< February 3 February 5 >

February 4

Saints of Roman...

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. MER-C 11:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The term "Roman Greece" is not really associated with saints. This is a historical / geographic intersection. It makes more sense to limit it to its precise geography and not to put any extra cultural layer of that may not have existed at the time. Consistent with Category:Saints from Roman Anatolia. Daugher categories of Greece will need renaming if this is successful. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2016 (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:Crimes committed by asylum seekers

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) 01:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Virtually all "crimes" listed have not yet gone to trial, so the category is prejudicial. It is the category tree of Category:Refugees and Category:Crime by type - the latter contains no similar categories. Violates WP:CATDEF AusLondonder (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this CfD.
  • "Asylum seeker" is a discrete, legally-defined category. All articles in category appear to involve asylum seekers; at least one of the crimes in the category (2015 Paris attack) also involved aliens in France legally or illegally, but not formally seeking asylum. The word expatriate applies to a different category, but, in common usage, expat is a term used for individuals living voluntarily outside their native country either for career purposes or personal choice - "expatriate" is not used for asylum seekers, refuges, or those who have applied for eligibility to become citizens. In other words, there could be categories for Category:Crimes committed by expatriates or Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants, but they is not the category under discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Palagonia murderer was an asylum seeker [3]; the attacker in Istanbul attacker had been registered and fingerprinted as a refugee/asylum seeker. Please check facts. before making assertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the question of whether any individual case belongs in the category is not pertinent to this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do have such categories and lists, Category:People murdered by Italian-American organized crime, List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes, Category:Politicians convicted of crimes by nationality, Category:People acquitted by reason of insanity, Category:American mobsters by ethnic or national origin, Category:Hindu religious leaders with criminal convictions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first item in your list might have any relevance to this discussion (the others are all categorizing criminals rather than crimes). The first one isn't exactly categorizing by refugee status of perpetrator and see WP:OSE. Type/country/year are categorizations that can be applied to all/most crimes, whereas categorizing by refugee status of perpetrator would not work well for unsolved crimes, crimes committed by multiple people etc. DexDor (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The literature on asylum seekers and crime is voluminous and burgeoning.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please show us some examples of that supposedly voluminous literature on the criminal record of recent asylum seekers, or asylum seekers per se? --PanchoS (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swiss and South African social scientists and human rights scholars have been particularly active, especially on the abuse of refugees and asylum seekers by criminal justice authorities (Brits and Germans also publish on this) but the literature on migrants, immigrants and asylum seekers and criminality is voluminous [4] , [5] Immigration and crime needs a lot of work, and, of course, immigrant, illegal immigrant, and asylum seeker are overlapping categories, on all of which there is an ocean of social science research.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this target has been nominated for deletion as well, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2016 (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.

Dutch Brazil

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 (i.e. move the decade categories) into Category:Disestablishments in Dutch Brazil‎ etc. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:17th-century disestablishments in Dutch Brazil‎
  • Propose deleting Category:17th-century establishments in Dutch Brazil‎
Nominator's rationale: delete, the two categories are exactly overlapping with Category:Disestablishments in Dutch Brazil by decade and Category:Establishments in Dutch Brazil by decade respectively, and this is due to the fact that Dutch Brazil existed for way less than a century. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2016 (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.

Colonial Brazil

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/merge. – Fayenatic London 15:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename/merge, Colonial Brazil is just a WP reference to Brazil's history during the colonial period, while Brazil was the actual name of the country during that period. Note that the second half of the 17th century and the 18th century are already in shape. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2016 (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:Railway accidents involving a SPAD

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 to Category:Railway_accidents_involving_a_disregarded_signal. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Railway accidents involving a SPAD to Category:Collisions between trains
Nominator's rationale: Leaving aside that people more familiar with WW I than trains are more likely to think of "SPAD" as a French airplane maker, the phrase signal passed at danger is a British term which isn't immediately applicable to accident investigations elsewhere, particularly in North America where different terminology and signalling systems are used. Looking at the Template:Rail accidents the focus seems to be more on the nature than the cause of accidents, so I'm suggesting repurposing this as a category of collisions between trains, which constitutes the vast majority of the cases. The few exceptions (e.g. the Newark Bay rail accident in which a train ran into the bay because a bridge was open) can be split off into their own categories. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is (as we've discussed) that it isn't that defining. In speed signalling systems, the cause behind running an absolute stop signal is usually that the train was going too fast to stop in time; in the same sort of territory we also have rear end collisions because the following train passed a permissive stop signal but then (again usually because of speed) failed to stop short of the train in front. Simply passing a "stop" signal is typically a late stage in the course of the accident, but this is essentially a classification by cause, and in these accidents the cause is, most immediately, the juxtaposition of two trains where there is supposed to be one, or more ultimately, the circumstances and behavior that led to that juxtaposition.
We do need an overall categorization of train-vs.-train collisions in any case. Perhaps we could have some more general category of accidents caused by failure to obey signal indications as well, but this category can really only reflect official determinations in the UK. Mangoe (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of examples where speed was not a major factor, including the Rafz train crash. The train still passed a red signal though. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all stop signals are red. Mangoe (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They ain't? What other aspect displayed by a signal means "stop" then? Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also be okay with Category:Railway accidents after train passed stop signal. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rename is better than I proposed earlier, yet I'd abbreviate it a bit to Category:Railway accidents after failure to observe stop signal. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would Category:Railway accidents after failure to obey stop signal or Category:Railway accidents after failure to obey a signal be better? DexDor (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The former is the best, because the word "stop" is pretty crucial here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could support a move to Category:Railway accidents involving a failure to observe a stop signal (gramatically correct), which addresses the original concerns brought up of UK-specific jargon. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither RD nor myself said that it's not (in some cases) a defining characteristic. The issue is whether categorizing accidents by cause(s) as well as (or instead of) type of accident (collision with another train, derailment, collision with vehicle on level crossing etc) is a good idea. DexDor (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't overlap with categories yet, but train accidents rarely have the single "smoking gun" cause the public expects. Even a seemingly straightforward cause like a barge taking out a rail bridge also involves poor training, fog, bad bridge design and the track circuit failed to go off. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we discussing anything other than renaming? Jeni (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops I hadn't finish my sentence. What do you think about renaming to something else than proposed, like suggested during the discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2016 (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:Gymnasiums

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: split top category to Category:Gyms and Category:Gymnasiums (ancient Greece), rename sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 20:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Per long-standing main article Gym, so basically qualifies as a WP:C2D. Current title "Gymnasiums" is ambiguous, so the alternative would be a disambiguator. Also related to Category:Gymnastics venues, so we should somehow relate the categories and have some criteria to distinguish. --PanchoS (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2016 (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:WikiProject Ignosticism

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. MER-C 11:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one page Wikipedia:WikiProject Ignosticism, which is inactive. The editor who created it is blocked. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 4 February 2016 (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:Fictional undectets

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) 02:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can understand Fictional duos and trios, but this seems to be taking it to an undesirable extreme. Do we anticipate entries beyond Ocean's 11? Perhaps a fictional groups category would be a better way of handling this. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2016 (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:European medical associations

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: split per revised nomination. – Fayenatic London 20:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is currently explained as: "for Medical associations that are based in Europe and have a scope of operations that is Europe-wide."
  • I don't think it's wise to have Category:Medical associations of Europe and Category:European medical associations next to each other, the difference is not clear enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not next to each other, but with the latter being a subcat of the former. I'm not totally opposed to renaming the latter as "Pan-European" though. --PanchoS (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, that is adequately avoiding ambiguity. As mentioned earlier, maybe change "of Europe" to "in Europe" but definitely keep "international" in the name. 14:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC) add name Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've refined the original proposal to clarify that member articles and current sub-cats should split differently. fgnievinski (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point about the anomalous French subcat members; the UK subcat seems okay, e.g., it's mostly for British or Royal-chartered organizations. I agree the office location is not a defining characteristic -- contrary to scope (e.g., national, European, world-wide) -- so I've taken the liberty of rectifying the few offending miscategorizations. fgnievinski (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that an organisation is based in a place may not be defining from the point of view of its function, but it is not insignificant. So it might be one of many international organisations based in Brussels - a significant fact in the economy of Brussels.Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like Pan-European. I don't see how it is different from European. And I don't want to see a scheme which confuses people. I have set up a new tree under Category:International organizations by location which may help.Rathfelder (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2016 (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:Young Jedi Knights

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 to Jedi and Star Wars Legends novels. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT
There is only one article (Young Jedi Knights) in the category and the narrow scope seems unlikely to grow quickly. (No objection to recreating though if we can get up to 5 or so articles.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Skope as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Star Wars. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2016 (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.
More