "listify" and/or "'articleify'" to other articles.

Finally, the category is important and should be preserved: there is currently no category that groups PR independence advocates in any way, shape, form, or fashion. As it may be noted, the nominator could not come up with a parent category that this category could be upmerged to. The reason is there is currently no existing parent category. (On the contrary, this category could be a parent category to other categories.)

Since political status is the most important issue in Puerto Rico today, this category is also of high importance and needs preserving. The category has merit as it stands.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

• Rename to Category:Puerto Rican advocates of independence, both for a better name format, capitalisation convention, and because why restrict it to just those post 2000? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Puerto Rican independence advocates so this is not a de facto "present" or "current" category. On another note there is no reason to capitalize indepdendence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to Category:Puerto Rican advocates of independence, include 20th century advocates. We rarely split out 21st century and deplore a currnet/former distinction. The category should certainly be preserved. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - (Modifying my position.) Rename to Category:Puerto Rican independence advocates. Appears less cumbersome than the (also proposed here) Category:Puerto Rican advocates of independence, and helps maintain the focus on the independence of the country and not on the nationality of the person advocating for Puerto Rico's independence. That is, someone (i.e., regardless of nationality) advocating for Puerto Rican independence vs. a Puerto Rican advocating Puerto Rican independence. And keeps us out of overcomplicating things by renaming to Category:Puerto Rican advocates of Puerto Rican independence which, just like the 21st century argument, would limit it to just Puerto Ricans. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
• Comment I am pretty sure however we word the name it will be limited to Puerto Ricans, at least in use. I mean, if we had (which we may) Category:Indian independence advocates how are we to distinguish it from Category:Indian diplomats and Category:Indian artists. Nationalit+occupation/advocacy is going to end up being limited to that nationality. If you want to include non-Puerto Ricans you should go to Category:Advocates of Puerto Rican independence. On the other hand, some of this discussion may boil down to "should we capitalize Independence". I think I now see why we would captitalize it. However, I think what ever we do this is going to be a category of Puerto Ricans who advocate the island should be independent, so I still stand by my proposal as the most natural and simple.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• New Name proposal change to Category:Puerto Rican independence activists. The similar Indian category is Category:Indian independence activists. We do not in general categorize people by a position they hold, but we do categorize them as activists for a postion. The current name on reflection seems to likely to gather singers and artists who once somewhere publicly expressed support for Puerto Rican independence but have not in any real way done anything in favor of that result. We categorize people as part of actual movements or parties, or as activitst for a postion, not just as passive supporters of a postion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Puerto Rican independence activists per John. "Activists" is the standard wording in the tree, not "advocates". If they were advocates but not activists, we would not categorize them this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Puerto Rican independence activists - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 16 July 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: keep. Some purging may be needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ethnic groups in Northeast India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Note that some member article are not applicable. the Zomi article may need to be re-categorised. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have gotten it up to 7 sub-cats and 19 categories. The Zomi clearly live in Manipur and also part of Mizoam so they are clearly resident in India and belong in this category (even if like some of the other ethnic groups in the category they also partly live in Burma).John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- NE India presumably refer to the four states east of Bangladesh. I would have thought that the appropriate categorisation was by Indian state not by a larger region. The present form of the category is not helped by some one having added links to articles rather than the category to each article, but that can easily be cured. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment there are 7 states east of Bangladesh (well, by most counts, clearly 6). In the case of these states many of the ethnic groups live in multiple states. We do have ethnic group categories of some sort for most of these states, but the ethnic groups in this area are distinct enough from the rest of India that grouping them all toghether is justifiable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Northeast India is one of most (the most?) ethnically diverse regions of India and for decades has been plagued by ethnic and tribal conflict (source). These unique circumstances make it natural to treat the individual states within the region as a group, at least in the context of ethnic politics. See, for example: Roots of Ethnic Conflict: Nationality Question in North-East India (1990); Ethnicity, Culture & Nationalism in North-East India (1996); Inter-Ethnic Conflict in Northeast India (2005); "Conflict in Northeast India: Issues, Causes and Concern"; "Ethnicity, Culture & Nationalism in North-East India"; and "Social Forces and Ethnic Conflicts in North East India". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:45, 19 July 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: upmerge. Right now there's no supporting article to tie this together, so it just looks like "profession from place," which doesn't happen at this level in the UK categories. Once an article is written, this can be revisited.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Botanists from Lancashire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:English botanists. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is a specific area of British botanical history that connects with social history and popular science and that is becoming apparent in a series of articles concerning these Lancastrian botanists. They are recognised by academics as a "movement" within the botanical genre, as is also clear even from the articles that currently comprise the category. I'll say more when I pick myself up off the floor. ;) - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Was there a name for this movement? If so, that should probably be in the category name to make this reasoning clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Sitush. I am shortly going to add a stub article about another one of them. Richerman (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Sitush and Richerman this was a significant group in the late 18th and 19th centuries which was also important in self-help education for the working classes. J3Mrs (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment In which case, wouldn't it be better to be renamed to Category:18th - 19th century botanists from Lancashire to emphasize this? Brad7777 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There was a short discussion at User talk:Richerman concerning what might be the optimal cat name. I am not unduly fussed about the semantics of the thing provided that it is not deleted in toto. Quite a few sources refer to them as the "Manchester Botanists" or the "Manchester School of Botanists" ("school" as in "movement", not "college"), but if we go down that road that we'll probably quickly end up in a tedious debate concerning the extent of Manchester, past and present. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be happy with 18th - 19th century botanists from Lancashire. Richerman (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a rename to Category:Manchester School of Botanists. A short introduction to explain, and we are done. If this is the purpose, the current name does not cut it since any botanists from the place can be included. While Category:18th - 19th century botanists from Lancashire could work, it is not as precise and is longer then the other suggestion. So unless that is not the intended focus of the category, it seems to be the cleanest option for a rename/keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree I personally think that suggestion would be best, if it is referenced that way. Brad7777 (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment A quick search of google books only shows one hit for 'Manchester school of Botanists' in this context but many hits in the right context for 'Lancashire Botanists'. I think the 'Manchester school' option is confusing as it appears to denote an actual school of botany in Manchester. I think the most commonly used term for the was 'Lancashire Botanists'. There were actually two lots of people here - the professional Botanists and self-taught artisan botanists who were meeting with them and often supplying them with information and specimens. category:Lancashire artisan botanists might work - it would cover one group but exclude the other. Richerman (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  CommentI would prefer 18th - 19th century botanists from Lancashire. School of Botanists is easily misinterpreted. J3Mrs (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I find that too ambiguous and imprecise since the above discussion was about the late 18th century. Adding late would be subjective and hence also not a good choice. So if the school is not acceptable then my position would be to Upmerge per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nom and also to Category:People from Lancashire (or possibly teh more specific Category:People from Manchester. Until we have an article on Manchester School of Botanists, whatever that was, I cannot see that we can have a category on it. If they were a notable coherent group (like the Birmingham Lunar Society), there might be a case for it, but we need an article and a list first. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge there is no consensus that botany is the type of profession we will subdivide beyond a sub-natuional (England is a sub-set of the United Kingdom) level. This also will lead to the thorny question of what boundaries of Lancashire do we use 1-modern, 2-pre-1972, 3-those in effect at the time the person lived (which could be a trickier issue than we might want to think). Basically Manchester is not at present part of Lancashire, so the scope of who should be included can be very tricky. True, we face these issues with "people from x" categories as well, but since it is more easy to move "people from x" to specific cities, we face less the mess geographical histories of some English shires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sitush and Richerman. I've read the articles in this category. If it helps the editors interested in this category to organize their articles, I can't see the harm in keeping the category as is. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Which does not address the issue of the category name not restricting the focus to what the intended focus is. Category names must clearly indicate what the contents should be. In this case, it does not, so keeping is not an option. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the keep arguement seems to be "there is a distinct group of botanists who lived in what was then Lancashire who need to be so categorized". That may be so, but if that is the gorup they want to put together than they need a different name. The current name would include people alive to day, while it seems their actual goal is to limit it to a group of 19th century botanists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the goal is for this to be Members of the Manchester School of Botany it would held if we had an article on Manchester School of Botany, but only the possibility of creating the article is required. However we should rename if we keep, because the current name does not imply what people are trying to shoehorn it into being.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• My first choice is to upmerge the category and present this information via an article or list. The criteria for inclusion appear to be too subjective. For example, would the category include any 18th- or 19th-century Lancastrian botanist or just those who were part of this 'movement'? If it is the former, then the grouping loses its significance; if it is the latter, then how would we determine who belonged to this movement?
  If there is no consensus to upmerge, then rename to Category:Lancashire botanists, which seems to be the most common name used by sources such as The Friend: A Religious and Literary Journal, vol. 47, p. 246 (1874) and "A biographical list of deceased Lancashire botanists" (1909). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:50, 22 July 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: keep and rename to Category:Brookfield Office Properties buildings. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Brookfield Office Properties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: smacks too much of being a business portfolio. WP is an encyclopaedia not a business service. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep now that it is part of Category:Buildings and structures by company‎. There are similar categories such as those in Category:Shopping malls by management company. If deleted, it should first be listified. – Fayenatic London 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but rename to Category:Buildings of Brookfield Office Properties. It is surprisingly well populated, suggesting that this

is not merely random. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Brookfield Office Properties buildings to follow the pattern in Category:Buildings and structures by company. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to suggestion by User:Vegaswikian above. The Wikipedia, is meant to be neither a portfolio nor a directory indeed, but there should be at least some sort of common grouping of assets for easy reference. If a delete goes ahead, make sure there be an asset list created in lieu of the category. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 14:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this category is no different than any of the other categories here:Category:Buildings and structures by company Ottawahitech (talk) 00:01, 3 July 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: keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer contract players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I happened onto this CfD because this same overzealous editor over attacked another category which I have contributed to. But this one didn't make sense . . . too small? No. Actually just poorly attended to. With very little effort I was able to double the size of the category. And I found this site which enumerates "Thirty-three actors were officially designated stars, seventy-two actors were considered featured players, and twenty-six directors were under contract." I believe this is at one particular point in time, but even as a whole this statement defines the potential size of this category if it were attended to. This goes to the point of what I have been saying for years here. Lazy, deletionists would rather delete things that the world could learn through wikipedia, rather than to lift a finger to fix a problem that they have "discovered." Yes this category is finite, it will not grow beyond a specific point. The contract player system ended in 1960. But these players were significant actors of their day, perhaps specifically defined by achieving this status. This category needs to be added to, not removed. Removal is an irresponsible act that denies people the opportunity to learn. Trackinfo (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now I've had a little time to look. With relatively little effort we now have 30 actors in the category. And these are not what you would consider low level individuals. Exactly as predicted, being a member of this category pretty well defines significance, thus vice versa the category is important. So see, you help the WP project more by spending a few minutes with google researching and adding to content, than to do a short sighted, drive-by attack of an item you apparently know nothing about. This philosophy has been in my user page for a long time. If you don't know the subject, butt out. Trackinfo (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Trackinfo. MGM was the most prestigious studio of the studio system, specifically priding itself on the actors it had under contract - their slogan was "More stars than there are in heaven". I think it is a good category to have. I have added about 30 names to the category, and there are definitely many more than can be added. --Lobo (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Could be useful for easily and quickly find actors. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't vote, because i'm the guy that created the category, so it's obvious that believe that this is a valuable category. At as of right now it consist of 64 people, so can we take down the deletion nominationRadiohist (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not forbidden from participating because you were the creator. It's not a vote though, so explain why you think it's a valid category. postdlf (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• REname Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer personnel or Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer contract actors (which is now a gender neutral word). However this needs to be confined to those under longterm contract, not merely those hired for one film, which would be worse than a performance by performer category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people in the category have performed in much more than one film. A typical MGM contract of 1945- "The individual put under contract to Metro is forbidden from making radio or stage appearances or roles in productions made by other sudios without the permission of MGM, but MGM can lend said person to another company, whenever it chooses to do so, without additional financial compansation to him Should said individual refuse or be unable to perform in any picture, suspension without pay will ultimately follow, furthermore MGM can cancel the contract at any time, if it chooses" Several things were in the performer's favor- "Initial contract were for one year with an option for future renew for a longer period, however they varied; Some initially received one hundred dollars a week with a guarantee of a forty weeks' work and a increaseto two hundred, while others received thrty dollars a week with three month renewal options. This was an initial contract and could be cancelled at any time, but if MGM wanted to keep said individual, he would received a seven-year contract with five hundred dollars a week with six yearly renewal options. Some for all of their time worked only in the studios films for the duration of their contract, others worked in only a few MGM pictures in their whole life, however did have contracts to the studio and stared in other productions, film, stage or radio as result of the studio's loan.Radiohist (talk) 20:48, 28 June 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 both per nom, and due to being a recreation. - jc37 20:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American high school record holders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too broad. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My contributions to this category, I believe most that are in it, are for track and field record holders, a status which is well documented by the NFHS-the national high school organizing body or Track and Field News-the so called bible of the sport. This category is so named for brevity and as an invitation for other sports with similarly documented records (swimming, American football, basketball etc) to join in. If they do it might cause for confusion and the need for sub-categorization by sport. If other American high school activities can also come up with records, like SAT scores, academic decathlon wins or whatnot, then maybe additional sub-categories or renaming will be made necessary. At the moment, there is not that demand. Rename to a more specific application of this category if you must. Under no circumstances should the category just be deleted because of a minor naming issue. Trackinfo (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we generally avoid categorizing people by award, and that is what this category essentially is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Academy Award winners * Category:Flight altitude record holders * Category:Austrian world record holders * Category:World record holders in swimming * Category:Record-breaking steamships * Category:World record holders in athletics (track and field) * Category:World record holders in paralympic swimming * Category:Former world record holders in gliding among many others. I don't think your "generally avoid" argument holds water. Or do you seriously propose wholesale eliminating all of those categories and many more like them based on your "generally avoid" contention? Trackinfo (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it likely John was referring to WP:OC#AWARD. Just because other users have flaunted that guideline by creating various award categories doesn't mean that every awards category is OK and must be kept upon discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To that point, we are talking about athletes. Achieving a record is a crowing achievement and a point of notability. For some of the people so categorized Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis, Marion Jones this was the first of many milestones. For others on this list, this was the peak of their career. At this level, the level with the widest participation in the United States, a level that is inherently limited to a four year timespan, these were the best ever at some point in time. It is a clearly distinctive category. Trackinfo (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced, though, that it is defining for those so categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wasn't this just dealt with here under the name Category:High school national record holder? Almost immediately after that category was deleted, this one was created. All this one adds to the mix is "American". So I would delete as re-created material previously deleted. On its merits, I still don't believe it is defining for those so categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title taken from a suggestion in that debate, one word short of a title suggested by the same one above who is again pushing for delete. And here we have the same handful of people still considering this. Trackinfo (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion did not conclude with a recommendation to rename. It concluded with a recommendation to delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• clarification: Is the argument that this page should be made a list rather than a category, or deleted all together? It seems to me that this page meets all of the requirements for a good quality list page. So obviously this page should not be deleted in its entirety. Would people be more amenable to moving it to a list, or is there a more appropriate place for it if a category doesn't work? MATThematical (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list exists. This is a category for the individual participants' pages signifying their having been on the list. It is in keeping with other lists of award winners and recordholders as listed above. Trackinfo (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is something that should be a list, not a category. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Achieving a world-recod in the high jump is probably notable. Is however, setting an American high school record in the high jump notable. If it is notable for the US, should it not also be notable for doing such in other countries? I am unconvinced any record made within high school competition is notable. If a high school student makes a true world record that is another issue, but just a record against other high schoolers does not seem notable. Anyway, this seems like a gateway category to classifying people by high school sports team played on, which we do not want ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete since this is a recreation of a category that was just deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 3 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Music of the United States Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The only members of this category are Category:Bands of the United States Navy, which is already well-categorized with the other US armed forces bands, and euphonium. I see no reason for the latter's inclusion given that the only mention of the navy in the article is the affiliation of one euphonium player among many. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 26 June 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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 22#Category:Chemistry suffixes. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Chemistry suffixes to Category:Suffixes used in Chemistry

Nominator's rationale: Improvement to grammar. Brad7777 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see any grammar problem, and this is the standard format in Category:Affixes.- choster (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Suffixes of organic compounds would more accurately define the contents of this category, and is less vague/robotic Brad7777 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Chemical nomenclature. I see no reason to subdivide this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 21 July 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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 22#Category:Chemistry prefixes. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Chemistry prefixes to Category:Prefixes used in Chemistry

Nominator's rationale: Improvement to grammar. Brad7777 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Leave out used.--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would imply the category is about the general use of prefixes, not a container for individual prefixes.- choster (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any grammar problem, and this is the standard format in Category:Affixes.- choster (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems like bad grammar to me as chemistry isn't an adjective. I have noticed the Category:Language affix format, so not sure what you mean. Brad7777 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there some rule that we must use adjectives? Chemistry here is a noun adjunct. We use this form, admittedly unevenly, to avoid ambiguity: Educational books could mean Category:Education books or Category:Textbooks; and one might be tempted to place Journal of William Maclay in a category called Category:Historical journals but not one called Category:History journals.- choster (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No, there are no rules. In this case, I do not see how using "chemistry prefixes" instead of "prefixes used in chemistry" or "prefixes in chemistry" is avoiding ambiguity? (Although i can see how my suggestion is not improving it.) Maybe the category could be less ambiguous by renaming it to Category:Chemical prefixes? Brad7777 (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment that would increase the scope of the category beyond the field of chemistry. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oppose new proposal per Choster. I see no reason to expand scope of the category beyond the field of chemistry, to allow street-drug prefixes into the category, or marketing chemical prefixes. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment/question I thought all chemicals were studied in chemistry. + I'm not sure what the problem is increasing the scope beyond the field of chemistry. I guess it is possibly because all the current prefixes are specifically relevant to organic chemistry? In which case, would Category:Prefixes of organic compounds be prefered? Brad7777 (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Chemical nomenclature. I see no reason to subdivide this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 21 July 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: no consensus. There is no consensus for any of the proposed changes, though there is consensus against the format Controversies during the ... administration. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:George W. Bush administration controversies to Category:Controversies during the George W. Bush administration
• Propose renaming Category:George H. W. Bush administration controversies to Category:Controversies during the George H. W. Bush administration
• Propose renaming Category:Carter administration controversies to Category:Controversies during the Carter administration
• Propose renaming Category:Clinton administration controversies to Category:Controversies during the Clinton administration
• Propose renaming Category:Grant administration controversies to Category:Controversies during the Grant administration
• Propose renaming Category:Harding administration controversies to Category:Controversies during the Harding administration
• Propose renaming Category:Nixon administration controversies to Category:Controversies during the Nixon administration
• Propose renaming Category:Obama administration controversies to Category:Controversies during the Obama administration
• Propose renaming Category:Reagan administration controversies to Category:Controversies during the Reagan administration

Nominator's rationale: I am suggesting renaming these categories because the current title implies the administrations caused the controversies. This is true in some cases, but the majority are just things that happened during the administrations' reign that they had no control over ThaddeusB (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. The new title can be used for both types of controversies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. If these are just things that happened during the administration's reign, why is this considered defining? Either title implies that the president or his people are some how involved/responsible. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There has to be some connection between the controversy and the presidential administration, otherwise it doesn't belong in the category. For example, the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy occurred during the George W. Bush administration, but clearly it doesn't belong in Category:George W. Bush administration controversies, whereas the name Category:Controversies during the George W. Bush administration might imply that it should. Yes I agree that these categories are populated with entries like Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal, where the administration just got tagged with something that happened that it had no idea about, but that's the way it goes in politics. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy shows the problems of this type of category. Would this be an administration issue if the FCC did not issue its fine? Who appoints the people at the top of the FCC? The President, so does that make them part of his administration? Does an FCC fine make this an administration issue? This makes me wonder if this is better as a list so that the logic behind inclusion is clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "X administration controversies" is clearer, as Wasted Time R says. The categories are for things connected with a given administration, not just occuring at the same time. If you're simply subcategoriesing controversies, and those controversies don't have anything to do with a president, use the subcategories in Category:Controversies by year. The existing names are also shorter. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I still maintain that the current names are confusing. Perhaps a different solution - Category:Controversies associated with the X administration is best. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Your suggestions have better grammar. Brad7777 (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But what about the change in focus the new name brings along? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a simple temporal relationship as suggested by the new proposed title is not a good basis for a category. I wouldn't really mind Category:Controversies associated with the X administration but it's a little clunkier and I don't think the scope is that ambiguous. Pichpich (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment If the association is supposed to be the focus, then that would be best imo. then I agree with Pichpich's view, but I believe the rename that Pichpich also mentioned; is definitely less ambigious. Brad7777

• REname -- WP is far too liable to have categories with unnecessarily complicated names, through the compounding of nouns or the use of nouns as if adjectives. I am neutral as to what the preposition should be "concerning" "about" might be better. However, a controversy about something in India during the Clinton Presidency would logically fit in the target, but have nothing to do with the Clinton administration. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the current name is as clear as any other. The renames are all needlessly wordy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The rename would provide more emphasis and clarity to what belongs in these categories, by removing uncertainty on what may belong to these categories. A category description would help, but that doesn't really help people who use hotcat... although that obviously isn't the primary concern. At the moment, it is unclear why a lot of the articles are included these categories, I think this is due to the uncertainty that the current names can cause. Brad7777 (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually that rename, as I see it, would change the scope. That is rather different from 'providing more emphasis and clarity'. In fact, it may expand it to the point of adding items that just happened to occur during during an administration. And is that fact defining for the administration? One analyst, prior to this weeks Supreme Court ruling noted that Obama's team had a very poor record defining cases at the court. With the note that almost all of these were from Bush actions. So would we say that these are defining for the Obama administration or the Bush administration? Or was the case this week defining for the Obama administration. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I meant the rename to Category:Controversies associated with the X administration Brad7777 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are as many Obama nominees on the court as there are G. W. Bush nominees on the court. Both presidents appointed two members of the court. If you mean something else, it makes even less sense. The court does not carry over cases from term to term, so this is the second term of the court where all the court cases had been argued by Obama appointed Solicitor Generals and their staff. That said, I do not get how the discussion of the court relates. Even people who think the Obama administration waged war on the 1st admendment in the Hosana-Tabor case (where the court unanimously disagreed with Obama, including his former solicitor general) would not qualify that as a "controversy". A controversy has to involve allegedly illegal or unethical actions, and arguing against the 1st admendment is neither. Bad public policy yes, illegal or unethical, no.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the answer why Walter Reed is an administration controversy and the half-time show is not is "that is how the media reported it". Actual perception is a key to understanding the proper classification of events. If people report them as "controversies" and link them to the administation, than that is what they are, if people don't do that, then they are not. If we start debating whether the people involved were actually appointees of the current administration we are essentially engaging in original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think the new name changes the focus in a way that is not good for the encyclopedia. Also, I started out as unsure how to express a definitive opinion here. However the lack of responses to questions about why the change is better convinced me the the proposed name is not an improvement. Expanding the scope here is, for me, wrong. While there could be a better name for the accepted focus here, this proposal is not the solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the possible changes by the rename are not what we want. The word "during" makes the burden of connection to the president named one only of time. The current name makes it so there has to be some link. On the other hand, I think the rename might lead us to be forced to remove the article on the Clinton Pardon Controversy, or whatever exactly we call that, because most of the actual debate over the issue happened during the G. W. Bush administration, because Clinton issued the pardons literally as he left office. Maybe the way the controversy played out would stay under the Clinton administration in either case, but I think that issue illustrates why we do not want to tack on the term "during".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current names and prune We need categories of controversies which concerned the various presidential administrations, and that's what the original names give us. "During" simply implies a span of time and invites more accumulation of inappropriate members. Current members which do not directly involve the presidency should be removed. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 12 July 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 per author's request. — ξ^xplicit 06:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Household Brands to Category:Household brands

Nominator's rationale: per convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Brad7777 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial correction in keeping with MOS. I don't know why things like this even need discussion. LadyofShalott 03:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created it (my bad); PLEASE correct. Thanks. GenQuest (talk) 04:43, 29 June 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.