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. Bencherlite^Talk 07:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images of rappers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

• Comment. Can you explain why this is not a valid subcategory for Category:Rappers? It is very normal to have a category for images. Why should this one be treated differently? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no valid reason given for deletion, in addition to being a reasonable sub-cat of the aforementioned rappers category it is also a reasonable sub-cat of Category:Images of musicians. Otto4711 (talk) 22:18, 3 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.

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. Bencherlite^Talk 08:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Notorious B.I.G. albums to Category:The Notorious B.I.G. albums

Nominator's rationale: Artist's stage name is The Notorious B.I.G. With The. Reverend X (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to follow article's name.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per The Notorious B.I.G.. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:50, 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.

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. Bencherlite^Talk 08:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by User:BMan1113VR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Photographs by User:HighInBC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Photographs by User:Willy Logan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Photographs by User:Triddle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

• Delete - per nom and precedent. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and unanimous precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 21:53, 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.

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indiana Jones films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

• Delete - per nom and precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both above.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I presume nobody is opposed to upmerging them to Category:Indiana Jones, which seems to be a more prudent action than outright deletion, no? VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per VegaDark. Bencherlite^Talk 08:04, 6 June 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]

• Reply - although they would not go in the parent cats Category:Action films by series and Category:Adventure films by series, they could go individually into the grandparent cats Category:Action films and Category:Adventure films if this cat was deleted. I don't see any other parent cats that the individual films would not go into, so the point stands, with no whiff of red fish. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Miami33139. The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – in this case Category:Indiana Jones is a substantial category with several articles and subcats, and organising the films into a subcat seems appropriate. And the point made by Fayenatic is a good one. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Roundhouse0. David Pro (talk) 23:13, 6 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.

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]

Suggest merging Category:United States federal commerce legislation to Category:United States federal commercial legislation

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. Powers ^T 00:00, 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. Powers ^T 14:32, 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]
• Merge Category:United States federal commercial legislation into Category:United States federal commerce legislation. IMO, "Commerce" is the better generic term for legislation relating to business. "Commercial" has connotation of communications, as in TV commercials. older ≠ wiser 12:15, 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…."—Markles 12:17, 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 ≠ wiser 18:41, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 30 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.

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. No consensus. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former manufacturing companies to Category:Defunct manufacturing companies

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]
  • Does Douglas Aircraft Company exist? If not, it is defunct. However you raise valid question with, is the method that a company becomes defunct something that should be categorized? In this case, are you suggesting something like Category:Defunct by merger? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 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, essentially no, but we should try to be as little misleading as possible. Personally I think "former" is preferable, if only as being more vague. There are all sorts in these cats, including pure brands, like De Soto, always just a GM brand, in Category:Defunct motor vehicle manufacturers of the United States. So I would prefer Reverse Merge to "former". Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 30 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.