October 15
Category:Creative Commons Attribution License
- 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:Wikipedians contributing under CC BY-SA and so on. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Creative Commons Attribution License to Category:Wikipedians making contributions available under Creative Commons Attribution License
- Propose renaming Category:Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Dual License to Category:Wikipedians making contributions available under Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Dual License
- Propose renaming Category:Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License to Category:Wikipedians making contributions available under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License
- Propose renaming Category:Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License to Category:Wikipedians making contributions available under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License
- Propose renaming Category:Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License to Category:Wikipedians making contributions available under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
- or shorter alternative as proposed below. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: To clarify that these categories are intended for Wikipedians (i.e. user pages) rather than for articles/images for which this licensing applies or for articles about licensing (e.g. like the pages in Category:Creative Commons-licensed journals). DexDor (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As purpose is unclear. Although Category:Wikipedians contributing under Creative Commons Attribution License would be a more concise phrasing. SFB 17:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but find something reasonably short. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am no expert on such matters, but believe in keeping category names as brief as possible. With technical categories such as this, expanding abbreviations is less necessary than with normal ones. If an abbreviation is desirable, it should be expanded in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2014 (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:Great Medal of the Aéro-Club de France winners
- 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) 09:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Having won this medal is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of many/all of its recipients (Louis Blériot, Chuck Yeager, Buzz Aldrin etc) - in many cases the article text makes no mention of this medal. The list at Aéro-Club de France#Medal is a much better way of presenting this information (e.g. it can include people for whom there is not yet a en wp article). See WP:OC#AWARD. DexDor (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've left a message at the MilHist project in the hope someone can assess the relevance of Aéro-Club de France, which is hard from this non-expert's point of view. SFB 17:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You want WP:Aviation rather than MilHist, though there are some editors who frequent both. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- DElete -- This looks like a NN award, despite "winners". Possibly, listify Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2014 (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:American dissidents
- 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) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: I can't see how this category can be defined. The talk page has links that are meant to define it but they come up as empty Google searches. Without any parameters this is far too wide and can easily infringe our BLP policy as well. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm inclined to agree that this is WP:SUBJECTIVECAT but it's also part of a larger Category:Dissidents by nationality tree. That's not to suggest we shouldn't take action here because other stuff exists, but I'm wondering if this term is easier to define with other countries. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete tree A category for people proposing a non-conformist view would be an absolutely immense one that would create all sorts of incongruous associations (including anti-climate change scientists with radical environmentalists, communists with democrats). A much better method would be to categorise by issue within the Category:Activists by issue tree. SFB 19:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I assume that dissent may take many forms and may be issue-by-issue related. Certainly, most American judges have at some point in their careers filed a formal dissent in a particular case or judgment or opinion. It also changes, while we have a Democratic president, many Republicans are dissenters and when we have a Republican in the white house, no doubt the contents of the category flip. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this but not the whole tree -- "dissident" is relatively easy to define in a one-party state, eg Soviet dissidents. Judges giving a dissenting judgment is irrelevant to the issue. However in a democratic society, where heterodox views are tolerated it is going to be difficult to define. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and support previous comment by Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This Category I'll withhold judgment on the rest of the tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2014 (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.