Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 13



Category:Sherry vinegar

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Sherry vinegar to Category:Vinegar and Category:Sherry
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge single item to both parents per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * upmerge per nom Single eponymous article. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Dunghutti people

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Dunghutti people to Category:Aboriginal peoples of New South Wales
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:SMALLCAT, only has one article Dunghutti. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Wheelchair racers at the 2008 Summer Olympics

 * 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: category was already deleted speedily under G7. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wheelchair racers at the 2008 summer olympics


 * Nominator's rationale: There were no wheelchair events at the 2008 Summer Olympics SFB 19:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Endorse. Can probably be speedied as it is now empty. Tassedethe (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm presuming this was probably a misnomer for wheelchair racers at the 2008 Paralympics. It's also an empty category as things now stand, and the nominator was actually the original creator in the first place — which means that this doesn't require discussion, and instead can be speedied under either C1 (empty category) or G7 (author requests deletion). Bearcat (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Suborders of birds

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Suborders of birds to Category:Bird suborders
 * Propose renaming Category:Superfamilies of birds to Category:Bird superfamilies
 * Propose renaming Category:Subfamilies of birds to Category:Bird subfamilies
 * Propose renaming Category:Tribes of birds to Category:Bird tribes
 * Propose renaming Category:Infraorders of birds to Category:Bird infraorders
 * Nominator's rationale: I want to harmonize the members of, but this isn't quite a C2C matter. It makes sense to use the "Bird taxa" syntax rather than "Taxa of birds" for conciseness, if nothing else. This does fit established naming in other categories, such as and . --BDD (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Cincinnati–Northern Kentucky metropolitan area geography stubs

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Cincinnati–Northern Kentucky metropolitan area geography stubs to Category:Greater Cincinnati geography stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: This stub category is only for Ohio - and not, as the title seems to suggest, also for parts of Kentucky. The proposed name is based on, which applies to the same area, as well as the stub category's main tag (GreaterCincinnatiOH-geo-stub. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Scholars by subject

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Scholars by subject to Category:Scholars and academics by subject
 * Nominator's rationale: I am failing to see any useful distinction between these two categories. In fact, the division of subcategories between these two seems to be essentially random. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * E.g. Category:Mathematicians and Category:Orientalists are under the latter; Category:Computer scientists and Category:Urdu scholars are under the former; Category:Theologians and Category:Legal scholars are under both. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom - There is a real distinction between "scholars" and "academics", and there are disciplinary differences that lead to one term versus the other. But in practice there's such huge overlap it doesn't make sense to ALSO have distinct subcategories for "scholars" and for "academics". --Lquilter (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * merge not a clear enough distinction that merits a split here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Female accountants

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Female accountants to Category:Women accountants
 * Nominator's rationale: Since these are all adults. Also per and  Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete do female/women accountants "account" differently? How does anyone's sex have anything to do with one's abilities in accountancy is simply beyond me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support rename: "female" when applied to humans is only applicable if the parallel category is "male."  Otherwise, women is preferable style.  However, if there is no "male accountants" or "men accountants" then Carlossuarez46 may have a point that the category could be deleted altogether. But either way, ditch the "female"thing.  Montanabw (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not delete for same reasons as CFD 2011 July 21. Subsequent press coverage includes More women entering profession but leadership roles still uncommon. I'm indifferent as to renaming. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support rename / Do not delete --173.51.221.24 (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support rename but not deletion. Women accountants are poorly represented as partners in accounting firms and their position within the industry is a matter of discourse and research. gobonobo  + c 16:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support rename but not deletion. Quis separabit?  20:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom woman is a much better term for all adult professions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Female astronauts

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Female astronauts to Category:Women astronauts
 * Nominator's rationale: These are all adults, better to have women. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: "female" when applied to humans is only applicable if the parallel category is "male."  Otherwise, women is preferable style.   Montanabw (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support --173.51.221.24 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Renaming per MOS consistency. Quis separabit?  20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename women is the preferred use in most such descriptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:People descended from Joseph Loomis

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people descended from joseph loomis


 * Nominator's rationale: Squillions of other categories-by descent have been deleted in the past, so I see no reason to keep this one. However, it may be appropriate to rename it to Category:Loomis family.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * delete oh my. Do not rename, these people are not part of the same family, unless you're talking WAY extended family... We can ask the category creator but I see no linkages between these people in the article text, esp given the dates span 400 years, so my guess is they are all distant cousins. What's next, ? If so, add me, and the bulk of other people of Northern European descent, as we're all descendents of the great king... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * delete Genealogical trivia; I see no sign of a family per se either. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * keep or rename These people are certainly part of the same family, by virtue of their descent from the common immigrant ancestor. The criteria for inclusion being said common descent and also having their own Wikipedia article -- in essence, being noted people descended from Loomis. -dav4is (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * When I say "no sign of a family" I mean that I see no evidence that this grouping of people is of any importance as a group. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Their importance will become apparent through the large number of noted people descended from this one man. Perhaps I could make that point better in the introductory paragraph of the category itself? -dav4is (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * hi Dav4isl, a great many people are descended from other famous people but we can't use category trees for genealogy. This is the essence of a non-defining trait - in the lede of these people's articles does it state they came from Loomis? When reliable sources talk about them do they say so and so, whose 5th great grandfather was Loomis, did X? We can't use categories in this way for geneological decent and it would add a huge amount of clutter. I'm quite sure that there are at least 10 articles of people Obama can be shown to be a descendent of, which would add 10 more categories to his article...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * hi; It is fairly common for biographies and articles about people to mention their antecedents, e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Scott_Loomis#Ancestry_and_early_life This is hardly a "genealogy"! But it does bring out a (potentially) defining characteristic: That people descended from certain others are (or may be) predisposed to greatness. I can certainly make this point explicitly in the category article itself. -dav4is (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * More: Since you mention "genealogy" twice in your last append, I assume that this is your chief objection. What I am doing is nothing like a genealogy. It is not my intent to create articles for each of the descendants, but simply to note in extant articles where appropriate that someone is descended from Joseph Loomis. -dav4is (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then note it in the article. There are oodles of facts that we note in biographies that we would never create as categories - this is a prime example of such.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The same can be said for almost any category: it's an oddity of fact. This is contrary to the intended purpose behind categories: i.e. to "help readers find other articles about [or related to] the same topic as the one they were reading". I assume that you are not against all categories per se? Simply noting what you call an oddity of fact in an article does not help the reader find others like it. -dav4is (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, whether a particular category has any likelihood of being of use to you has no bearing on the matter. Utility is relative: Others may find it very useful. (Pardon the pun.) -dav4is (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete We avoid descent categories as such. "Immigrant ancestor" has a very US-specific bias, and ignores that some percentage of Loomis's current descendands live outside the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact that Joseph Loomis was an immigrant is one of those "oddities of fact" mentioned by Obiwan, above and is not the reason for the category, nor has place of residence any bearing. -dav4is (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: this is not a genealogy site, nor does Loomis's line of descendants appear to be of such import that a category be created. Quis separabit?  19:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Wikipedians who like Orphan Black

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who like orphan black


 * Nominator's rationale: most similar categories were deleted at User categories for discussion/Archive/March 2008. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As the one that created this category, if the consensus of Wikipedia users is that we are not to have these kinds of categories anymore, then I would be ok if it was deleted. --Devin Murphy (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Villages below Hronov

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Villages below Hronov to Category:Populated places in Náchod District
 * Nominator's rationale: "below a town" is  a rather vague way of describing the scope of a category.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support merging per nom. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, the current name is problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:15th-century Jewish physicians of Portugal

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:15th-century Jewish physicians of Portugal to Category:Medieval Jewish physicians of Portugal


 * Nominator's rationale: The proposed name is in line with the other subcategories of Category:Medieval Jewish physicians and the sole member of the category would also be placed in Category:15th-century Portuguese physicians and Category:15th-century Jews. Hugo999 (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Walker Films - ASL

 * 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 (category was empty at time of close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting walker films - asl


 * Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. 1-article category for the company Walker Films - ASL, whose head article is being discussed at AFD. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Walker Films was deleted at AfD for non-notability. -- Finngall  talk  20:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete in light of deletion of Walker Films. Quis separabit?  15:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Slave owner

 * 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: speedy delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting slave owner


 * Nominator's rationale: Re-creation (with spelling variation) of, deleted at CFD 2007 April 28. Meets speedy deletion criterion WP:G4. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:G4 --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:G4. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Deaf film production companies of the United States

 * 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 (category was empty at time of close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting deaf film production companies of the united states

The category text lists two other companies, neither of which appears to have an article. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Currently contains only one page: Walker Films - ASL, which is being considered for deletion at AFD.
 * Delete Walker Films was deleted at AfD for non-notability. -- Finngall  talk  20:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete in light of category deletion (see ). Quis separabit?  20:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Millennium Entertainment films
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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; there seems to be quite good arguments here why we should not categorize a film by its distributor(s). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting millennium entertainment films

I don't know if there are other categories of films-by-distributor, but it seems like a recipe for category clutter, because films are presumably distributed by different companies in different markets. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Let;s wait for more input. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: I initially categorised this under Category:Films by studio, but then realised that Millennium Entertainment is a distribution company rather than a studio.
 * WikiProject Film has been notified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But there are many other categories with distributors, Category:Relativity Media films is an example, it's a production as well as distribution company but we always add categories to those which are only distributed by co. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the article Relativity Media, that company does actually produce some material, as well as distributing. Are there other distributor-only categories? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:A24 films, Category:FilmDistrict films, Category:IFC Films films, Category:FilmNation Entertainment films‎ are there, if there would be a problem someone already had a issue on them. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, the last 2 of those (IFC Films and FilmNation Entertainment) do no production. It seems that odd to me that Category:Millennium Entertainment films is categorised as if it was a studio, which it isn't. But it's clearly not alone. Is a ctegory split in order? Or should be parent be renamed to Category:Films by studio or distributor? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Parent should be renamed to Category:Films by studio or distributor, split will not work. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just created Category:Films by studio or distributor and then redirect Category:Films by studio to it, it's the best way or should it be moved? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A move would require a consensus here, and so far all we have is us 2 throwing ideas around :)
 * Well, that's what I never thought :). -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * hmmm I'm not sure if I like the idea of a "films by distributor" tree, which would potentially add new categories to thousands upon thousands of films. I'm also not sure if the company that distributes the film is defining for it. Why not just focus on film production studios, and only categorize films by the studios that produce them. Someone should notify the films project.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per recent consensus at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_15. Moreover, films have a myriad of distributors, according to both region and platform. Creating a tree for this would be a huge mistake imo, creating a mass of needless -- and non-defining -- clutter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not sure if it is easy to say that a distributor is not a defining characteristic for a film. Studios often buy distribution rights to independent films and provide them with a lot of recognition. To use this case as an example, Millennium Entertainment bought the independently produced Bernie (2011) as seen here for distribution. I've read film news that talk about how distribution can be a success or a failure, so I think it can be a key factor in whether or not a film gets recognition. In addition, major studios can function as producer/distributors or just distributors. I think it would help to make a distinction between production and distribution. Maybe rename this category to Category:Millennium Entertainment film distributions? And for other companies, we would have "Category: film productions" as applicable? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Leaving the defining issue aside, it's utterly unworkable. As the Variety article states, Millennium bought "U.S. distribution" only. And I suspect, based on what the announcement says, they may have well bought U.S. theatrical distribution rights only. Films get distributed in countries around the world. There are theatrical, home consumer, television, educational, and now, online (VOD/DTO) distributors. Should the U.S. theatrical distributor merit a category -- but no one else? It won't work, and there's very good reasons why we haven't walked off this particular cliff, to date. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Ceirano
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 don't see how such diverse set fits in the category tree, so I suggest renaming this as a family category for the people ... and doing something with the other articles, tho I don't know what. Any ideas? Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ceirano to Category:Ceirano family
 * Nominator's rationale: This category was uncategorised when I found it, so for now I put in Category:Italian families. It is an oddly heterogeneous mixture:  4 brothers, one son, several companies they founded or were influential in, and some products thereof ... but no apparent head article.


 * I created the cat although I am profoundly unaware of the niceties of hieracrchy etc. I also created several of the articles and am still in the process of expanding the articles. What is a Head article? Should I create one? Will this solve the problem or merely ameliorate it? I have no opinion about what should be done with the cat.  Thanks. Chienlit (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * rename to Category:Ceirano family, I think the Trump family tree is similar, it includes people and business ventures they have started, eventually a subcat could be created just for the businesses.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Ceirano family per WP:COMMONSENSE. Quis separabit?  20:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.