November 29
Category:GLAM
- 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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category relates to Wikipedia:GLAM. The naming conventions state: "Categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories." Since GLAM has real-world uses outside of Wikipedia:GLAM, adding the prefix word is appropriate here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 29 November 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.
Category:Colonial 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: rename to Category:People by colony.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Colonial people to Category:People of colonies
- Nominator's rationale This is a category meant together people of various colonies. Most of its subcats have forms like Category:People of the former British colonies and Category:People of former French colonies. Don;t ask me why one of those categories has a the and the other does not, it baffles me too.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin note. This category was recently discussed here. The general sense I got was that there was consensus that the current name is not good, but there was not consensus for the proposed name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is one 'people of' suggested rename that doesn't fall under a naming convention, I think, and this one does add "semantic precision", I feel. Mayumashu (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - What's next? Town people/People of towns? And if these are supposed to be "people associated with one or more colonies or colonial eras", then it should also be deleted per the many deleted "associated with" cats. And there's also that not all colonisation is anywhere near the same. With that in mind, WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES comes to mind as well. If deleted, we can nominate the subcats (or if someone would like to tag them, they could be adde to this discussion.) I welcome further discussion on all of this. - jc37 22:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:People by colony and move it under Category:People by place. Alternatively, it can be broken up and distributed to Category:People in history by country. As to jc's point, we do have many categories for people by town under Category:People by place, although "populated place" replaced most "city and town" categories some time ago.- choster (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I could support a rename to Category:People by colony (as part of Category:People by place). That at least would seem to deal with the "associated with" issues. Though I think the subcats will need a unified renaming, and possibly may need some pruning in order to meet the new criteria for inclusion into this category tree. - jc37 16:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Category:People by colony would be an improvement. So would replacing the parent Category:People by status with Category:People by place). WHY: the contents consist of 'colony' categories so this new name would better reflect the contents for the purpose of categories: navigation. However, what should be done with the Category:Settlers and its subcat tree? Make them all colonists? Hmains (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually most of the current contents would be best described as Category:People by colonies of given countries. The category as it currently stands is an odd mix of some categories that are there because the people were in a place when it was a colony, and some that are there because people were in colonies of that place. Category:American colonial people and Category:Belgian colonial people have opposite relations with the listed country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that we have two opposite connections between the place and being colonial in the category shows that this is just a hodge-podge collection of things by a common name without any clear connection being involved between the various sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per jc37 and JPL. There is no conceivable connection between people from 18th century Syracuse New York and people in the 7th century BC from Syracuse, Sicily....just colonials.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename -- weak rename for preference -- This is a high level category that should have no articles. The contents of such categories are inevitably somewhat disparate: what links the people of New York and Syracuse, Sicily is that the inhabitants or theri ancestors had come from elsewhere to colonise a new land; in one case from England and the other Greece. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. As I mentioned Molly Brant is in Category:New York colonial people. She was Iroquois, thus her ancestors did not "come from elsewhere to colonise new land". Also about half the contents of Category:Tennessee colonial people are Cherokees whose families had lived in or around Tennessee from time inmemorial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another example of why the claim that these categories can be limited to "settlers in a new land or their descendands" comes from Category:People of British India being in this category. A person like Avadhanum Paupiah, who was in the Employ of the British East India Company, clearly fits in that category, but his family were also clearly not settlers in a new land.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict - please do not ask me to comment and then start editing again) Your complaint appears to be that the categories are being misused. Many high level categories are somewhat vague in scope and may vary in scope between categories. I do not know enough of the history of Tennessee or New York to be able to judge whether particular articles should be included in sub-cats. It may be that some subcategories are inappropriately named, but that implies renaming them, not deleting the parent. Perhaps the Cherokees would fit in Category:People of Tennessee in the colonial period, which might be a more appropriate category. We had a discussion on that category recently, when it was suggested it should be merged into a Virginia category; I suggested that it should not. I provided a definition of a colony. If the content does not match, I would suggest renaming or purging, not deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No one ever proposed that the Tennessee category should be merged into the Virginia category. The proposal was to merge it to the North Carolina category. That said, it still remains that your attempt to define what all sections of this category mean fails, suggesting that it is in fact just a categorization by shared name, and that there is no actual continuity among its parts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept should be renamed to category:People by colony and bio articles directly in it should be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 3 December 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.
Category:Tamil Nadu Government Laws & Rules
- 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 Category:Tamil Nadu state legislation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: No need for this new category. We already have Category:Tamil Nadu state legislation, and "rules" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sitush (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed, Unnecessary duplication.Shyamsunder (talk) 14:32, 30 November 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.
Category:911 (band)
- 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) 01:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. With only a discography page and a few songs that aren't even their own, it's too soon for this eponymous category. Navigation is simple enough through 911 (band). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete actually the articles are not on songs, but TV shows. This is as bad as putting Star Trek in Category:Leonard Nimoy because he appeared in it. If categorizing performers by performance is a bad idea, categorizing performances by performer is an even worse idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Yet another pointless category by User:MaybeMaybeMaybe. Nymf hideliho! 08:11, 30 November 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.
Category:Avenue (band)
- 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) 01:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too little content to warrant an eponymous category at this time. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:02, 29 November 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.
Category:Members of the clergy with criminal convictions
- 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no relationship between "clergy member" and "convicted of a crime". This overly wide net lumps together murderers and trespassing peace activists without regard to the specifics. The only reason for these categories is the belief that it's somehow worse that a holy person has committed a crime and categories can't be based on such a subjective opinion. Delete and merge as nominated to keep the articles within the "convicted" category structure. Buck Winston (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The very fact that this is not named Category:Members of the clergy convicted of crimes shows an attempt to include both people who are clergy and get convicted of a crime and people who are convicted of a crime and later become clergy. This just seems to be too much an attempt to connect unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as a useful categorisation that is likely to be searched. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Buck, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that link. Are you saying my argument is not solid because "you need to say why the article is useful or useless," or it is solid because this is one of those "pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument?" Thanks. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think it's pretty obvious, since I think the categories should be deleted, that the link is for the former purpose. "It's useful" is a crap argument. At least one person finds every article and category "useful" otherwise the article or category wouldn't have been created in the first place. There needs to be evidence of a specific encyclopedic relationship between "member of the clergy" and "convicted of a crime". There isn't. Buck Winston (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally didn't find it obvious, which was why I asked for clarification, or to put it another way WP:VAGUEWAVE. I'm not sure that the fact you find utility "crap" is relevant to this discussion. My assertion was not that this category might be useful again to someone, someday, but rather that this category is likely to be useful to a large number of current and future readers. This is a WP:DEFINING category. (You're welcome to disagree, but I don't want my point to be mischaracterised.)
- Also, I double checked encyclopedic, I do not think it means what you think it means. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on same grounds, criminals who become clergymen and clergymen who become criminals are a special breed. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes them more special than schoolteachers, judges, or doctors?- choster (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- leaning delete The intersection is questionable to begin with, as Winston and Lambert state. The other problem is "clergy": it is being broadly construed to include any person for whom religion figures strongly in their notoriety, even though some of these people aren't technically clerics. Mangoe (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/upmerge to convict and occupational categories. An intersection of characteristics should be notable, or at least there should be a relationship between the two such that one helps interpret the other. Otherwise, it is just random information. For example, we categorize politicians by their political party, and people in religious occupations by their religion, but do not apply such affiliations to members of the general public because they are not defining characteristics. Similarly, I would think a cleric convicted of heresy or blasphemy might be worthy of note, but mere thieves, fraudsters, spies, sodomites, etc. can be found in any line of work (and will represent a small proportion of those people. Even among bankers and politicians). What does it matter if a murderer's day job is electrician, football player, or Congressman? It is for this reason we have such few crime/occupation categories; these, which are largely the work of a single contributor; categories for law enforcement; and Category:Health care professionals convicted of murdering patients.- choster (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose as written In many cases, the only category for the article that reflects the fact that the person belongs to the clergy is this criminal clergly one. At the very least, the articles must be merged into at least two other categories: one criminal one; one clergy one. These nominations must be done with much care to avoid loss of WP navigation. Hmains (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with merging as needed. It honestly didn't occur to me that this could be the sole such category for anyone. Buck Winston (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose there is much reporting on crimes committed by clergy - a notable intersection (as are politicians and crimes, but I digress). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If the category specified specific charges it would be useful. As it is, it's a hodgepodge of trivial and non-notable charges with very much more serious ones. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Clergy are popularly supposed to be good. These bad ones constitute a notable intersection. It will be noted that sexual abuse of children by clergy (especially Catholic) has been a significnat issue in recent years. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the epitome of subjective argumentation. "Clergy are popularly supposed to be good"? "Good" according to what objective standard? Being convicted of a crime makes one "bad"? Again, by what objective standard? Is a santero with a conviction for animal cruelty a "good" person for following his religion or a "bad" person for breaking the law? Is a minister who gets a conviction for rallying against war "good" or "bad"? Buck Winston (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it equally scandalous when the officer of a charity embezzles funds, or when a schoolteacher carries on an affair with a young student, or an engineer takes bribes? My suspicion is that we have tolerated the category owing to the Catholic sex abuse scandals, but the monumental aspect of that scandal is its institutional coverup, and not simply that the perpetrators were priests and brothers. Grouping it with Grigory Grabovoy, Henry Lyons, or Andreas Hanssen seems arbitrary.- choster (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as are In many cases, the only reason the individual is notable and thus has a WP article is the fact that they are both clergy and criminals, otherwise they would just be ordinary clergy and ordinary criminals. Since we have such articles, this category is a necessary navigation tool for our scandal-curious readers to easily find them. There seem to be 50 some articles here and of course more will continue to be created, given human nature. Hmains (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe your assertion is correct. While I did not check every article in the structure, every one that I did check includes sources that support the notability of the person separate from the criminal conviction. If an article exists for someone who is notable only for this intersection then it probably fails WP:ONEEVENT and should be deleted, not used as justification for a category structure. Buck Winston (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a defining characteristic of these individuals and an appropriate aid to navigation across articles with this unifying characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 18 December 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.
Category:Environmental skepticism
- 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 rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This is a more appropriate title. It isn't all claims about the environment, nor all environmentalists that is being called into question. Furthermore, I think this title will be more helpful for people searching for content. Greg Bard (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep we have the article Environmental skepticism. It would seem that Climate change skepticism is a sub-cat of this category, but there is no reason to assume that all Environmental skepticism is Climate change skepticism. I really do not see why we could not have both categories, at least if we have enough articles, with the Climate change one being a sub-cat of the more large Environmental one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JPL, broader term, matches article name, whereas Climate change skepticism is a redirect to what I would consider to be a subtopic. --Qetuth (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep the category is obviously from its name broader than just climate. If someone wants to create a Category:Climate change skepticism subcategory here, they can do it at any time. But the hatred of science seems to be multifaceted (belief and funding), so there is a great deal of overlap. Hmains (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does look like it may come to that given the discussion here, and I have no problem with that. My main concern was having a category to house people who are the climate change deniers, and conspicuously identifying them as such. There are people who are skeptical of environmentalists and environmentalism, but are not climate change deniers (e.g. Bill Wattenburg). Greg Bard (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would advise against use of the toally POV-pushing term "climate change deniers". That is a totally false term and is trying to equate them with people who deny proven historical events, which is obviously not the same thing, since man-made climate change is not a proven historical event, let alone the proven catastrophe that the term "climate-change denier" seeks to imply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a person calls him or herself a "climate change denier", then how is that any kind of POV pushing? Greg Bard (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling the contents of this category "hatred of science" and even more referring to climate change skepticism specifically as such is entirely unjustified. There are climate change skeptics who accept science and because of that have major skepticism about the claims about man-made climate change. This category is not about hatred in any way. It would be nice if people refrained from engaging in character assasination of those who disagree with them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 3 December 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.
Category:People executed during the Algerian War
- 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) 01:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I already suggested below. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 29 November 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.
Category:Place names of Hampshire origin in 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Place names of Hampshire origin in the United States
- Nominator's rationale Not only is this categorization by shared name but in many cases it is false categorization. The heading says these should be places named after places in Hampshire. However Winchester, Ohio was named by its founder after Winchester, Virginia not after the place in England. This is a rare case of easily disproving an inclusion because most articles on places do not explain the origins of the place name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well-populated sub-category of Category:Place names of English origin in the United States. Mayumashu (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem is that these all are just categorization by the trivial fact of what the origin of their name is. It is not at all a categorization about anything important to the article. Also, as I explained aboove, in many cases these are false categorizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete These articles are about places, not placenames, resulting in a meta variation of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES (a category not of things which share a name, but of things which share names with other things from a certain area).- choster (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete naming is notable, but none of the categorants is notable for its hampshire-name origin. Better as a list, if sourced properly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify -- I cannot believe that the origin of a placename is a significant characteristic of the place. It is a trivial intersection, but an appropriate subject for an article, though not a category. We have recently had a discussion on Norwegian toponyms (which was deleted) and this was followed by a similar discussion on other toponym categories. These were not being used to like articles on toponymy - placename studies, but dab-pages dealing with placenames and surnames. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is clear categorisation by shared name, and should be a list at most, not a category. But in this case, only a single article in the category has a referenced explantion of a Hampshire origin, so I imagine the list would be deleted anyway. --Qetuth (talk) 11:43, 17 December 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.
Category:Place names of County Durham origin in 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Place names of County Durham origin in the United States
- Nominator's rationale This is currently functioning in reality as effectively Category:Places names Durham in the United States. It is blatantly a case of categorizing by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States. We can have categories for the names of things as opposed to the things themselves?? Category:Place names etc. Mayumashu (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.- choster (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, as my above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify -- I cannot believe that the origin of a placename is a significant characteristic of the place. It is a trivial intersection, but an appropriate subject for an article, though not a category. We have recently had a discussion on Norwegian toponyms (which was deleted) and this was followed by a similar discussion on other toponym categories. These were not being used to like articles on toponymy - placename studies, but dab-pages dealing with placenames and surnames. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As above, should be a list. But again, only one article actually belongs in the category - the other one was named after Bartlett S. Durham. So sharedname AND smallcat. --Qetuth (talk) 11:47, 17 December 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.
Category:Place names of Rutland origin in 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Place names of Rutland origin in the United States
- Nominator's rationale First off we categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. Secondly the link between being named after a place and the specific English county it was historically in is weak at best. Latly, in this case, the articles do not support being so categorized since they never mention how the name of the place was chosen. Shared names does not prove that one place was named after the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States and depopulate those that do not say/source origin. Mayumashu (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As noted, these articles are about places, not placenames, resulting in a meta variation of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES.- choster (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and as my above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify -- I cannot believe that the origin of a placename is a significant characteristic of the place. It is a trivial intersection, but an appropriate subject for an article, though not a category. We have recently had a discussion on Norwegian toponyms (which was deleted) and this was followed by a similar discussion on other toponym categories. These were not being used to like articles on toponymy - placename studies, but dab-pages dealing with placenames and surnames. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only one article, which contains no claim or justification for its inclusion in the category. Were there more when this was nominated? --Qetuth (talk) 11:49, 17 December 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.
Category:Place names of Wiltshire origin in 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Place names of Wiltshire origin in the United States
- Delete Category:Place names of Westmorland origin in the United States
- Delete Category:Place names of Cheshire origin in the United States
- Nominator's rationale The fact that places were named after other places in a particular county in England (which is not even always actually true, and even less often stated in the articles so categorized) is not enough to make places have anything in common. The first of these categories currently is functioning as Category:Places in the United States named Salisbury.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States Not substantial enough branches of the tree, twigs to be cleared. (There is no Category:Place names of Chesire origin etc., btw.) Mayumashu (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As noted, these articles are about places, not placenames, resulting in a meta variation of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES.- choster (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and my above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify -- I cannot believe that the origin of a placename is a significant characteristic of the place. It is a trivial intersection, but an appropriate subject for an article, though not a category. We have recently had a discussion on Norwegian toponyms (which was deleted) and this was followed by a similar discussion on other toponym categories. These were not being used to like articles on toponymy - placename studies, but dab-pages dealing with placenames and surnames. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wiltshire and Westmoreland - This is categorisation by shared name, they only contain 2 articles each, of which only one each make any claim to naming origin, and one of those is not even supported by references. Listify Cheshire, as a handful of its articles do make such a claim, and a handful of those are referenced. --Qetuth (talk) 12:02, 17 December 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.
Category:Place names of German origin in 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Place names of German origin in the United States
- Delete Category:Place names of Cuban origin in the United States
- Nominator's rationale we categorize articles by what they are, not what they are named. This is a categororization by shared name. To pull up one example Berlin, New Hampshire, it is unclear exampltly why it was so named, but it was not because of any connection to Germany on the part of those naming the place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as part of a category tree that does categorize places by what they are named after. The tree should be felled, if indeed based on valid reasoning, not certain, particularly rather main, branches cut off. Agree though that some, but not all, of the places listed should not be, either because the connection is wrongly assumed or because no mention of there being a connection is mentioned, sourced. Mayumashu (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and my above; @Mayumashu, we are felling the tree here and now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify -- I cannot believe that the origin of a placename is a significant characteristic of the place. It is a trivial intersection, but an appropriate subject for an article, though not a category. We have recently had a discussion on Norwegian toponyms (which was deleted) and this was followed by a similar discussion on other toponym categories. These were not being used to like articles on toponymy - placename studies, but dab-pages dealing with placenames and surnames. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify - categorisation by shared name. While in general the appearance of German place-names in the United States may be notable, it is not defining for any individual place. --Qetuth (talk) 12:06, 17 December 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.
Category:People executed by guillotine during the Algerian War
Caegory:Abazins
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Abazins
- Nominator's rationale this category is in Category:Ethnic groups in Russia which makes sense for Abazins. Except all the biographical articles in the category are Ottoman people , already in the applicable category Category:Ottoman people of Abkhazian descent. The rest of the contents are already in workable categories. There is no reason to have a category for this specific ethnic group at this time. This is especially true because the contents of Category:Ethnic groups in Russia are supposed to be articles on ethnic groups, and categories or articles on ethnic groups. Categories should generally be in Category:Russian people by ethnic or national origin, except since none of the people in this category were Russian, they are all Ottomans, this can't go there. So the best course is to just delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It looks like you're basically making a good argument for emptying the category, which would result in a C1 speedy deletion if we were't prohibited from emptying categories for this purpose without a CFD. I agree with your reasoning; none of these people belong here, so it should be deleted unless we can come up with some Russian Abazins. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- The straight forward reading of the main article makes it clear that this is an ethnic group with its own language and a diaspora through the Middle East. The complaint appears to be that the article all relate to a period before the they were overwhelmed by Russian imperialism. Their homeland is now de facto part of Russia (though Georgia may dispute that), so that a Russian ethnic category is appropriate. However, it might also be appropriate to categorise them as an an Category:Ethnic groups of the Ottoman Empire or perhaps Category:Ottoman ethnic groups, neiother of which seem yet to exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment except the bio articles are all about people living in the Ottoman Empire and better categorized already. We do not need categories for every possible ethnic group. Most of the contents of Category:Ethnic groups in Russia only have articles, not categories, and considering how many articles we have that really fit here, it seems this category is not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 29 November 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.
Category:Current heirs apparent
- 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. I have also considered the previous CFD in closing this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_7#Present_status_categories_for_persons —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This should be a list, and since the list exists, problem solved. --Qetuth (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this proposal is consistent with the outcome of the "Present status" discussion, but I have two objections to that decision:
- I think there were too few people who weighed in on the subject to reach a delete conclusion, and
- the argument that a category of "current" is hard to maintain is hardly convincing. We maintain articles on living (and deceased) people all the time - changing a category is no more burdensome than adding or modifying any other information. Maintaining a list that is separate from the categories seems to me more error-prone than maintaining a category for each relevant person.
- Further, there is a difference between inherently transient categories, such as "heir apparent", and permanent categories, such as "New York Yankee" or "Nobel laureate." When (if) Prince Charles becomes king, it makes no sense to maintain his heir apparent status, because as king it was apparent that at one point he was an heir to the throne. --Leifern (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – the cfd linked by the nom (which was a resounding delete) is but one of dozens of cfds which have deleted 'current' (and 'former') categories just like this one. Oculi (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete current cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Current heirs apparent of monarchs. The deletion request is utterly ridiculous. WE certainly need an article like this. I know that we do not like "current" categories, because they are liable to become obsolete. The succession of a person to a throne is such a notable event that some one will almost certainly edit the article and update the category. Heirs apparent (if adults) will typically play a significant role in their country's affairs; their status as heir apparent is the very purpose of their existence - that they expect to inherit the throne on a parent's death. When Chalres succeeds, his article will be altered and recategorised to reflect that; if he dies as Prince of Wales, the category will be changed to his being a Prince of Wales who failed to succeed, and the category we are discussing will be added to the article on Prince William. If this were about the heirs apparent of British dukes, earls and barons, I might be more willing to accept the criticism, though I suspect there are categories for them too and that they in practice get maintained when succession takes place. It is as ridiculous as saying that we should not have found a category for the status of Barak Obama between his election and inauguration. No doubt Mitt Romney has moved from being a presidential candidate to a failed presidentical candidate. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an article, it is a category. Since the various people are in the applicable Heirs apaprent categories for their specific being heirs, I see no reason we need this category. It is no more clear that we need this category than we need Category:Current monarchs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 3 December 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.
Category:Martha Speaks
- 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT. Category had the primary voice actors in it, but that's not allowed since those VAs also do other things. No chance of expansion, contains very few articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:14, 29 November 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.