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. There are plenty of suitable parent categories. TTN (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know nothing about the subject, but this category has a main page Transformers: Power Core Combiners and 13 other articles, plus a redirect. As there are two substantive parent categories, it does seem to be doing a worthwhile job for sub-dividing related articles, i.e. it helps navigation – which is what categories are for. – FayenaticLondon 15:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose, no relevant rationale has been given. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 23 June 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 per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in this category. Note that the first target category has been nominated for rename, just below. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. As pointed out by the nominator, the first upmerge will probably be to Category:Works about folklore if the rename proposal just below is accepted. Pichpich (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. The category is so empty because its new. It was created on 26 May by User:Stefanomione, who apparently has no interest in populating the category. It may have scope for expansion, but the category is still tiny. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 17 June 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:rename to match with the actual content of this category, which is quite a bit broader than just (academic) folkloristics works. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. The wider scope will prevent confusion. Pichpich (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Folklore itself is a much wider topic than folkloristics and there are several relative articles. Dimadick (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Yes, the category is broader -- and then there is syntax/naming issue. It was created by Stefanomione, who had a predilection for (mis)naming categories "in" fields of study, usually with a more complicated, convoluted name than needed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 22 June 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: Unnecessary subcategory. A distinction without a difference. TM 20:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prior to 1909, Boston City Council was bicameral and had 8 Aldermen in the upper house and 75 Common Council members in the lower house. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.RevelationDirect pointed out the remarkable difference, and there is sufficient room for expansion. --PanchoS (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, there would be similar such categories for virtually every city in the United States.--TM 01:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba: how would that be? Very few cities have had bicameral city councils. In most cases, "alderman" is just another name for "city councilor", but the two terms here appear to not have been synonymous. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:43, 24 June 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.
Question: All other per-country categories of Category:City councillors use "city councillors" rather than "city council members". I actually don't see a benefit of the more verbose, less idiomatic wording. Is there an important reason to deviate from the general scheme? --PanchoS (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It had to do with the fact that some US city councils historically (and a smaller number technically still do) denoted their members as "alderman" rather than "councillor" — so a compromise wording was selected to forestall editwarring over whether "city councillors" or "aldermen" was the more appropriate name for any individual category. (Canada also has that issue, though for some reason there's never really been any editwarring over the Canadian category names being at "councillors" — and many other countries never had the issue at all, because they used different terms all along.) Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: As an American English speaker, I don't think I've ever heard "councilor" used to describe someone on a council. I'd figure it out if it was written but if it was said to me verbally I would hear "counselor". RevelationDirect (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the situation was similar to the Boston case (see above) in many other U.S. cities, then no compromise is needed, as the Aldermen deserve their own-subcategories. --PanchoS (talk) 16:12, 23 June 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 23:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete the remainder of stub categories for the old regions of Morocco. Morocco saw a change to its regional division in September of 2015. This will remove the rest of the categories for the previous divisional structure. Dawynn (talk) 12:51, 16 June 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.
Indian (Marathi/Malayalam) film score composers[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.
Hi, for Malayalam it was done weeks before, but 'mis-renamed' for unknown reasons; category now re-established as per parent category tree Category:Indian film score composers, thx for taking notice, Roland zh (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@Hugo999:: yes, this topic, I meant, Malayalam-related done, no additional comments, as two statements done hours before, Roland zh (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge as part of the global Category:Film score composers. The edit summary by User:IndianCinemaRasigan (in the edit linked above) claims that “film score” refers to incidental music as opposed to songs. The article film score agrees with that statement at the moment, although it has no citation for that point. Many of these Indian composer biographies state that "X was a film score and soundtrack composer", which I think probably means that s/he composed both the incidental music and the songs. If that is right, then I believe the right outcome is not to broaden the category name, but to include those composers in appropriate sub-cats of Category:Indian songwriters as well as in "Film score composers". – FayenaticLondon 20:08, 18 June 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 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: There is no clear definition of "white shoe." It is a very subjective category, and is used differently by different people (unlike, say, Magic Circle and Silver Circle in the UK, which are commonly understood to refer to a fixed group of firms). Some people, for instance, would say that only the traditional WASP-dominated firms in NYC are really "white-shoe" and that more "upstart" places don't qualify even if they are highly prestigious. Given the haziness of the category, and its lack of usefulness, it should be deleted. Sekicho (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though there is a main article, White shoe firm, some concepts are too subjective for categorization. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:18, 16 June 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: Unnecessary combination of categories gidonb (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently unnecessary as there is not "bars" category, and there doesn't seem to be a "restaurants and bars" category tree by country of which it's a part. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:26, 16 June 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.
