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.
Oppose Merge Full diffusion of the county category allows for effective navigation across the category structure, and fulfills the stated purpose of the WP:CLN editing guideline of allowing the category and corresponding list to be built in synergistic fashion. The nominator's cutoff of four is utterly arbitrary and capricious and has no relevance in policy or in making Wikipedia an effective tool for viewing articles through the category structure. Why not two or seven or any other number? What is it about having five entries fulfills a magic number? Alansohn (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have at least 100 CFDs similar to this. Go to the editor talk page here[1] and look at entries 118 and higher up to 250 most of which are People from Categories that were nominated for merging and where the consensus has firmly established that small communities with a limited number of notable people entries are merged back into the county categories. Consensus is the answer to why....William
I don't disagree in general. I believe WP:SMALLCAT is flawed because it doesn't give a firm number leaving these endless "cutoff" discussions for the CFD nominations. I see this change as improving navigation though both because the parent category won't be too large to navigate and because the subcats are small (to me). RevelationDirect (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge All My apartment building has more residents than Cape May Point, New Jersey. New Jersey has a lot of very small housing developments that are individually incorporated as municipalities and unlikely to form viable categories. No objection to recreating any of these if enough notable people articles appear to give 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nom. Although not stated in the guideline, consensus about a cut-off of five articles has grown in the course of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2015 (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.
Comment Except for one site which is unsourced, these articles seem to have reputable-ish sources saying they might be haunted. I have to wonder how much the sources are serious though: are we taking sarcasm or pro-tourism ghost tour articles at face value when we shouldn't? (That concern applies to the whole tree though, not just India.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2015 (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:Australian rules footballers from Perth, Western Australia
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. Consensus when creating these categories was for them to be state-by-state, can't see why Perth should be a special exception to this. Jenks24 (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
inclined to oppose The parent category is quite large, so there is some justification for splitting out a city category, as was done for there other sports for Perth. There are numerous similar categories for Sydney, and categories at various levels for other large Australia cities. Seyasirt (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2015 (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.
@Liz: I was creator of that category, I emptied that category and requested speedy deletion. It was becoming very annoying from the nominator. --Human3015 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015:, I can see you doing a G7 as the category creator but it's not okay to empty out a category while there is a discussion going on about it. What if an editor came up with a rename suggestion and people supported it or a category merge? We would have to go through your contributions to try to find whatever articles were originally in this category. In the future, please let the proposal close with some determination and then the closing editor can enact whatever they determine the consensus to be.
@Liz:, There were some tourist places of Marathwada region in that category. Anyway, it should have been deleted because there was really a issue of WP:OVERCAT with that category. I requested speedy deletion just to close this matter quickly. And thanks for your appreciation, I will surely not request "speedy" for any matter under discussion in future. I would like to thank you for voting for "Keep" here. --Human3015 (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2015 (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:American people of Hungarian descent by occupation
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.
I would say those higher categories of occupation by origin fail WP:DEFINING, and are game for future discussion. People are commonly labelled as Italian-American, Hungarian-American, etc, and may also be commonly labelled as scientists, film directors, or whatever else their occupation is. But people are rarely if ever described by reliable sources as, say American chemists of Hungarian descent. I think some categories exist simply because some people prefer small categories over large ones. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that scientists of Hungarian descent do science differently than those of Romanian, Bolivian, or any other "descent". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the two child categories were not tagged yet, I've done that now. This implies that the discussion has to stay open for at least one more week. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2015 (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.