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. SQLQuery me! 02:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. Only two entries and unlikely to grow, as the TV series is over and the two games weren't very successful. Sandstein 21:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question, shouldn't it also be upmerged to its two other parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Up-Merge to all three parent categories. This is too small to be a useful as a category, but these games should be included in its parents. Dimadick (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Looks like a straightforward case to me. Fleet Command (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We might need to think about, and extrapolate any further examples from the golden age of television. This is a legitimate category of television that has become a trend lately. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Musical television specials since we already have a category covering this and more recent examples do not need to be put into their own, new category. Aspects (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2016 (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: Per WP:OCASSOC. Additionally, these people have nothing to do with each other. One was an enemy of Sparta, one is a modern historian, and the third was a Spartan. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This seems to be a random selection of non-Spartans with some link to Sparta. The third was a non-Spartan who taught there for a time. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, precedent and policy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2016 (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:Upmerge as redundant. Virtually all legal communication other than live courtroom argument is in writing, so almost everything in either category would need to be in both. Having them as separate categories increases maintenance overhead for no reason, and is confusing to readers and editors. An alternative to plain merge might be to have separate categories for legal writing and legal oratory, with both in a container category called legal communication that contained no very few (e.g. A/V material) "loose" articles itself. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I support the partial reverse merge idea proposed below, with most of the material going into the "writing" child cat., and the "communication" parent one being retained for that subcat. and for what doesn't fit in that subcat. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, however, I do think Legal writing should be (as it is) a subcategory of Legal communication. A couple of the articles in legal writing should probably be moved, and indeed I've moved one of them already. That said, the nominator is incorrect in assuming that all legal communication in written form is "legal writing." Legal writing refers to specific types of communications reflecting legal analysis and theories, rather than any and all written communication dealing with the law. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken in asserting that I'm incorrectly assuming something. (I worked at a non-profit law firm for 9 years as a policy analyst, so please check the assumptions. :-) We don't have articles about "any and all written communication dealing with the law"; on a quick skim, everything here that's not oral-argument-related appears to be "specific types of communications reflecting legal analysis and theories", either in the abstract or as applied. If it were possible for something to be notable and to constitute random writing about that law that isn't really legal writing, it wouldn't be in either of these categories, since it wouldn't qualify as "legal communication"; that parent cat. constrains the contents of the legal writing child cat. A plausible example might be an article on, say, Treatment of legal cases in mainstream journalism. That would be in a journalism category, not in either of the two categories named here. It's possible your sense of what "legal writing" means here is really "legal scholarship", but I'm not certain. If we want a category limited to abstract legal material of that sort, it should be clearly named, not be called "legal writing", which any reasonable person (given WP's categorization system) would also take to include more prosaic things like wills and cease-and-desist letters, as well as probably also things that are legal in the generative sense, e.g. the writing of constitutions, legislation and regulations. The crux of the matter is that there are written and there are spoken legal communication, and not much else that's notable. I suppose an article on the use of video evidence and 3D simulations in court could be categorized as legal communication and not entirely be written or spoken, but it's an outlier. Almost everything in the parent cat will be one or the other. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but merge most of the "communication" content into "writing", and retain "communication" for the few items that may not fit into "writing". Sandstein 21:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would work, though what remains may well be mostly oratory-related material, and enough to categorize as such, as I suggested with the container cat. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge retaining "communication" for the few things that are not written, possibly as a subcat. We have a main article Legal writing but no main article for the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Communications couldn't be a subcat of writing; that's conceptually backward and not compatible with our categorization system, which is topically hierarchical. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to avoid complications keeping the child and parent categories coherent. Partial reverse merge seems fine too. Johnbod (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2016 (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. – FayenaticLondon 14:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Reverse Merge This is a really an odd split: one category groups the team categories and one the other groups the team main articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really that odd at all. One category has been around since 2008. The other was just created the other day by a relatively inexperienced editor who probably was unaware of the pre-existing category. Do we really want to merge these? That will result in both the article and the category for each team sitting in the merged category. Wouldn't that be a case of overcategorization? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the other tree is much more developed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 4 April 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sherman did not usually produce albums. No reason to categorize by producer if the person is not a producer and doesn't have any other production credits. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comment. As a rough guess, Sherman didn't "produce" these albums, Roy Silver did, much the same as when any "famous person" gets the credit and the engineer/associate producer is the guy who does the work! The nominator makes a good case to delete, whereas Koavf makes a reasonable argument to keep. My opinion, and I accept it is an opinion, is that WP doesn't need a category of People credited as producing albums and that this category is an insult to those who earn their living as producers as opposed to "executive producers" and self-produced artists. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Koavf is correct that this is part of an extensive category scheme, making this a small but viable category. Dimadick (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in only one case does the article ever mention that Allan Sherman was the porducer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2016 (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:Right-libertarianism parties in the United States[edit]
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. SQLQuery me! 02:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose expanding scope of a blatant WP:NARROWCAT. Anyway a misspelling, as the adjective is "right-libertarian". PanchoS (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge there is no reason to have this category for one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2016 (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:Objectivist parties in the United States[edit]
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. SQLQuery me! 00:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not only a category of one, it currently has a very narrow scope. Does anyone know of any other party in the world that follows Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? It is not exactly a wide political movement. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Objectivist organizations contains articles about five other parties internationally. But even if you wanted a category for all of these, doing geographical subcategories for them is excessive. --RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all parents. With the current level of articles this is an unneeded small cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2016 (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:Defunct social liberal parties in the United States[edit]
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. SQLQuery me! 00:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. We have taken categorizing parties by philosophy way too far. Especially since some parties have hard to define and changing philosophy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2016 (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:Defunct classical liberal parties in the United States[edit]
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. SQLQuery me! 00:24, 6 March 2016 (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:Fiscally conservative parties in the United States[edit]
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. SQLQuery me! 00:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to conservative, although I have to admit having reservations about classifying either of the two major parties in the US by ideology. They have histories of over 150 years and by their very nature are always broad-based coalitions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2016 (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:Socially conservative parties in the United States[edit]
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. SQLQuery me! 00:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Prohibition Party article and Republican Party article describe these both parties as socially conservative in the body text of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that this party gets in the category but the Republican Party, which in general is socially conservative, does not, shows these categories are way too fine.
Upmerge to the conservative party category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2016 (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:Economically liberal parties in the United States[edit]
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. SQLQuery me! 00:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete I have to think that the GOP is already characterized as conservative and at any rate the two main parties don't yet occupy such strongly defined ideological positions. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants Oculi and Mangoe after I clarified the rationale; of course proposing a dual upmerge. --PanchoS (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one article category is not justified, the other merger is caused by a nomination higher up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2016 (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:Libertarian conservative parties in the United States[edit]
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.
Comment The article on Libertarian conservatism points that this is a fusion ideology right-libertarian politics and conservative values. It only mentions a hand full of politicians who have flirted with it, including Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Ronald Reagan. Do we actually have articles on libertarian conservative parties? Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the one article to the conservative party cat. It should be noted that all 3 of the people mentioned above are/were Republicans, although Ron Paul once ran as a Libertarian. Yet you have people from Rick Santoram to Michael Bloomberg also as Republicans. Pinning one ideology on either of the two main parties in the US really does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2016 (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:Defunct centrist parties in the United States[edit]
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. SQLQuery me! 00:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to the defunt political parties cat. To try to link this to modern centrism is to mix meanings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2016 (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:Paleolibertarian parties in the United States[edit]
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 - Empty. SQLQuery me! 00:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants Oculi and Mangoe after I clarified the rationale; of course proposing a dual upmerge. --PanchoS (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question as the category is currently empty - what was in it before? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2016 (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.
