Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 5 August 7 >

August 6

Category:Fitna

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 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Fitna" is a traditional name applied to a specific number of conflicts, but as a generic category name it is pointless, and better covered by Category:Muslim civil wars. It makes sense to group the battles and personalities of a specific "Fitna" under a dedicated category, but there is no reason to distinguish the "Fitnas" as a group from other Muslim civil wars. Constantine ✍ 18:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from McIntosh, Alabama

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. Town categories with just one or two entries. ...William 16:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dukedoms of England

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. As far as I can tell, there's no merit to the claim that the Peerage categories were emptied out of process; rather, it appears that those categories were created unilaterally by User:Tryde.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect term. Replaced by the more precisly named Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of England. Tryde (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is in line with other similar categories, such as Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Viscountcies in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so on. Tryde (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The outcome of that discussion should have been no consensus. Tryde (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category is clear what it is at present. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The dukedoms in question do not belong to Engand the country as a whole, but rather they belong to the Peerage of that country, which consists of a select few individuals. Brendandh (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Dukedoms of England" is not clear enough and could lead to incorrect population of the category. The average editor could reasonably assume that because (for example) Manchester is in England, the article Duke of Manchester should be in the category "Dukedoms of England" - which is wrong, as the title is in the Peerage of Great Britain. "Dukedoms in the Peerage of England" preserves the distinction. Opera hat (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of England (which has been emptied out of process) and Delete this -- The term is misleading. We do not categorise peerages according to the place that the title comes from. Indeed in some cases (such as Duke of Manchester) there is only a nominal connection. The correct split is between "peerage of England" and "peerage of Scotland" (for pre-1707 creations); "peerage of Ireland" for creations before 1801; "peerage of GB" (creations 1707-1801) and "peerage of UK" (since 1801). In contrast with many other countries, nobles have long had no power of ruling the area from which they took their title. If this policy were fully implemented, some of the subsidiary titles of the Duke of Wellington would appear to be part of the peerage of Spain (but they are not). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not emptied out of process; it was created out of process, with the contents of the "Dukedoms" category moved there. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dukedoms of Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect term. Replaced by the more precisly named Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Ireland. Tryde (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is in line with other similar categories, such as Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Viscountcies in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so on. Tryde (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dukedom of Ireland is a very problematic term as these titles were issued by the English and later British crown. That's why the more specific term "in the Peerage of Ireland" should be used. Even if Ireland is no longer part of the United Kingdom the Irish peerage still exists. Tryde (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per above. Brendandh (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Ireland (which has been emptied out of process) and Delete this -- Delete for the reasons given for the England case. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not emptied out of process; it was created out of process, with the contents of the "Dukedoms" category moved there. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Every Irish dukedom is a dukedom in the peerage of Ireland, so in this case the greater precision adds nothing. Kauffner (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue. See my comment below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The title Duke of Ireland was in the Peerage of England, not the Peerage of Ireland. It would seem entirely logical for an article called "Duke of Ireland" to be in a category called "Dukedoms of Ireland"; excluding it on the grounds that "Dukedoms of Ireland" should be taken to mean "Dukedoms in the Peerage of Ireland" is almost deliberately misleading for the average reader/editor. Calling the category "Dukedoms in the Peerage of Ireland" does what it says on the tin and allows for no confusion. I see no problem with another category called "Peerage titles named after places in Ireland", but that's not what we're discussing here. Opera hat (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per reasons similar to my comments in the above nom. - jc37 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, your objections appear to be based on misunderstandings of the nature of the peerages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to
    Jacobite Peerage and Peerage of the United Kingdom. This may require some cleanup, but a renaming is the only way to start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Category:Dukedoms of Scotland
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect term. Replaced by the more precisly named Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Scotland. Tryde (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is in line with other similar categories, such as Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Viscountcies in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so on. Tryde (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a dukedom is not the same thing in every country. Dukedoms in France could be territorial fiefs under the ancien régime, victory titles or duchés-grands-fiefs granted under the First Empire, or non-territorial dukedoms granted under subsequent governments. Dukedoms of Italy could refer to Dukedoms granted by the Kingdom of Italy from 1860-1945, or Dukedoms from any of the Kingdom of Italy's predecessor states such as the Kingdom of Naples or the Papal States (or indeed the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy 1805-1814). In what is now the United Kingdom dukedoms in the different peerages conferred different rights. For example, in the 19th century the Duke of Edinburgh (whose title came from Scotland but whose peerage was of the United Kingdom) had a seat in the House of Lords, but the Duke of Montrose (in the peerage of Scotland) only sat in the Lords because he also happened to be the Earl Graham in the peerage of Great Britain, not by right of his Scottish dukedom. Both titles are named for places in Scotland; both could be called "Dukedoms of Scotland". Calling this category "Dukedoms in the Peerage of Scotland" preserves the difference between the two. Opera hat (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dukedoms of Great Britain
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect term. Replaced by the more precisly named Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Great Britain. Tryde (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it is explicitly stated that categories should not be unilaterally emptied before cfd.
    Oculi (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment. This is in line with other similar categories, such as Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Viscountcies in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so on. Tryde (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dukedoms of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect term. Replaced by the more precisly named Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Tryde (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it is explicitly stated that categories should not be unilaterally emptied before cfd.
    Oculi (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment. This is in line with other similar categories, such as Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Viscountcies in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so on. Tryde (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have restored the status quo ante contents of the category. Note that this precise change was rejected last year. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category name at present is clear and explains it's contents well. No need to change. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per above. Brendandh (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom (which has been emptied out of process) and repurpose this as a container category to be a parent to all of the England, Scotland, Ireland, GB and UK peerage categories. The person who emptied the peerage categories out of process without discussion is guilty of vandalism, probably well-meaning vandalism, but vandalism nonetheless. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not emptied out of process; it was created out of process, with the contents of the "Dukedoms" category moved there. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The UK peerage list is separate from the list for England, Scotland, and Great Britain, i.e. UK dukedom was granted post-1801, and is thus not a dukedom of Great Britain (1707-1801), or at least that is the way the categories are currently set up. Kauffner (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have Category:Dukedoms of France and Category:Dukedoms of Italy . The "in the peerage of" will pass over almost everyone's head. Kauffner (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and there would be no problem with a category called "Dukedoms of the United Kingdom" - but it should contain as a subcategory "Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom". The title Duke of Abercorn was created for a subject of the United Kingdom, by the Queen of the United Kingdom, so it could reasonably be called a Dukedom of the United Kingdom - but it was created in the Peerage of Ireland. Dukedom of the United Kingdom =/= Dukedom in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Opera hat (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that the structure of the various peerages may be beyond the comprehension of some, is no excuse to use incorrect terminology. This should be about true and correct form, rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator. See my above at Dukes in the Peerage of England. Brendandh (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women academics

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Newly created category, then creator begins moving entries from the old category to the new one. If a name change is to be effected, here is the place to decide upon that issue. __
talk) 07:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
► Women by century‎ (51 C)
► Women by continent‎ (6 C)
► Women by country‎ (100 C, 1 P)
► Women by ethnicity‎ (3 C)
► Women by nationality‎ (221 C, 2 P)
▼ Women by occupation‎ (61 C, 2 P)
► Women by nationality and occupation‎ (125 C)
► Women by occupation and nationality‎ (9 C)
► Female academics‎ (5 P)
▼ Women academics‎ (1 C, 26 P)
▼ Women academics by nationality‎ (10 C)
► American women academics‎ (31 P)
► British women academics‎ (2 P)
►:Canadian women academics‎ (21 P)
► Indian women academics‎ (14 P)
► Iranian women academics‎ (9 P)
► Japanese women academics‎ (1 P)
► Mexican women academics‎ (1 P)
► New Zealand women academics‎ (5 P)
► Pakistani women academics‎ (1 P)
► Thai women academics‎ (1 P) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF, and yes, those other "Women academics" categories should be renamed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: Why should chefs not be split? I see that cooking competitions award male and female titles. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs) 09:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Swimming World Swimmers of the Year

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A scheme such as this where each category gets one addition per year seems eminently suited for listification. __
talk) 07:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military expeditions of the United States

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: do not rename. The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Military operations categories use "involving" rather than "of" in their formulation. See for example Category:Battles by country and Category:Wars by country Tim! (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose The War of 1812 would certainly encompass military expeditions involving the USA, given the British invasion. This category is for expeditions conducted by the USA and is thus more restrictive (as really makes sense). Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangoe. A battle usually is part of a larger war and often is joined by two sides rather than initiated by one or the other, so it makes sense to use "involving"—there's no sense trying to decide who started it as the important part is knowing who was involved. An expedition, on the other hand, has a clear initiator. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think by or from would be a better construction than of if we are going to categorise by initiator country. Tim! (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Mangoe, but this time disagree with Tim! and support leaving it "of". I can't clearly articulate why "punitive expeditions by" sounds better yet "military expeditions of" should remain, but in terms of flow and clarity those are the options I think sound best. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to prefer "of" but I wouldn't resist "by" if others wanted that instead. Mangoe (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per mangoe. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is of is the simplest way to convey ownership of the operation, and with a military expedition that is what is being conveyed. "Involving" would allow for inclusion when the involvement was miniscule, but "of" forces it to be a key component of the operation. Military expeditions are not like battles. In a battle there are two sides attacking each other. In an expedition one side begins someone and goes into a new place. They may be fighting an opposing expeditionary force, but you do not become a military expedition sitting around on your farm, you have to have proactively gone out and become involved in the endevor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There is nothing to prevent an expedition being one of US and one of another country, if the facts warrant that. I think "of" is gramatically better than "by", but that is a marginal issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Punitive expeditions

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: do not rename. The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Military operations categories use "involving" rather than "of" in their formulation. See for example Category:Battles by country and Category:Wars by country Tim! (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose As with the more general expedition category, these are more or less one-sided actions. Categorizing them according to who conducted them makes more sense than a more general "involving" relationship. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangoe. A battle usually is part of a larger war and often is joined by two sides rather than initiated by one or the other, so it makes sense to use "involving"—there's no sense trying to decide who started it as the important part is knowing who was involved. An expedition, on the other hand, has a clear initiator. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think by or from would be a better construction than of if we are going to categorise by initiator country. Tim! (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangoe, and concur with Tim! that "by" would be the clearest way to demarcate the initiator. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of conveys the sense of the force making the decision to do so. At least in theory another country could initiate a puntative expedition against France, and then it would be such involving France, but what we want here are punitive expeditions initiatied by France. In theory all four countries could have done a punitive expedition jointly against someone else, and the expedition could properly be placed in all four countries, but if three of them invaded the fourth for punative reasons, the fourth would not be properly categorized as an initiator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This involves one country punishing another. UK and France bombarded Algiers in (I think) 1816. That was clearly a punitive expedition by France and also by UK. It involved the state of Algiers, but it was the victim of the punishment, which is very different from inflicting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Harry Potter images and templates

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 00:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary container for Category:Harry Potter images and Category:Harry Potter templates that will never contain more than these two subcats, both of which appear directly in Category:Harry Potter. I don't know what purpose this container category served in 2007 but, regardless, it is no longer needed. We needn't upmerge to Category:Harry Potter task force since it is implied that the whole of Category:Harry Potter falls under the purview of that task force. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Invaders from Mars 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Mars in film - the category's contents are already categorised in the first proposed merge target. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If I'm not mistaken, there have been only two Invaders from Mars films: the original 1953 version and the 1986 remake. Thus, this is a
small category that is unlikely to be expanded and is not of sufficient size to merit a separate series category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Living performers of Christian music

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:WikiProject Christian music biographies of living people. (amended closure after I misread the discussion).--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I can see the logic of dividing up the large Category:Performers of Christian music, this category strikes me as a little odd, simply because it's the only biographical category I'm aware of that subcategorises by living/dead status. (There's also Category:Current national leaders, but that's slightly different.) I don't think that's really a good idea for subcategorisation. However, I do recognise what this category is trying to do, so perhaps it should be renamed to something like Category:Contemporary performers of Christian music? Or should it just be deleted? Robofish (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Xtro films with alien visitation plot

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are three films in the Xtro series, of which two (Xtro and Xtro 3) feature alien visitation. There is no need to split out this category from
just two members; furthermore, there is not enough material about this series overall to merit a general series category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Hidden 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It appears that there are only two films in the The Hidden series, which is not enought to merit a separate category. My search of IMDb turned up several other films with the same name but they appeared to be unrelated. I am not proposing a merge to Category:Neo-noir, the other parent category, since neither article includes any mention of this genre; however, I do not oppose a dual upmerge in principle. (Category creator not notified: retired) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

United States presidential campaigns

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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination follows up on the discussion of 17 July, where there appeared to be a consensus to use the shorter form United States presidential campaigns, YYYY. Six of the eleven nominated categories contain only one article and could, therefore, be upmerged to Category:United States presidential campaigns and the corresponding Category:United States presidential election, YYYY until there exists more content that could be placed in them. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_6&oldid=1074808624"