< July 31	August 2 >

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Boarding schools in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Boarding schools in Georgia

Nominator's rationale: All of the other "boarding schools in STATE" do not have the extra (U.S. state) attached to it. I do not think, in this case, that people will be mistaking the state of Georgia from the country of Georgia because they will see the parent category is Category:Boarding schools in the United States by state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.134.86 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 August 2013

• Oppose If they're looking at the category, yes, they'll probably realize that. But we wouldn't want a boarding school in Georgia (country) being placed in this category, so we should keep the title unambiguous, in line with Georgia (U.S. state). --BDD (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Category:Schools in Georgia (U.S. state) and indeed every subcat of Category:Georgia (U.S. state). Oculi (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Georgis is the only place we ever append (U.S. state) to, and we do so in every possible case, because we always need to disambiguate from the country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Georgia needs the disambiguator, because there is a country of the same name in the Caucasus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 21:42, 4 August 2013

  Even though its parent category is Category:Boarding schools in the United States by state? I think that would make it clear that it isn't a European country. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That is apparent when one is looking at the category page, but not necessarily so when one is looking at an article or adding a category tag to an article. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:59, 7 August 2013 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Cat superheroes to Category:Animal superheroes

Nominator's rationale: Only three pages, ThunderCats is questionable because it's a TV show and not a character JDDJS (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. There does not appear to be sufficient material about cat superheroes to justify a separate category within Category:Animal superheroes, and the target category is not so overpopulated as to require subdivision. I removed two misplaced articles that were about TV series rather than fictional characters. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There aren's that many notable characters that fit the description of the category. I don's see much scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge We do not need a category for one fictional character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2013 (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: Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional heirs apparent who never acceded (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The title is confusing. And it is a trivial detail that is arguable what falls under it. JDDJS (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had to go to the category page to find out what this means: "These are fictional individuals who were legally heirs apparent, but never acceded to the throne or title to which they were entitled." This seems like a small category that could be better covered by less specific categories. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Among other problems, not all literature gives us a full history of the people involved. So what do we do with a fictional figure who is within the body of work always an heir apparent, but the body of work does not cover the whole life of the individual, so it is possible that they will at some point assume the throne, but that fact is not actually covered within the work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete trivial, not defining, and the whole thing is about a fictional character who didn't do something! What if someone writes a new book when they do accede? Delete--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Who was the heir apparent to the Snow Queen in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe before those 4 interlopers stole the throne? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is an interesting subject. The fact that a certain monarch may not have had an obvious heir apparent does not affect the validity of the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2013 (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. Cleanup as needed after merge.Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Whitefield, New Hampshire to Category:People from Coos County, New Hampshire

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just 3 entries. ...William 11:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge but exclude anyone not resident in the county because they left the area before the county was formed in 1803.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2013 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Samarinda International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#SMALL, category contains only 1 page. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It has potential to growth, from the airport's operator page, its service company page, its rail station page and KalTim Airlines page.--Mazta2012 (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if the 4 other listed articles were all created, I would not be fully convinced this category was worth having. Since none of those other pages exist, we clearly do not need the category now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2013 (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 does, on the whole, appear to be support for renaming to the shorter name; however, the counterpoint that doing so would make this category inconsistent within the structure of Category:Companies that have filed for bankruptcy in the United States is compelling. I encourage a follow-up nomination of that category, or of all 34 categories in the tree, in order to revisit the issue at a higher level. If tagging is an issue, I am (and editors in Category:Wikipedians who use AutoWikiBrowser might be) willing to assist. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure why this category structure uses the more wordy past perfect form. We don't have, say, Category:Companies that were established in 2007. I don't think the current form presents a benefit in terms of precision or anything. (P.S. I'd like to have the subcats renamed as well. Please don't make me tag them all (or at least point me towards an automated tool for doing so).) BDD (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yea, the 28 subcategories will need to be tagged. However it might be easier to do those as speedies if this one gets consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's go with that then. I'll tag them as C2C, unless someone wants to earn a minor barnstar by tagging them all now. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. And the categories by year (which only have one parent category at present) should have another parent, eg for Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2012 it would be Category:2012 in the United States (or perhaps Category:2012 disestablishments in the United States?). All year-related categories should be a sub-subcategory of the year eg here Category:2012. Hugo999 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Not all bankruptcies end in disestablishment so that might not be the best upmerge or parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a defining enough characteristic to categorize by. I support the rename, but think we should consider if it is really defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point. If the company went defunct after bankruptcy, we have specific categories for that. If Chapter 11 was just part of a radical restructuring, that doesn't seem very defining. We'd never have, say, Category:Companies that changed headquarters. I wouldn't oppose deletion. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - changing just one part of this category's structure will only serve to create inconsistencies. Look at a (small) part of the category tree:

▼ Companies that have filed for bankruptcy in the United States‎ (3 C, 4 P)

► Companies that have filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy‎ (87 P)

▼ Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy‎ (1 C, 231 P)

▼ Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy by year‎ (29 C)

► Companies that have filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy‎ (1 P)

XOttawahitech (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment BDD, this is at least the third time this category has been discussed at wp:CFD - why is this not mentioned? And for the record, as the creator of most (if not all) of the subcats I resent not receiving a notice of this discussion. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this a private conversation or a public area of Wikipedia where all editors are invited to participate? I just noticed that Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy by year has also been tagged, but not by the nominator but rather by another participant. This category Is not mentioned AT ALL in the nomination and was added as an afterthought in the discussion by Hugo999, who did not notify the creator(me) about this discussion. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there an obligation to discuss previous CfDs? From what I can see, the first dealt with companies only in Chapter 11, and the second was an unsuccessful nomination for deletion. I'm asking for a rename here. As for the tagging, you can see discussion about that above. Twinkle notified the creator of the main category under discussion here; perhaps you should watch it if you're interested in updates. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is trivial reasons offered to change. Change should not be made unless there is some substance. Hmains (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep -- We do have establishment by year categories. I do not understand the differences between the various US bankruptcies, but filing for it is clearly significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  While deletion has come up in this discussion, the proposal is for a rename. --BDD (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2013 (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 with no objection to dual parenting near the top of the tree. No one else seems willing to close these, so I'm closing this one. I will note that I have expressed support in a previous discussion for Alta California over New Spain, but that does not appear to be an issue here. While consensus may be fuzzy here, this is consistent with other closes of this type. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:1781 establishments in Mexico to Category:1781 establishments in New Spain
• Nominator's rationale This is anachronistic in most senses. There was not a domain named "Mexico" in 1781. If people had been foced to designate some area Mexcio, it would have been much smaller than modern Mexcio, only the central part of the country. That is why it worked perfectly well to have a New Mexico also under the domain of New Spain. Some people seem to be trying to impose lines from 1848 on Mexico in 1781, which makes no sense since many of those lines cut across state boundaries of the time. This is an ahisotrical impostion, and also leads to needless category fragmentation. We should treat all new Spain as one body, and not have any pre-1821 establishments in Mexico categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment but popular history do treat things this way, with things "in the modern jurisdiction" going back before its establishment, and being "in" the jurisdiction even before that piece of territory was attached to the jurisdiction. Look at titles "History of X" and you'll see stuff on that. (such as the pre-Celtic peoples in modern jurisdiction X) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, why would you want to lose aspects of the history of what is now Mexico in such a way? What is of more interest to most of the readers: what happened in what is now Mexico (or Italy, or Germany, or ...) in a distant past, or what happened in some entity that no longer exists and is only of interest to a much smaller subgroup of our readers? We also have Category:16th-century Mexican people (and 17th and 18th century) as subcats of Category:People of New Spain, so it is not as if this is a sole exception to some general rule. What is the advantage of losing the link between what happened in 1781 and where it is located now? I see no benefit at all from this upmerge proposal, no information is gained, but information is actually lost. We have e.g. Category:18th century in Mexico: this info would no longer be accessible through that category if this upmerge is done. Fram (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico did not exist in 1781. The attempts to to impose post-1848 boundaries on this category are ahistorical and misrepresent how things were organized at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I know your position by now. I have not claimed that Mexico existed in 1781. But things that happened in 1781 have an influence now on Mexico, not on New Spain. They are important for Mexico. The history of current countries doesn't start at the date of their creation or independence, it starts much earlier. Your reply doesn't indicate what the benefit is of losing that aspect. What is gained by removing the Mexico aspect? Fram (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing prevents the establishment of say Category:Pre-statehood history of Mexico. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nom. Precedent indicates that we categorise things according to their contemporary polity, not their present one. We have a school in Mexico, whose status can be recorded by a city category and a subcat for Pueblo de Los Angeles, which is in modern California and already categorised for pre-state history of California. That covers the problem. These establishment categories (except in recent times) tend to be miniscule and probably need merging by decade. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently 32 articles in the subcats of Category:1781 establishments by country. There are probably quite a few more articles that could be added to these (e.g. Presbytery of Redstone, Theater in der Leopoldstadt, East Main Street Cemetery, East Princeton Village Historic District, Bansda State. Categories like the 1781 establishments in Mexico one are part of multiple series of cats, not just one; by year, by location, and by event. Upmerging these to decade cats removes them from the "history by year" cats. What is gained by upmerging them? Who is served by having this information no longer in a year cat, but in a decade cat instead? Fram (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I feel that the by year categories are useful and the by decade ones are of little to no value. By century is useful for collection of by year in large groups. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; keep and use both. Examine Category:Years in Mexico: this proposal would take one category out and thereby eliminate one part of what is a fairly consistent and broad naming scheme. I do not think there is anything terribly wrong with using a broad framework that uses curent terminology to help organise historical information. The reasoning 65.94.76.126 and Fram use is convincing—it is very helpful to maintain the link between what happened in a place in a particular year and where that place is located now. It also makes obvious sense to point out that the place was part of New Spain at the time. I see no problem with the articles being in both a Mexico and a New Spain tree. I don't think we need to choose one particular way of approaching this over the other. What I find most problematic about this nomination is that it takes one category out of dozens and dozens that exhibit the exact same issue and attempts to rename it in isolation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1871 establishments and Category:Establishments in New Spain, and Category:Establishments in Mexico would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the open RFC on this general topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Upmerge per nom, as we shouldn't be applying anachonistic names that didn't exist at the time of the events being categorised. Would not be opposed to dual-categorisation if that is preferred. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I still hold that claiming we can refer to Mexico in 1781 is to impose post-1820 reality on earlier times. The idea of Mexico as we understand it is not how the term was understood earlier. New Mexico was so named because at the time Mexico referred to a much smaller area centered around Mexico City, not the larger area we think of today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a "New Spain" category. My vote above was for a merge by decade in New Spain, possibly combined with merging to Category:1781 establishments to preserve the annual element. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate !vote struck. A relisting is not an inviation to !vote again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 8 August 2013 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rajasthan media to Category:Media of Rajasthan

Nominator's rationale: Follow the naming pattern for sub-categories of Category:Indian media by state  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  05:29, 1 August 2013 (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:People from Lille. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People active in Lille to Category:Lille

Nominator's rationale: This is a very unusual form of categorization in WP (it's the only "People active in <place>" category) with unusual inclusion criteria ("...but not born in Lille."). Propose upmerge to the (only) parent category. Some articles might then be moved down to a relevant politics/culture etc in Lille category. DexDor (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:People from Lille. We do not categorize people by place of birth, but by where they are from, that is where they spent significant portions of their life. People can be categorized as from multiple cities. This category was created by someone who does not understand how people from place categories work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:People from Lille. We do not go in for fine distinctions such as "active in but not born in". A person can be categorized as from both their birthplace and where they now live. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2013 (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:Firearms. The subcategories changed to have Category:Firearms by type as the parent. Editors to cleanup as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Specialized firearms to Category:Firearms by type

Nominator's rationale: The category text says "This page is to cover hard-to-categorize firearms...". Clear example of WP:OC#MISC. DexDor (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete but upmerge subcats The rationale makes sense, but this is a mixture of firearm types (e.g. starter pistol) and specific firearms. Category:Firearms by type is by its nature a container category and so, except for the couple of subcats, the pages don't belong in the parent. Seyasirt (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about upmerge subcats to Category:Firearms by type and upmerge articles to Category:Firearms ? DexDor (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category upmerge sounds good, but most of the pages are already categorized somewhere in the firearms tree. So I would only upmerge the few into Category:Firearms which had no other firearm categorization (e.g. starter pistol). Seyasirt (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2013 (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: administrative close: see discussion (category was speedily deleted as empty prior to close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Current members of the Cabinet of Puerto Rico to Category:Members of the Cabinet of Puerto Rico

Nominator's rationale: Categorization should be by permanent characteristics (so if it isn't updated it doesn't become incorrect) - being a "current member" isn't a permanent characteristic. The correct way to separate current and former members is to have a sub-category for former members that articles can be moved down into. DexDor (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "current" category has been deleted (presumably by CFDS). DexDor (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge we avoid current categories in almost all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm the author of this category. This is an old category that I simply forgot to delete. The people currently in this category are no longer members of the current Cabinet. We are now using Category:Members of the 16th Cabinet of Puerto Rico instead. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Please close -- Ahnoneemoos has explained what has gone wrong and the category has apparently been deleted. The nom merge would seem to be destructive. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2013 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Comics with cover art by Steve Ditko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No other comic follows this category schematic. This is essentially performer by performance. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as category creator. i had thought there would be more notable individual comics that could be categorized by cover artist, and i had created Category:Comics with cover art by Jack Kirby, which never had enough elements. the category tree Category:Comics covers by artist should be adequate, and it includes kirby, ditko, adams, buscema.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We should categorize comics by artist. If a person is considered the artist the comic can be categorized as by that person, if they are not, we should not categorize it just because they did a little work on the thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JPL & creator. The child categories of Category:Comics covers by artist seem only to be categorizing files (presumably images), not articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2013 (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.