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 main article at Harlem. This isn't even a city which might take the form of {City, State}, it's a neighborhood within a city, so this name is misleading. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are other Harlems. We need more disambiguation in category names than article names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom; main article is at Harlem. Not sure about JPL's claim of other Harlems, certainly there is a Haarlem in the Netherlands, but spelled differently; even if there is another Harlem, none is as notable as this one.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename no need for unnecessary disambiguation. Harlem is well known enough to not need disambiguating just to align with a bad convention. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames Mainspace is rather clear, and a search of articles shows no other article that could cause any confusion, not even for the Harlem Globetrotters. Maintaining consistency between the titles of articles and their associated categories reduces confusion for editors and readers. Alansohn (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Birmingham / Birmingham, Alabama example covers two very large cities that share a common name and has no relevance here. Harlem (disambiguation) describes itty-bitty places in California, Florida, Georgia and Montana, none of which have categories associated with them or are ever likely to have any that might be confused with the New York City neighborhood. There is no other Harlem that would cause any confusion. Alansohn (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2013 (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:merge (then delete). Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Suggest upmerge. There's no need to categorize by a "Music from [film]" scheme that is otherwise non-existent (a few "Music based on" categories is all I see). Otherwise, we should have these type of categories for every film that has a separate article for its soundtrack. The Top Gun "franchise" is just not that deep enough. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several other "Songs from [film]" and "Music from [film]" categories have been deleted and there is no scheme for categorizing music by film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete we have consistently rejected this type of category, for good reason. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to have this as a one entry category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, not delete, to Category:Top Gun. I do hope the closing admin will take the "delete" !votes as "merge" rather than "destroy navigational links". I simply do not understand why experienced editors write "delete" which would mean taking Top Gun (soundtrack) and Category:Songs from Top Gun out of Category:Top Gun. I've added a link from the sub-cat to the soundtrack article, which suffices for navigation instead of this intermediate category. – FayenaticLondon 19:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge There is no reason for the category exist, but no reason for the article(s) currently in it not to be in Category:Top Gun. -Rrius (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Category:Top Gun. There is not enough content to have this one. I suppose 5 songs is aboiut enough to keep the somngs category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2013 (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, without prejudice to creation of discussed public transport categories when/if needed.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although neighboring counties I think this would work better as two separate categories. Tim! (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split -- The easy way to do this will be to Rename to Category:Public transport in Devon and then create Category:Public transport in Cornwall as a second category for First in Devon & Cornwall. I presume the category was created for that article. Since the mass cull of bus route articles, these should be rather smaller categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2013 (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:Multi-state American serial killers[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.
Nominator's rationale This is the only multi-state category we have for people. This is just not how we categorize people. The category is not really large enough to need break down. We do not need to break everything apart into gender and ethnicity categories. The general way we do things is we categorize people by each state they did something in. I do not think we have enough to split by state (with only around 200, that would average 4 per state, assuming none are DC or other non-states), so I think we should just stop trying to split the category. It is a striaght forward category that does not need splitting, especially not in a new, untried way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Some of this is people driving long distances, and some of it is just accidents of geography. I would agree that the meaningfulness of this division is minimal. Mangoe (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hmm see this for example: [1]. It seems when there is a multi-state case, different entities like the FBI become involved, and the investigation becomes more complex. I'm not sure if this is defining however, but the term does show up in google searches.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider that, but I don't think "Serial killers sought by the FBI" was where this was headed. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not just about the particular state where one's murderous operations are. It is about the effects of one's murderous rampage crossing state lines. When a murderer kills multiple times in different states, they must be tried in different states as well. In some cases, it is known they have killed in different states, and as someone mention, the FBI gets involved in the manhunt. In other cases, it is not initially known one killed in separate states and it gets interesting when this is discovered. I could see there being a category of people who murdered in multiple states. Hellno2 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge. Unconventional categorization. I can see benefit in putting these people in categories "by state" based on where each serial killer committed their murders (with some killers in several states), but until those "by state" categories are developed, the multi-state killers and the single-state killers can all be together in the "American" category. --Orlady (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge up per orlady. I'm not convinced this is needed. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2013 (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: The double plural is the most common version and is used for the related articles' titles. It is also the version used by the judiciary itself, and the one mostly used by the Government (which occasionally uses "Lord Justices", not "Lords Justice"). Rrius (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, appears to be the correct plural [2]Tim! (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2013 (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.
