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: Criteria for inclusion seems subjective and nebulous, and insufficently defining to be split off from the main category here. In the case of the second, all the contents are already categorised in the main category. The BushrangerOne ping only23:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neutral comment. I am staying neutral in this. However, I did support this sub-category previously, because the MMORPG categories seemed fairly nebulous, so this sub-category seemed like one possible way to refine these categories. I set up the "societal" sub-category in order to distinguish fantasy MMORPGs which have a fully-realized society, as opposed to those which simply utilize fantasy characters without providing a full societal setting. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The definition of the parent is clear, the daughter cat can neither easily be distinguished nor is it clear this is a real-world method of subdividing the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 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.
There are hardly any other categories combining film and theatre, and this one was created in 2004 long before its sub-cats. The contents were split into Category:Jewish film and Category:Jewish culture starting in 2009. Since that split was finished, the original 2004 category is no longer needed.
After this proposal, there will be one-step navigation between each of those three categories, which is better than the two-step navigation at the moment (up to the nominated category and then down to another sub-cat).
Although the three sub-cats are all about acting, there is no lead article for Jewish acting. Moreover, it is more common to categorise "Film & television" together, as television is also a medium that has actors, but Category:Jewish television has been left out of this category.
Support, provided all the Restructuring is also done, for the reasons given by the nominator. Nothing is lost and everything is improved. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:00, 18 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per naming conventions, this category should not be using the abbreviation "MLB" but the full name. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 17 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.
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: Only two articles other than the main and one subcat. This is all navigated with a footer and eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯09:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this was kept when there was no consensus at this bulk nomination in 2010, but named even then as one that could be singled out for deletion. I have added the template and the Wikipedia book to the category, but nevertheless agree that the navbox template suffices for navigation. – FayenaticLondon16:25, 18 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.
Oppose as ambiguous, see Restorationism (disambiguation). Ambiguous terms can have an article located according to the primary meaning, but categories should generally be more specific. In this case I would question whether there is clearly a primary meaning, and if not then the main article ought to be moved, but even if that stays put, I still oppose moving a category to such an ambiguous term. – FayenaticLondon16:12, 18 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.
Nominator's rationale: I think this one, if the description in the subcat is anything to go by, is for articles that are subjects in Pliny's Naturalis Historia. This is an unnecessary level of categorisation. Do you think whatever replaces Wikipedia in 2000 years will have a category for all the articles covered by Wikipedia?. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For several reasons. 1, any natural historian is concerned about what was known and when. Knowing the extent of Pliny's Natural Historia is crucial to an understanding of the advance of natural sciences over the ages. 2, yes, any successor to Wikipedia will incorporate and revise the information contained within Wikipedia. This is how most encyclopedias work, they build and expand on the previous work. 3, this is another example of a very interesting (and to me, useful), category that represents the work that wikipedia should be doing. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We generally do not categorize articles for appearing as topics in particular works, as here. This would be much better dealt with by a list that sets out the various topics discussed in Naturalis Historia. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly listifying). Placing a category on an article that does not mention the subject of the category is a misuse of the category system. It is like a performace by performer category: the place performed by beign dealt with in the book. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with option to listify. The key issue here is that categorization should follow mention in articles, and if we have a place where mass categorization has occured without mention in articles that is a sure sign that the connection is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 5 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.
