Category:Legislative Branch of the German Government[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Was originally at speedy rename to fix the capital "B" on "Branch". It was suggested there that we also change "German Government" to "Government of Germany" to match the parent Category:Government of Germany. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments at speedy. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2009 (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 convicted of murder from Northern Ireland[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Recently renamed to this in the mass-renames of the "Northern Irish people" categories, but in my opinion this one is a bit clunky. The people are from Northern Ireland, not the murders. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent. That is, I see the point of the nominator, but I dislike disturbing the consistency of all categories having "from Northern Ireland" at the end. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2009 (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:Police drama television episode list infobox templates[edit]
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.
Drama television episode list infobox templates has very few items (and soon lees since many are unused). I think diving by genre... 4-5 articles it's overSUBcategorisation. I understand the problem you describe. It's even worse in other areas but I think subcat should not be done, at least not now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Pluralise and specify of what state. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with making category unambiguous. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2009 (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. Category based on unverified speculation and allegation, aside from the fact that the name is as opaque as mud. --Xdamrtalk 23:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - OK, before going into the substance of the nomination, let me first say that I went through each of the articles in the category. I removed those which made no mention of the dark prison, those whose claims had no reference and those whose sources did not confirm that the facility in which the prisoner claimed to have been held was the same as the "dark prison". I left a couple that had a reference attached although the reference itself is no longer immediately accessible. This category is stating as fact that these people were held in a prison that is not confirmed to exist. The sources for the various articles and other news sources found doing a Google search almost invariably take the form of "He alleges he was held in a facility known as 'the dark prison'" or something similar. Our article itself doesn't assert as fact either that the prison exists or that any of the claimants were held there. They are identified under the header Detainees who claimed to have been detained in the dark prison included. Given the speculative and possibly unverifiable inclusion criteria for the category, given our general disapproval of allegations categories and given that accusing American military and intelligence operatives of illegal detention raises potential WP:BLP red flags, I think we have to delete this category. If it is retained, suggest rename to Category:Prisoners and detainees alleging detention in the dark prison. This is one of two categories the only category that uses "captives" instead of "prisoners and detainees" (the other is under discussion for a rename) (the other has now been renamed) and "captives" has connotations closer to "hostage" than "prisoner". Inserting the word "alleging" goes some measure in addressing the possible BLP concerns but nothing about the allegatory nature of the category itself. The rename also removes extraneous punctuation. Otto4711 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it seems likely that there have been quite a few 'dark prisons' and these people are already adequately categorised. (Eg Jonah has been so described, long before Cheney walked the earth.) Occuli (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am baffled by the argument that this category must be deleted because other places called "dark prison" have existed at points in the past. As of now, the category uses the name of the parent article, a standard practice, and any legitimate concerns on ambiguity can be addressed by adding "Afghanistan" to disambiguate the title. Why should any category be deleted because of a bizarre misinterpretation of what it might contain? Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:Prisoners and detainees alleging detention in the dark prison Given the separation of the prisoners at Guantanamo and the difficulties in communication between prisoners, the fact there a consistent set of allegations and descriptions of a dark prison where they were detained and given the nature of the allegations that took place there, their detention there is defining. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In many of the Gitmo prisons, prisoners live communally with open access to each other and no difficulties in communicating. Otto4711 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The correct name of the parent article is Rutgers School of Law - Camden and the word "alumni" is not only are preferred term, but reflects attendance at the school, not just graduation. Alansohn (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator and convention. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Can't think of an encyclopedic reason to categorize graduates seperate from alumni in general. VegaDark (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems pointless. It mostly contains other categories that contain the word "technical", but there are some other cats that I don't even understand why they are there. I would consider an upmerge, but I think that some of these categories don't belong in Category:Knowledge. Wizard191 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – its related article, Technical, is a disambiguation page, rarely a good sign of a suitable category. Occuli (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the catgeory provides no organized structure for navigation purposes and I'm not sure what was intended. Alansohn (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2009 (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 as to narrow in scope and anomalous wrt existing meat categorisations. --Xdamrtalk 11:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The products listed are not necessarily made of fatback, hence the category is non-defining, not to say it is way too narrow. - Altenmann >t 15:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Which products does the nom have in mind? Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revolted - first, having to try doing any research into how meat is categorized is making me positively ill. Anyway, I find this category a little problematic. Animal-based dishes appear to be categorized based on the animal that serves as the main ingredient. We have for instance Category:Beef dishes and not Category:Brisket dishes or Category:Sirloin dishes. That strikes me as sensible and sufficiently broken down for categorization purposes. The exception of course is another pork product, Category:Bacon dishes, but I can see that as a somewhat sensible breakdown as well. The articles that are actual dishes appear already to be in an appropriate animal-level category and those that are products or general foods appear to be in an appropriate category for them (e.g. Category:Bacon). I think we can safely delete this category and I suggest that the article Fatback would benefit from a list of some of the typical dishes, or possibly some of the articles on different kinds of fatback-based bacon could be merged into the main article (although that discussion is outside our scope). If kept, rename to Category:Fatback dishes to match similar categories. Otto4711 (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For your further delectation, just in case your researches didn't reach this: " When salo has been aged too long, or exposed to light, the fat may become oxidized on the surface and become yellowed and bitter-tasting. Then it can be used as a water-repellent treatment for leather boots or as a bait for mouse traps or simply turned into homemade soap." :) The trouble is, as Salo (food) seems to explain, fatback products are not really, or necessarily bacon: a) because they generally have no meat, and b) because they are not necessarily cured, which bacon always is (even smoked bacon is cured first). But I support the proposed rename. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, the categories cover the same type of people, and the latter category has a more accurate name. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This ought to refer to lawyers practising in canon law. Jurists tends to refer to a more theoretical field. If there is referring to UK, some will be barristers and some solicitors, so that lawyers is a good omnibus term. To add "practitioners" would just be making an unnecessary addition to the category name. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2009 (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:United States Military Associations[edit]
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 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. --Xdamrtalk 23:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category seems to be used for categorizing Snoop Dogg where he made a cameo appearance in a music video. At best, this is a trivial and a non-defining characteristic. — Σxplicit 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of fairness it should be noted that this category survived a previous cfd, amazingly. Occuli (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit odd, considering the discussion was tied at delete or merge. It should be deleted, though, as it would be misleading to categorize cameo appearances as Snoop Dogg music videos. — Σxplicit 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By my count, the previous cfd total was Delete: 3; Merge?: 1; Keep: 1. So it should have been deleted then. Carlaude:Talk 06:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If by some unlikely chance the consensus is to keep this, a case could be used for changing "promo" to "promotional". Grutness...wha? 23:47, 3 August 2009 (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:Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles characters[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: All characters, but one, are already in Category:Terminator characters too and almost vice versa. No reason to have two categories. We can upmerge this one to the other. Magioladitis (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge The two categories overlap so closely as to provide little additional aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator, who has a very valid argument of general validity. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2009 (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.
