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 the category should not include brown dwarfs, should be restricted to non-brown dwarfs, since many brown dwarfs are known to be individual. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a debatable point. I'm finding many instances of "free-floating objects" being applied to brown dwarfs, both in scholarly publications and in the press. In addition, brown dwarfs are frequently referred to as "substellar objects". I suppose the alternative would be to create separate categories for "rogue planets" and "free-floating brown dwarfs". Regards, RJH (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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: First of all, this is a very small category. I'm unsure exactly how big it could possibly get. The main reason is that it's odd to use 'Palaces' to denote a set of Philippine buildings. They haven't got royalty running around them, historical or contemporary. The cat is more likely to mislead the reader than to help them navigate. CMD (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of wider schemes. It's a big mistake (likely mainly to occur to Americans) to think only royalty live in "palaces" - the Philippines is not short of bishops I believe, to name but one palace-dwelling group. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all bishops live in places. I have never seen anyone describe the residence of the Archbishop of Detroit as a palace. Whether or not the bishops in the Phillipines live in palaces I do not know, but the one does not imply the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Nom) None of the three entries are inhabited by bishops. For reference, they are two residences for the President, and one for the Vice-President. CMD (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep smallcat says we should not keep categories unlikely to expand. It has been shown there are more things that could go in this category, but are not there, possibly because they do not yet have their own articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the present content is the official residences of the Presidnet and Vice-President of the Phillippines. WE we merge a category about the White House to "Buildings and Structures in Washington D.C."? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 22 July 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.
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.
Support fixing capitalization. Do not merge not all Arabic art is by any definition Islamic. To pretend these could be treated as the same is false on both fronts. For one thing, there was Arabic art before the rise of Islam.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The new name should probably be Category:Arab art following the renaming of the head category Category:Arab culture from "Arabic" to "Arab". Google books has 21,000 results for "Arab art" and only 9,000 for "Arab art". Shall I withdraw this nomination and start again, or is this clear enough anyway? – FayenaticLondon12:59, 23 July 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.
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:Merge and redirect. This seems to be a category holding national culture categories across the Arab League. It's not needed. – FayenaticLondon08:21, 19 July 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.
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: Of the 25 articles and 2 sub-category. 12 articles treat this category as if it means functionalism (social theory). (These fit the category description). 5 articles and 1 sub-category treat this category as if it refers to Functionalism (architecture). The remaining 8 articles and 1 sub-cat, are to do with Functionalism (international relations) (3 articles), Functionalism (philosophy of mind) (2 articles, 1 sub-cat) and the functionalist perspective in linguistics (3 articles). This split chooses the versions which would be most populated. 8/25 articles and 1 sub-category would not fit this split. But this split would group only relevant articles together and make things a bit clearer. imo it would be worth the split into 5 categories. Brad7777 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 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.
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:WP:SMALLCAT - single-article category (formerly contained an image, now at Commons) with no chance of expansion and not part of an established category tree. Sole article is already categorised in the parent cat. The BushrangerOne ping only03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure why I created it originally, maybe there were other articles that needed a category. If there is only one article, it should be deleted as unnecessary. Gamweb (talk) 08:10, 20 July 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:Saint Leo College Preparatory School alumni
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: Saint Leo College Preparatory School is a former name of Saint Leo University. I believe it's the general standard to categorise alumni by the current name of the institution, not by the name of the institution at the time. The BushrangerOne ping only02:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since Saint Leo College Preparatory School was a high school level institution while Saint Leo University is a tertiary educational institution, the respective alumni categories would go in different parent categories. There are precedents for not merging when the institution changes its educational level, such as the fact we have Category:Brigham Young Academy alumni seperate from the alumni of that instution after it shifted to being Brigham Young University and an institution of higher education.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, since you're aware of the history here, could you please write a good description in each of those categories explaining who belongs in them so that this confusion can be avoided in the future? Jrcla2 (talk) 13:02, 19 July 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.
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:WP:SMALLCAT. Not part of an established category tree, little potential for expansion, not significant enough to merit splitting from the by-state category. All contents are located in CA so that is the merge target. The BushrangerOne ping only02:39, 19 July 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.
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.
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.
Delete. The category text mixes up several different themes in the text added, Germanic paganism (where the term “Yule” appears to come from), the more general paganism and Heathen which is a redirect to paganism anyway. One of the songs does not make any claim that would entitle to be a member of this category, another I am very suspicious of its right to be in this category. This is a category without a main article and is very misleading as a consequence. I do think there is a worthwhile article on this subject to be written, not sure WP will need this category then, either. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category name is questionable to begin with, but at any rate the matter of where various Christmas songs/practices/etc. is speculative and debatable. Mangoe (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two I am familiar with are Christmas songs using Yule/Yuletide as a synonym for Christmas with no intention of invoking the pagan meaning of the word. This amounts to false categorization and no one has shown there are non-Christmas songs involved here at all. This comes down to "categoriazation by use of a word somewhere in the song." This is not a good scheme at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Christmas songs that happen to use the archaic synonym Yule fails to provide a useful category. Since German (or Anglo-Saxon or Norse) paganism was dead for nearly 1000 years until its alleged modern revival, I doubt there is any WP content related to the original usage. If there is, it will go better in a category on the religion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 22 July 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.
