The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Irrelevant category. Wikipedia shouldn't have categories of images of people by their occupation.
Reverend X (
talk)
21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Notorious B.I.G. albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More personal image categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per precedent
here,
here, and
here, personal image categories are not needed. If allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need to make categories.
VegaDark (
talk)
19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Indiana Jones films
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization for a set of films by series. All films are already interlinked with the {{Template:Indiana Jones}}, and as per
previous discussions for the Fast & Furious/American Pie/An American Tail films Lugnuts (
talk)
17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. It seems to me that this category performs a valid function in reducing the number of valid categories shown on the face of the film articles. As a fall back suggestion, Upmerge to all ten head categories, all of which are relevant, and some of which are not currently on the articles. -
Fayenatic(talk)12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep It really does not make sense to me to have all four of these films in all ten of the other categories that this category belongs to. It overwhelms the parent categories when series films are all there individually and it overwhelms the article when it belongs to a dozen extra categories.
Miami33139 (
talk)
15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - this is a bit of a red herring, as the individual films would not go into all of the parents cats of the series cat.
Otto4711 (
talk)
12:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think the previous closes (American Pie, Fast & Furious, American Tail) were all in error. These are reasonable clusters that avoid the kind of requirement to list each film ten other times.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:United States federal commerce legislation
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:Reverse Merge. There appears to be consensus to clean this up. The reverse merge seems to make the most sense. This close does not prevent someone from upmerging the articles into 'better' named categories, as has been suggested in the discussion, and then deleting the category if it is empty. In the end that appears to be the best choice. So the merge is a step in that direction and probably not the final end.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Previously discussed
here but it was closed as "no consensus." I think there was consensus that they should be merged; the disagreement was regarding which category should be kept. Maybe we can get some more input this time.
PowersT00:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge per my comments at the last CFD. NB, it's generally not a good idea to renominate a category immediately after a CFD closes.
Otto4711 (
talk)
00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree. However: 1) The two obviously need to be merged; the only disagreement is which direction. 2) The discussion was closed as no consensus after only you and I made recommendations; AfDs are often relisted when there is insufficient discussion, and I saw no reason not to do so here.
PowersT14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: That particular CFD really should have been relisted for further discussion, rather than closed "no concensus". Although I didn't make an explicit recommendation, I did indirectly express a preference for
Category:United States federal commercial legislation. I'm still leaning in that direction, but I'm definitely open to persuasion. In hopes of getting some informed input, I've notified the category creators with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}, and I'm also going to leave notes for one or two other knowledgeable editors.
Cgingold (
talk)
11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Support merge to "…commercial…." There's no telling what legislation comes directly from the "
commerce clause" because that cause is so broad and used as a catch-all for just about everything. Sometimes, however, legislation is specifically authorized by other causes such as bankruptcy, coin mintage, etc.." "Commerce" implies the commerce clause. Therefore, let's just combine it all into "…commercial…."—
Markles12:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
But "commercial" is hopelessly ambiguous as a term for categorizing. I'm inclined to agree with Postdlf that this approach to categorization may be poorly founded.
older ≠
wiser18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I oppose any merger into or retention of "federal commercial legislation," as the term "commercial" doesn't mean anything in this context. If we are intending a category to capture any regulation of business, industry, etc., then commerce is the proper term here. But I question whether even that category is useful. Even if we limit it to all legislation enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause (in which case it should be renamed to reflect that—lower case "commerce" does not require that reading), that would still be most federal legislation, from obvious things such as antitrust and minimum wage laws, to more indirect regulations of commerce through environmental regulations and civil rights laws. So I would favor merging both into appropriate industry or issue-specific categories (or even just the general federal legislation category), but if we're going to keep this, commerce is a better term.
Postdlf (
talk)
18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: I agree with Postdlf's position on this. "Commercial" legislation is simply too broad, as it could include many different types of laws. Better to divide it up into different subject areas. --
Eastlaw (
talk)
20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - if this can only be resolved by deleting both categories and merging/redistributing the content to other categories, I'm fine with that. One way or another this needs to be resolved.
Otto4711 (
talk)
02:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Former manufacturing companies
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Merge to the established and more heavily populated category. This defunct is normally used for company categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment As I suspected, many of these are not either former or defunct, but merely merged, like
Douglas Aircraft Company, and using different names - often not even that. They should be merged, but to a more accurate name than either of these.
Johnbod (
talk)
22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Firstly, the operations of the old DAC are booming, and have been so continuously, as far as I can see, so "defunct" is misleading apart from anything else. Whether the actual corporate entity still exists can be established from company registers I suppose, but often the old company becomes a 100% subsidiary of the new one, or the take-over co., and actually continues in existence for decades. Some of the ones I looked at here were still trading under the old name. This can have advantages in marketing and for the enforcement of contracts etc. The trouble is that working this out in each case is too complicated. Perhaps we should distinguish between
Category:Companies dissolved after bankruptcy and something like
Category:Merged or taken-over companies. But I agree it is complicated - plenty of companies that could be in this category a la DAC still have their recent history in the old company article, even though they have been taken over ages ago.
Johnbod (
talk)
23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)reply
You raise a point with articles that has been an issue. Right now general guidelines say if there is a merger or buyout, combine articles into one. In my opinion that causes confusion in many places. Bally as a company with all of its iterations is a good example. Caesars as a company is another. I raised a similar issue about the parent(s) of
Singapore Airlines. In the case of your example, the article opens with 'was'. If the company is still operating as a part of another company it is not defunct. So, yes this appears to be more complicated. I don't see the merge hurting anything. However dealing with the lack of a precise statement about companies continue existence is confusing at best. The end of the name does not mean the end of the company. So maybe the extra question here is can any of this be fixed with categories?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Well moving to 'more vague' is akin to ambiguous so that does not seem a good way to move. Also, most of the other company categories use defunct, so an exception here seems rather odd.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
For my money, former is less precise, defunct just wrong. Obviously I think all the categories should change ideally.
Johnbod (
talk)
20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
So you are raising a larger issue, something that is much larger then this nomination and needs to be its own discussion. I'm not sure how I would stand on that proposal. I guess I need to hear a bunch of reasons. Until that happens, can we let this rename to the current standard happen so that we don't have two categories for the 'same' purpose?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Irrelevant category. Wikipedia shouldn't have categories of images of people by their occupation.
Reverend X (
talk)
21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Notorious B.I.G. albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More personal image categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per precedent
here,
here, and
here, personal image categories are not needed. If allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need to make categories.
VegaDark (
talk)
19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Indiana Jones films
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization for a set of films by series. All films are already interlinked with the {{Template:Indiana Jones}}, and as per
previous discussions for the Fast & Furious/American Pie/An American Tail films Lugnuts (
talk)
17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. It seems to me that this category performs a valid function in reducing the number of valid categories shown on the face of the film articles. As a fall back suggestion, Upmerge to all ten head categories, all of which are relevant, and some of which are not currently on the articles. -
Fayenatic(talk)12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep It really does not make sense to me to have all four of these films in all ten of the other categories that this category belongs to. It overwhelms the parent categories when series films are all there individually and it overwhelms the article when it belongs to a dozen extra categories.
Miami33139 (
talk)
15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - this is a bit of a red herring, as the individual films would not go into all of the parents cats of the series cat.
Otto4711 (
talk)
12:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think the previous closes (American Pie, Fast & Furious, American Tail) were all in error. These are reasonable clusters that avoid the kind of requirement to list each film ten other times.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:United States federal commerce legislation
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:Reverse Merge. There appears to be consensus to clean this up. The reverse merge seems to make the most sense. This close does not prevent someone from upmerging the articles into 'better' named categories, as has been suggested in the discussion, and then deleting the category if it is empty. In the end that appears to be the best choice. So the merge is a step in that direction and probably not the final end.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Previously discussed
here but it was closed as "no consensus." I think there was consensus that they should be merged; the disagreement was regarding which category should be kept. Maybe we can get some more input this time.
PowersT00:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge per my comments at the last CFD. NB, it's generally not a good idea to renominate a category immediately after a CFD closes.
Otto4711 (
talk)
00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree. However: 1) The two obviously need to be merged; the only disagreement is which direction. 2) The discussion was closed as no consensus after only you and I made recommendations; AfDs are often relisted when there is insufficient discussion, and I saw no reason not to do so here.
PowersT14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: That particular CFD really should have been relisted for further discussion, rather than closed "no concensus". Although I didn't make an explicit recommendation, I did indirectly express a preference for
Category:United States federal commercial legislation. I'm still leaning in that direction, but I'm definitely open to persuasion. In hopes of getting some informed input, I've notified the category creators with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}, and I'm also going to leave notes for one or two other knowledgeable editors.
Cgingold (
talk)
11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Support merge to "…commercial…." There's no telling what legislation comes directly from the "
commerce clause" because that cause is so broad and used as a catch-all for just about everything. Sometimes, however, legislation is specifically authorized by other causes such as bankruptcy, coin mintage, etc.." "Commerce" implies the commerce clause. Therefore, let's just combine it all into "…commercial…."—
Markles12:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
But "commercial" is hopelessly ambiguous as a term for categorizing. I'm inclined to agree with Postdlf that this approach to categorization may be poorly founded.
older ≠
wiser18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I oppose any merger into or retention of "federal commercial legislation," as the term "commercial" doesn't mean anything in this context. If we are intending a category to capture any regulation of business, industry, etc., then commerce is the proper term here. But I question whether even that category is useful. Even if we limit it to all legislation enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause (in which case it should be renamed to reflect that—lower case "commerce" does not require that reading), that would still be most federal legislation, from obvious things such as antitrust and minimum wage laws, to more indirect regulations of commerce through environmental regulations and civil rights laws. So I would favor merging both into appropriate industry or issue-specific categories (or even just the general federal legislation category), but if we're going to keep this, commerce is a better term.
Postdlf (
talk)
18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: I agree with Postdlf's position on this. "Commercial" legislation is simply too broad, as it could include many different types of laws. Better to divide it up into different subject areas. --
Eastlaw (
talk)
20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - if this can only be resolved by deleting both categories and merging/redistributing the content to other categories, I'm fine with that. One way or another this needs to be resolved.
Otto4711 (
talk)
02:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Former manufacturing companies
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Merge to the established and more heavily populated category. This defunct is normally used for company categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment As I suspected, many of these are not either former or defunct, but merely merged, like
Douglas Aircraft Company, and using different names - often not even that. They should be merged, but to a more accurate name than either of these.
Johnbod (
talk)
22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Firstly, the operations of the old DAC are booming, and have been so continuously, as far as I can see, so "defunct" is misleading apart from anything else. Whether the actual corporate entity still exists can be established from company registers I suppose, but often the old company becomes a 100% subsidiary of the new one, or the take-over co., and actually continues in existence for decades. Some of the ones I looked at here were still trading under the old name. This can have advantages in marketing and for the enforcement of contracts etc. The trouble is that working this out in each case is too complicated. Perhaps we should distinguish between
Category:Companies dissolved after bankruptcy and something like
Category:Merged or taken-over companies. But I agree it is complicated - plenty of companies that could be in this category a la DAC still have their recent history in the old company article, even though they have been taken over ages ago.
Johnbod (
talk)
23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)reply
You raise a point with articles that has been an issue. Right now general guidelines say if there is a merger or buyout, combine articles into one. In my opinion that causes confusion in many places. Bally as a company with all of its iterations is a good example. Caesars as a company is another. I raised a similar issue about the parent(s) of
Singapore Airlines. In the case of your example, the article opens with 'was'. If the company is still operating as a part of another company it is not defunct. So, yes this appears to be more complicated. I don't see the merge hurting anything. However dealing with the lack of a precise statement about companies continue existence is confusing at best. The end of the name does not mean the end of the company. So maybe the extra question here is can any of this be fixed with categories?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Well moving to 'more vague' is akin to ambiguous so that does not seem a good way to move. Also, most of the other company categories use defunct, so an exception here seems rather odd.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
For my money, former is less precise, defunct just wrong. Obviously I think all the categories should change ideally.
Johnbod (
talk)
20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
So you are raising a larger issue, something that is much larger then this nomination and needs to be its own discussion. I'm not sure how I would stand on that proposal. I guess I need to hear a bunch of reasons. Until that happens, can we let this rename to the current standard happen so that we don't have two categories for the 'same' purpose?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:29, 14 May 2008 (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.