Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 24

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/merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Order of the Holy Sepulchre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Knights and Dames of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Knights and Dames Commander of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Knights and Dames Grand Cross of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Titular Canons of the Holy Sepulchre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose upmerging Category:Star of the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross to Category:Military awards and decorations of Prussia
• Propose deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Knights of Honour of the Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Knights of Justice of the Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose upmerging Category:Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg) to Category:Orders of knighthood of Germany

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, per WP:NONDEF, per previous discussion and many discussions before. In the first couple of categories there are in particular a lot of bishops, otherwise the categories are mostly of heads of state, nobility, ministers, generals etc. to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. Some categories are not only for heads of state, politicians etc. but still there are not defining at all, people in these categories are notable for something more defining. Upmerge the eponymous articles to their country parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/upmerge per nom. I've looked at a sample of the articles in these categories and none of them even mentioned the relevant award in the article text/infobox so it can hardly be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of those people. That also means that it would be inappropriate to listify. Example of edit adding a category for an award that's not mentioned in the article[1]. DexDor ^(talk) 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Star of the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross. We can merge the child category into Category:Recipients of the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross, and that leaves nothing except the article itself, which is already in Category:Military awards and decorations of Prussia. No comment on the others. Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More non-defining awards that are of the type that have lead to some articles being in more than 50 award categories (I am not exagerating).John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:59, 9 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Broadcasters, actors and facilitators on Channel 10 (Israel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not an appropriate or useful category, as all members of this category will or should already be linked at Channel 10 (Israel). General Ization ^Talk 17:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. We don't normally categorize actors by the TV shows or movies they've appeared in, nor the characters they've played, and nor should we categorize something as trivial as the channel on which an actor or broadcaster currently (or formerly) appears. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CSD#G5 for having been created by a banned user. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis, I depopulated the category since only the banned user had populated it. General Ization ^Talk 19:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and purge -- the present category is too broad: appears to offend against WP:OC#PERF. However we do have categories for media people by the company they work for, normally employees of the comnpany. Category:Channel 10 (Israel) People would seem to be a valid category. Those who merely appear occasionally for one performance or a series should not appear. I am sorry that the nom should have seen fit to empty the category, "out of process" before nominating it, even where a banned user is involved. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not useful and also created by a banned user. Kierzek (talk) 01:05, 30 June 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 result of the discussion was: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Science and technology magazines to Category:Popular science and technology magazines and Category:Professional and trade, science and technology magazines

Nominator's rationale: The different types of audience deserve sub-categorization. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It will be very difficult if not impossible to define each category clearly. Just one example among many is the Scientific American, which is directed towards a lay public but also has many academics reading it. The recently created Category:Popular science magazines should be merged back into this one, as it suffers from the same definition problem. The current cat is not unwieldy, but if it is considered too large, a more useful approach could be to place more articles in subcategories. Existing subcats could be slightly refocussed to help with this. For example, the Category:Astronomy magazines could be renamed to "Astronomy and space magazines" and then, for example, Ad Astra and Sound & Vision (magazine) could be placed in it. Many entries in the main cat actually belong in already existing subcats (Popular Astronomy (US magazine) and Planetary Report both also should go in the astronomy magazines cat), so that the problem probably seems larger than it is. If one of these magazines is clearly directed towards a professional instead of simply a lay audience, it could additionally be placed in the Category:Professional and trade magazines. --Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Science and technology magazines needs not fully diffuse: the gray area would be held by the parent category, while the clear-cut extreme members would go into their respective sub-categories. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- reverse merge the target back to the subject category. Judging what is "popular" is POV. Some will be obviously popular, some obviously academic, some obviously trade rags; but in the middle there will be some that do not obviously fit anywhere. Furthermore, since this is partly a container category, it would be necessary to split a large number of sub-cats. The whole thing is impracticable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw proposal: if necessary, existing articles can be tagged both in the general Category:Science and technology magazines and either one of the specific Category:Professional and trade magazines or Category:Popular science; if a critical mass emerges, only then Category:Popular-science magazines would be justified. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:48, 4 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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus, though there does seem to be consensus that the current name is incorrect. A re-nomination is probably in order. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Agricultural magazines to Category:Agricultural periodicals Category:Agricultural serials

Nominator's rationale: some members are newspapers, not magazines (e.g., Food Weekly News, Agriculture Week, etc.) Fgnievinski (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support seems sensible. It's a pity more of this tree doesn't use this useful and correct term Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, newspapers are not periodicals, but serial publications, hence the slight proposal change as above. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "serials" as unfamiliar to most, & so confusing (see Serial). I'd question whether things like "The Western Livestock Journal is a weekly livestock industry newspaper..." need to be treated as newspapers anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Granted it's unfamiliar, but calling it periodicals (or magazines) is wrong. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per C2C with parent category Category:Professional and trade magazines, and because 'magazine' is the defining characteristic of a number of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But a couple of levels up, the whole magazines category is in Category:Periodicals. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Newspapers are not magazines. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this category is a mix of magazines and newspapers. We could just name it like that: Category:Agricultural magazines and newspapers. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best. Not worth splitting, & the ambiguous "serials" should be avoided. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I just don't hear the word "serials" in common usage in American English. Is it a more common term in other regions. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 26 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Children Stars Figures in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Aside from its creation by a banned user (User:Itailevi100040, a sock of User:Itailevi00) (and therefore, technically eligible under WP:CSD#G5), the category does not have any clear criteria for inclusion. Presumably it might include Israeli child actors, but people not conforming to that criterion have been added (by the banned user). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment- The category title is woefully ambiguous as well and grammatically wanting. Presumably it might refer to either child actors or adult entertainers in children's programming (e.g. Bob Keeshan), or perhaps there is an Israeli program called Children Stars (Figures). Since there is already Category:Israeli child actors, I am guessing this is referring to non-child entertainers. As such, I think this category here might be superfluous to existing Category:Children's television presenters and related categories like Category:Children's musicians, and any articles should simply be categorized in such if they meet the criteria of being commonly and reliably labeled as such: e.g. I don't see anything in Duo Datz that warrants categorization in any of the above articles. So unless there is additional clarity that may warrant a renaming, I think this category should be deleted. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I cannot see what this is about. There is no Children Stars main article. At best it would seem to offend against WP:OC#PERF if I am correct in suspecting that that is some TV show. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not useful and not needed, further created by a banned user. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 30 June 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 result of the discussion was: merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from New Eagle, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Washington County, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 11:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Query Did you mean Category:People from Washington County, Pennsylvania ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes I did and I fixed the CFD....William 14:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. This community only has 2,000 people, so it's not likely there are several other notable people to add to the category. kennethaw88 • talk 05:20, 25 June 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 result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Canadian Centennial Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This another WP:NON-DEFINING award recipients category. According to Canadian Centennial Medal "Some 29,500 medals were issued". DexDor ^(talk) 06:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A rather textbook case of WP:NONDEF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 25 June 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 result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lepus californicus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant and unnecessary per WP:SMALLCAT, and a good deal of common sense. The category is by definition specific to a single species, only containing Black-tailed jackrabbit and the scientific name redirect, Lepus californicus. While conceivably there may some day be articles for each of the dozen or so geographic races or subspecies, I don't see that as likely to occur anytime soon, and until anything like that happens, this category does not serve to group similar articles, nor facilitate navigation. Note that none of the categories containing Category:Lepus californicus contain categories for species, rather more specific geographic or topical categories, with species articles being categorized in the relevant categories. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete -- If anything should be in fauna categories (and they are somewhat iffy - we are merging them for European categories), it should be the species article, not a category that appears. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 29 June 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 result of the discussion was: do not split. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Science books to Category:Scientific books and Category:Popular science books; then redirecting to Category:Books about science.

Nominator's rationale: need to mirror distinction among Category:Scientific works, Category:Works about science, and Category:Cultural works about science‎. Current subcategories of of Category:Science books seem to belong to Category:Scientific books, while member pages seem to be Category:Popular science books. Proposal:

Fgnievinski (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support splitting Makes sense, those are really different types of books. The category trees here need a lot of work. Category:Academic journals and its daughter Category:Scientific journals are both in the Category:Works about science, but only the former is in the parent Category:Academic literature. The latter also contains a Category:Academic magazines and I'm not sure what that is (contains a mix of humanities, social science, and engineering subjects; probably should be merged with Category:Science and technology magazines (discussed above). --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I just removed the engineering magazines subcategory from the parent Category:Academic magazines, as they were already in the child Category:Science and technology magazines; the idea with these magazine categories was to mimic the journal categories, Category:Academic journals and Category:Scientific journals. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I see. Good plan! The "journals" tree is much better defined than the "magazines" tree... --Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, extending the analogy further, you'd think that Category:Academic magazines would contain a hypothetical Category:Scientific magazines, but what would that be? It certainly is not the whole of Category:Science magazines, nor its child Category:Popular science magazines, so could Category:Professional and trade science magazines -- meaning, magazines for scientists -- fit under Category:Academic magazines? Fgnievinski (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I also adjusted the academic/scientific parallels in literature/works: now Category:Academic journals is a member of Category:Academic literature, and Category:Scientific journals is a member of Category:Scientific literature. Plus Category:Scientific journals is a member of Category:Academic journals, and Category:Scientific literature is a member of Category:Academic literature. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- This is an impractical suggestion for what is largely a container category, as it would be necessary to split all the subcats too. Furthermore, it is a POV issue where the popular ends and the academic begins. Merge back popular science books to the main category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: Subcat Category:Science textbooks already implements the split that you're opposing; should it be merged back into main Category:Science books, too?
• @Peterkingiron: Re: POV, I'm not sure folks here understand that Popular science is a well-defined concept. So we're talking about "popular-science books" ("popularization-of-science books"), not "popular science-books ("best-selling science-books"). Fgnievinski (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that splitting into "popular" and "academic" involves the editor expressing a POV. In some cases, it will be obvious which a book belongs to, but not always. The same question arises as to whehter a book is a "Textbook". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Up merging Category:Science textbooks would require up-merging Category:Textbooks into Category:Books, which would be a terrible idea; not unlike conflating popularization of science and science. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - as said above, these trees need some work. for one thing, the categories should be merged to "Works about...". Scientific works (works of science) are things like the steam engine, the particle accelerator, the lever. While these all appear to be works about science and about such things related to science. Ambiguity is not good in categorization. - jc37 03:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jc37: That could be easily taken care of moving the redirect Category:Scientific literature over its target, Category:Scientific works; any other objections? Fgnievinski (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jc37: Re: your comment about Category:Scientific works, so Category:Military works should cover airplanes and ships and tanks? Here and there, "works" is to be understood as a shorthand for "creative works" -- film, songs, writing (technical, scientific, literary, etc.). Fgnievinski (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah, military works would be things more like earthen works, trenches, trebuchets, catapults, siege towers, and the like : )

  In general, Works about X topic has, over time, shown to be the clearer, least ambiguous construction for category naming. And also allows for better and easier tree building. - jc37 05:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jc37: You're missing the difference between, e.g., Category:Works about pornography and Category:Pornographic works; it's analogous for Category:Books about science and Category:Scientific books -- it's the difference between Category:Books by topic and Category:Books by genre. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Could you please clarify the difference between Category:Science books and Category:Scientific books? Gpeja (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gpeja: Category:Science books is ambiguous. Category:Scientific books are books written by professional scientists for fellow academics. In contrast, Category:Popular science books are written in non-technical language and aimed at the general reader. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  according to who? - jc37 05:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jc37: Library of Congress Classification: Number Q162 and Subject "Science - Popular works" Fgnievinski (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The split you are suggesting is over categorizations. There are only 164 pages in the original category. My opinion is that we need to set number of pages (for example 500) needed in category before we even start discussion about splitting it.Gpeja (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gpeja: If this proposal is rejected, then we'd have to up-merge, e.g., Category:Popular psychology books into Category:Psychology books, too. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I suggest less work on categorization and more on improvement of the articles. There are many book articles on stub level. It would be much easier to see the reasons for splitting this category if we first create a book article template (Template:Book) and systematically clean articles.Gpeja (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gpeja: Improved categorization would actually foster article improvement, as it'd allow editors to focus on their areas of interest. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and diffuse to the many more specific subcats Much more useful. This is just not being maintained well. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed; I've tagged the parent cat Category:Science books accordingly. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:03, 9 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.

The result of the discussion was: double upmerge as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Presidential museums in Kansas to Category:Presidential museums in the United States

Nominator's rationale: O-CAT. Only one article in this category, which can be merged to its parent cats Category:Presidential museums in the United States and Category:Biographical museums in Kansas

Am also nominating the following cats with 1 or 2 pages in them, each of which can easily be upmerged:

• Category:Presidential museums in California
• Category:Presidential museums in Iowa
• Category:Presidential museums in Kentucky
• Category:Presidential museums in Michigan
• Category:Presidential museums in Mississippi
• Category:Presidential museums in Nebraska
• Category:Presidential museums in New Hampshire
• Category:Presidential museums in North Carolina
• Category:Presidential museums in Pennsylvania
• Category:Presidential museums in Vermont
• Category:Presidential museums in West Virginia

pbp 01:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (upmerge) per nom - subcategorization at this level impedes rather than aids navigation. Neutrality^talk 03:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator....William 11:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Although these technically have potential for growth, it would take a long time to fill them with 4-5 articles. kennethaw88 • talk 05:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Full upmerge -- In several states even the biographical museums is not well populated, so that no split is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and upmerge) per nom. No need for all the separate smaller cats. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but be sure to add the individual articles in these categories to the "Biographical museums in [State]" parent categories of these categories as well as to the US presidential-museum category. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 30 June 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.