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 delete all. BencherliteTalk 09:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why are these not nominated as empty speedy deletes? I have no problem doing the deletes if someone will close these discussions. Just give me the word. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise the they could be deleted as speedy. Had just seen the title of "Speedy renaming and speedy merging" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and didn't notice the sentence about deleting in the middle of that section. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:52, 22 January 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:speedy delete all as empty C1 / dependent on retargeted template G8. BencherliteTalk 09:36, 22 January 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:speedy delete all, C1 empty / G8 dependent on retargeted template. BencherliteTalk 09:35, 22 January 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:no consensus. While there is agreement that a rename is in order, there is no agreement as to what. I recommend renominating this (yet again). Kbdank71 15:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As multiple operating systems (such as Linux) can be run on the Pocket PC hardware platform, it should be clarified that software here is simply "Windows Mobile Professional" software. Also, the term "Pocket PC" which was coined by Microsoft is now referred to as a "Windows Mobile Professional device" or "Windows Mobile Classic device", so it's outdated. Brianreading (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information. Not all Windows Mobile software works across all versions of Windows Mobile. There are plenty of pieces of software that only work on Windows Mobile Professional, but don't on Windows Mobile Standard. Therefore, you may want to rethink your opposition based on that piece of logic. Brianreading (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point of infomation. I have created Category:Windows Mobile Standard software, Category:Microsoft Windows CE software could probably be created seeing as how Windows Mobile and Windows CE are certainly not the same thing, nor do they run the same software. A "Microsoft Smartphone" is the same as a "Windows Mobile Standard device". The appropriate category Category:Windows software already exists as well. Notice how it isn't called "PC software". You're making this extremely confusing though. The bottom line is that a "Pocket PC" is simply a "Windows Mobile Professional device" or "Windows Mobile Classic device", nothing else. This category should not be referring to the hardware, but the OS.
Then you want to subcategorize this as Mobile Pro. Since Pocket PC can refer to either Pro or Standard, or pre-"Mobile". Go ahead and subcategorize things. I still oppose renaming in your manner because it is wrong. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to sound condescending, but you don't seem to be aware about a lot of background regarding Windows Mobile. Software is backwards compatible from older to newer versions. No need to differentiate software that was released during the time the platform was referred to as "Pocket PC". Hell, I could understand naming it "Windows Mobile Professional and Classic software", but simply leaving it as "Pocket PC software" is simply unwarranted. I really wish we could both get some more input from users. Brianreading (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say leave it as just Pocket PC. Didn't you notice THE VERY START of this thread? Are you saying that all Windows Mobile 6 software will run on Pocket PC 2002? That all new apps are compatible with old OSes? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look. This category is JUST reflective of Pocket PC software. We should use the CURRENT Microsoft naming scheme, not a phased-out one. Now I'm aware you don't like the idea of subcategorization regarding the OS versions, but the fact of the matter is that they're already subcategorized, just named with an outdated name. If you're looking to merge the Category:Windows Mobile Standard software and Category:Windows Mobile Professional software categories after renaming it, then fine. But that's a separate issue, and requires a separate nomination. There's no need to oppose the renaming simply because you're for merging the categories. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Brianreading (talk) 08:55, 24 January 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. Rename to match main article and follow capitalization conventions of WP:MOS. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. As per the MOS, I agree that this should be renamed. Brianreading (talk) 21:21, 21 January 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. According to Category:Singles, singles recordings are categorized as songs. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The nominator's rationale makes sense. Brianreading (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. To conform with the rest of the categories. DiverseMentality 05:30, 22 January 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:merge. Seems to be agreement also on how to relate the contents to Category:Villages in Pembrokeshire, but that's something that will be done article-by-article, of course. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Analog to recent renamings. I came across this while setting up Communities in Pembrokeshire and felt it was not right for me to empty the category myself. Agathoclea (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does this category relate to Category:Villages in Pembrokeshire? How big is the overlap? Do they need to be separate? Might it be preferable to aim for a consistent approach across Wales? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some communities are also villages ie Burton, Pembrokeshire but Houghton is a village within the boundaries of the Burton community. Then there are Communities like Marloes and St. Brides which consist of the separate villages Marloes and St Brides. So there is some overlap but they are of a different concept - Communities are political entities while villages are geographic entities. Agathoclea (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction seems to me to be a parallel one to that between civil parishes in England and settlements in England: a settlement is the collection of buildings, people, and other amenities that are grouped together as villages, towns and cities, whereas a civil parish is a local government area that may contain (or be contained in) one or more villages, towns, etc. Because there are in certain parts of the England a tendency to have just one village per civil parish, the two are often conflated into a single article, as in Tarporley, but in other parts of the England, there may be no core village in a civil parish - there may be widely distributed separate houses, as in Somerford Booths, or there may be more than one village in a civil parish (e.g., Haslington. Also, in parts of England, one settlement may contain more than one civil parish (e.g., Burton on Trent.) I assume that communities are the equivalent in Wales to civil parishes in England, though I do not know if all the possible variations in their combinations, as outlined previously, occur. Consequently, there may be good reasons to allow for the different things to be represented by different categories. DDStretch (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the convention is to use "in" rather than "of" for geographical categories. However, I am not convinced that this convention needs to be so rigorously enforced for each type of these categories: some categories that could very reasonably exist for this level of local authority area within the United Kingdom may sound very clumsy using "in"; for example, "Civil parishes in the Isle of Wight" versus "Civil parishes of the Isle of Wight", where "of" seems more accurately descriptive of the matter. The issue then is whether to impose a uniform naming scheme which uses "in" or "of": (a) across the board (e.g., all categories dealing with geographical entities should be the same - either all "X of Y" or "X in Y"), (b) consistent within the same type of category, but not necessarily the same between different types of categories (e.g., "Civil parishes of X", "Communities of X", but "Villages in X"), or (c) different between different instances of use within each type of category (e.g., "Civil parishes in X", "Civil parishes of Y" because it reads better to use "of" with respect to Y than X). I think option c is not uniform enough, but option a may be too uniform so that it forces awkwardness. However, it does seem that the existing convention adopts option a, with the use of "in". DDStretch (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. If we have articles on villages in a Community (equivalent of Civil Parish) with a different name, they can be placed in a category on villages in the county. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to expand the above comment. I see no objection to a village which has its own community council being categorised both as a village and as a community. However there will be communities containing several villages, where it may be convenient to have an article on each of the villages. Category:Villages in Pembrokeshire is a legitmate and useful category, which should also be retianed. Real life is too complicated to get everything to fit any pattern perfectly. The point is that we do not need both the categories in the nomination, and they should be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support action, as described in the nomination, placing articles on villages in categories about villages, as suggested by Peterkingiron. DDStretch (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion on my viewpoint: The situation is similar to that in England involving civil parishes, and my comment was meant to suggest that similar ways of proceeding are adopted here. The main features of this are: (a) the "one settlement in a community area" case - have one article about both settlement and community area, and categorize both in "Communities of X" and in "Villages/Towns of X" (b) one dominant village in a community, with other villages in the same community" case: community area and dominant village in one article which is categorized as both "communities of X" and "villages of X", the other villages, if sufficient material exists, is dealt with in articles of their own categorized as "villages of X"; if not their material is subsumed in the article about the dominant village. If two equally-dominant villages exist in a community, have one article solely about the community area and its governane (categorized in the "Communities of X"), and separate articles about each village (categorized as "Villages of X") DDStretch (talk) 13:29, 24 January 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. In keeping with the other categories in Category:Video games. Earlier, User:CaveatLector said, "The 'visuality' of video games extends beyond their graphics." This may be true, but the purpose of this category is only to discuss visual differences of a technical nature—not those with artistic differences. SharkD (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The nominator's rationale makes sense. Brianreading (talk) 20:09, 22 January 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:no consensus. Kbdank71 14:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Huguenot was a French person who was a member of a Protestant church. It was not a race or ethnic group. So what is the point of this category? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 05:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They became a quasi-ethnic group (after up to 150 years of almost entirely "marrying-in") when they were forced to leave France. There are plenty of similar categories for Cajuns, Liberian-Americans and so on. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, Huguenots are Huguenots, any French person can join the Protestant church. The Huguenot people originally migrated from what is today Switzerland, to the South of France; after Plymouth Rock was discovered in 1620, Huguenots began leaving France and by 1630 most all had left and ended up settling in the US, England, South Africa, Australia, Canada, etc. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quasi-ethnic group. --MPerel 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started this after someone removed Obama from the category. Consensus seems to be Keep, and hence I'll be adding him back. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 07:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This should only be applied to descendents of people who left France and formed an ethno-religious community elsewhere. Like many such communities they were endogamous to a significant extent, and thus retained their identity long after exile from France.
Delete double intersection of ethnicity and religion and of course nothing to tell us what % Huguenot you have to be - Barack Obama is a perfect example: do you really believe he retained his Huguenot identity? That's what all the hoopla was about a few days ago, the inauguration of a Huguenot president that we've been waiting for since the the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Yeah, what planet are we on, folks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this category is well-thought through. For one thing, it's a sub-category of Category:Huguenots but the people in this category are not Huguenots, so it shouldn't be in that parent category. Personally, I don't favour any of the "by descent" categories. They link fairly random people through an event which happened centuries before they were born, and consequently look like an attempt to slip in WP:TRIVIA and family trees by categorization. DrKiernan (talk) 15:16, 26 January 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:no consensus. While I strongly agree with Neier's note regarding naming conventions, there is the problem of what is the main article called, and the lack of a workable solution to dab categories. Kbdank71 14:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Completely ambiguous. For most people this would mean the car, at least in the US. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. True enough. Mayumashu (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Most people don't know one warship type from another, probably would call all of them battleships76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this should also apply to its subcategories. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That can be an additional nomination if this one happens. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to clarify. As soon as I saw the title I knew it had to be boats or cars, but there was no way of knowing from the title. Alansohn (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existing name is far from "completely" ambiguous. Even car magazines invariable introduce a vehicle as make and model, not just model, and I find it highly doubtful someone editing a Chevy Corvette article would fail to find Category:Chevrolet Corvette. From the user navigational side, I find it equally unlikely someone interested in the car would enter the bare model name directly, as cars are named after everything from wild horses to zodiacal constellations. Besides, do "most people" really think of the car when hearing "Corvette"? This isn't 1975, after all; everyone I know who could afford one owns something German :-).-choster (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people don't know a Corvette is a ship (or a destroyer or a cruiser, or a frigate, or a sloop, for that matter), so yes, they do think of the car. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is moved there won't be a category named Category:Corvettes (or is the nom proposing adding a category redirect as well?). I've added a disambig link at the top of the existing category. Anyone who manages to get to this category who wants the car related category is one click away from where they want to be. Given the article named Corvette is about the ship, not having the category have the same name seems extremely peculiar. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categories require maintenance, since ambiguous names are maintenance issues, the dab link is only navigation not upkeep, so patrolling this to keep Corvette car stuff out of it is required. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming this category does nothing whatsoever to help address this issue (if it is an issue). If it's renamed now and category:Corvettes is left non-existent, this doesn't prevent someone at some point in the future from adding an article to it. Patrolling it to keep car stuff out is no more work than patrolling it to keep it empty. Actually, keeping it empty is probably more work since any car or ship stuff added in the future would have to be recategorized, whereas now only car stuff is misplaced. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Corvettes as a ship type have been around since the 1670s. The Chevrolet Corvette has only been around since 1953. Established useage is therefore in favour of the ship type. Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose to rename. Main article for the ship is at Corvette (with strong consensus to stay there as Maralia pointed out above), so it makes little sense for the category to be at a different name. As for the anon's contention that this will require a lot of maintenance: First of all, what category doesn't from time to time? Second, there are only 22 articles and no subcategories for the car's category, with a potential of a new article once, perhaps, every couple of years when a new model come out. In contrast there are 6 subcategories for Category:Corvettes, with a further 30 sub-subcategories one level down, and even more subcategories farther down. The article tally probably numbers in the hundreds within all of these subcategories, with over a hundred more potential articles for Flower-class corvettes alone (see all of the redlinks in {{Flower class corvette}}), just to pick a single example. The categories are already named appropriately. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Corvette (the ship) is the primary link. I, personally, doubt in other English speaking nations that the car is that well known over the ship. The article also states that the car is named after the ship.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally doubt most people know that corvette is a kind of ship, I think that most people only know of battleship, aircraft carrier and submarine as the only types of warship. Any other classifcation is pushing it. Since car magazines have high circulation rates in English speaking counties, and they frequently review Ferraris, Lambourghinis, Maseratis and Corvettes, and teen boys are frequently car fans, that yes, the American car is likely to be very well known. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do "teen boys" come into it? I'm a little uncomfortable with privileging a piece of US-specific terminology over a generic technical term... Shimgray | talk | 22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to be a ship enthusiast to know that corvettes as a type of ship even exist, or a Navy brat. Pass by the newsie, and you can read any one of two dozen car magazines and see Corvettes every other month. Or have one pass you on the street. The local car show would have Corvettes, you'd need to live near an accessible harbour to go to a Navy tattoo to see a ship. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions; specifically, Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories. The category names are held to much higher standards than article names, where redirects and the such are able to keep things relatively clearer. Neier (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we do rename it (which I'm not sold is a good idea), can it please be something marginally less ugly than the proposed name? "Corvettes (ships)" would at least agree grammatically... Shimgray | talk | 22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on google results. As someone completely indifferent to both the ship and the car, I did a google search for "corvette" to see which was more commonly used. The first page of results are all for automobile references and after a cursory look I couldn't find a single ship reference in the first 10 pages of results! I'm a little surprised that the article name hasn't been disambiguated, and is probably is being held there by some fairly strong WP interest group. It's the emergence of the "Corvette (ship) Cabal"! :) Please don't be upset—I jest, I jest ... Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found one on the 2nd and 4th google results pages - the modern French Navy ships and the WWII ships, about half the other results were car dealers not providers of encyclopedic information. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a) different google searches provide different results. b} If you are looking for corvettes on wikipedia, you are not looking to find a car dealer or car club.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basic search for just the word demonstrates that by far the prevailing usage among "the commoners" or non-specialists (if we can assume that the internet provides a rough representation of such) is for the car, not the ship. Just something to consider when deciding whether we need to disambiguate. I think disambiguating both references to the car and the ship would be appropriate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:02, 26 January 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. I read through this several times. One of the main concerns about people categories is that they be defining for the individual. I see nothing in the keep arguments that this characteristic is in fact defining. The closest may come in the case of royalty, but even there it is a nice point of interest but nothing that really shows why it is defining. The other keep arguments like well populated, verifiable, the death is a major event for the child or it is legitimate; don't get to the heart of it being defining. If there is really a need to group people by this, it can return as a list that explains why this is defining for that individual. Another point is that this category is somewhat of an arbitrary point of time. Why is this more defining then the case of a mother dieing in child birth? Why is this more defining if one or both parents die in 1 month, or 4 months or a year? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seemingly oxymoronic category is for people who were born after one of their parents died: see posthumous birth. Most of these (though not all) will be instances where a person is born after their biological father dies (there are also post-maternal-death births, but they are more rare). A rather arbitrary way to categorize people for starters, but it's also non-defining for the people in the same way most of the "timing-of-birth" or "parent–child relationship" categories are. This is not to say that having a parent die before being born would not affect a person, and that is not my claim. It's just that this is not a situation that is in any defining way different from people whose father deserted the mother prior to birth; or from people whose father died after their birth but before they formed any memories of him; or from people whose parent died in their childhood; etc.; etc. The different permutations are endless once we start down this path. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you tar this with the epithet "seemingly oxymoronic". You've already shown that you know it's not oxymoronic, so why persist with that irrelevant observation? It adds nothing to your argument. Notable people whose father deserted their mother, or divorced their mother, prior to birth, or where one parent left in their early years, or where the child was abandoned, adopted out etc, would be very numerous indeed; and there's nothing particularly noteworthy about such cases. Posthumously born people are considerably fewer in number; they take on special significance in the case of royalty, where the child in utero at the time of the father's death may well be born a monarch. Naturally, as the creator of the category, I'm strongly biased towards keeping it, but I'll just state for the record that I vote to keep it. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Q: "I'm not sure why you tar this with the epithet 'seemingly oxymoronic.'" A: Because on its face (looking at the name only) it can have an oxymoronic meaning. It's not an "epithet", it's just an observation (not an irrelevant one) that suggests that even if kept, the name of the category should probably somehow be clarified. But yes, this point will be irrelevant for someone who agrees with deletion, but that might not be everybody. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
If this category is to be kept, it needs to be renamed. It is, as Good Olfactory, says oxymoronic and open to more than one interpretation. My first thought was "Posthumously born? When you're born after your own death, you're still-born, not posthumously born." To use an analogy, a posthumous laureate receives an award after his own death, not after the death of the award or of another person. A posthumous world champion wins the world title after his own death, not after the death of someone else or something else. Aecis·(away)talk 09:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the meaning of this term is spelled out at the start of Posthumous birth: A posthumous birth is the birth of a child after the death of a parent.[1] A person born in these circumstances is called a posthumous child or a posthumously born person. I had thought it was a reasonably well-known term in any case; but apparently not so. It would be odd to have an article named in such a way, and a category using some different terminology. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, at least 2 kings have been known as "The Posthumous" - John I of France and Ladislaus the Posthumous. If it was a sufficiently relevant fact to become part of the title by which they're generally known, that makes it notable in my book. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That still does not elevate it beyond trivia. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally trivial. The two kings notwithstanding, this really does not seem to be a defining characteristic. Resolute 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well populated and verifiable category of people born after the death of a parent; the category is named according to the proper terminology as described at posthumous birth, though I wouldn't object to renaming it to something more clear like Category:People born after the death of a parent. --MPerel 18:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "well-populated" nor "verifiable" are standards for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only subset of this that could possibly have any definingness would be Category:People born after the death of their mother, which I would whole-heartedly support as a defining characteristic. We have determined through a number of CFDs that the circumstances surrounding the events of ones birth are in most if not all cases non-defining, most recently a slew of "adoptive parents" categories along with "born in prison". Otto4711 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is clear from the article that this is a distinction of interest, one that has had consequences both for the individuals involved and history. It is not up to CfD to second guess what article editors have placed in their articles. It is up to categories to reflect what has been documented in articles to help interested readers to navigate to the articles. Hmains (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The death of a parent is a major event; the death of a parent before the child is born is a strong defining characteristic for that child. There is a clear, properly-sourced parent article at Posthumous birth and no valid excuse has been offered for deletion other than the fact that the nominator has decided that he just doesn't like this category. For all the usual nonsensical arguments about the dreaded slippery slope of other categories that will be created if the existence of this one is tolerated, the proffered alternatives of Category:People Born With Four Grandparents Alive at Birth, Category:People Born With Three Grandparents Alive at Birth are not only utterly moronic but are not accompanied by a parent article. Any of these dreaded permutations can be addressed once they are created and presented to us for deletion without necessitating deletion of this one. The purpose of categories is to allow similar articles to be grouped together by defining characteristics, and no evidence other than the usual obfuscations has been offered to justify deletion. Alansohn (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave quite a valid reason in my "delete" opinion, that it falls under the "Non-defining or trivial characteristic" criteria of WP:OCAT. Yes, my examples were moronic; they had to be, to compare to the moronic nature of the cat we're discussing. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fully-sourced and documented parent article, reliable and verifiable sources showing that this is a strong defining characteristic can all be ignored in the face of "There just ain't no there, there", simply because you have declared that the characteristic is trivial despite all evidence to the contrary. Can you point me to the parent articles for People Born With Four Grandparents Alive at Birth and People Born With Three Grandparents Alive at Birth, the dreaded next steps on our slippery slope? Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a strawman argument there, I think. This has nothing to do with parent articles or sourcing, it simply has to do with the trivial characteristic of a father dying before one is born. There is simply no notability regarding what relatives were alive or deceased when one is born. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate category for those whose father died between their conception and birth. It may occasionally apply to those born by caesarian operation after the mother's death (presumably including Julius Caesar). That the father died before theri birth is a notable characteristic, since they had the disadvantage of being brought up by only one parent. Posthumous sons are very commonly named after theri father. Possibly Category:Posthumous children might be a better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on proposed rename (nominator). The proposed rename to Category:Posthumous children highlights the real problem with the category. We don't categorize people as "children" unless they are notable and defined by things that occurred when they were children. (This is because everyone was once a child.) Most of those included in this particular category, however, are defined by things that occurred when they are adults. The fact that they were a posthumous child is interesting and definitely worthy of mention in their articles. But I find the suggestion that Muhammad, Pope Clement VII, Bill Clinton, Red Skelton, and Isaac Newton are all defined by being "posthumous children" quite silly, really. (If we want a category for royalty in the situation, where it can have a significant impact on succession issues, then let's make such a category for royalty, but let's not try to pretend this is defining for non-royals.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting, hmmm... yes (make a list); defining in a wikipedia sense, no (delete a cat). Note we don't have Category:Illegitimate children (wisely deleted in 2006) or other "general family circumstances at birth" cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We usually don't categorize people unless it serves some encyclopedic purpose. For instance, someone's religion or ethnicity is not typically included in a category unless it has some bearing on that person's significance. From this aspect, unless there is some measure of such significance of posthumous birth in the life of the individual, categorization as a "posthumous birth" seems to be quite a trivial categorization. What next, Category:Illegitimate children (already deleted)? Category:Caesarean sections? Category:Bald people? Sure, being bald is "significant" in a personal sense, but it is not generally regarded as an encyclopedic category: see Wikipedia:Overcategorization. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. How is a person defined by when someone else dies? (aka not defining). --Kbdank71 15:15, 27 January 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 of the Federated States of Micronesia[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 result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Of the member states of the UN, this is the last top-level nationality category that is not in the format "Fooian people" or "Foo people". I suggest we change it for consistency. (Without prejudice, of course, to a potential future effort to globally change all of the nationality categories to "People from Foo".) The subcategories use "Federated States of Micronesia foo". Note that Category:Micronesian people is not used for the nationality as it applies to people beyond this country as well. See recent and similar CFD for São Tomé and Príncipe people. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but Question: Are there Micronesian islands that are not part of the federated states? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 22 January 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.
Rename per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Crimson33: It's fine, to comply with the standard. Should I do it myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimson33 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Crimson33 Fine with me to DIY. If you have have trouble deleting the old page, try {{db-author}}. - Stepheng3 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 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: Delete Wikipedia apparently does not categorize people by birthday, probably because it is a non-defining characteristic. Stepheng3 (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – too true. Occuli (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue that the day someone is born on is more defining than the year! But in this case, delete, it's a bad idea to start cat'ing people by the day they were born. I'm sure there's a precedent for this in a previous CFD. Lugnuts (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining. Resolute 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We used to link birth and death dates, but have stopped doing so, and all dates are being progressively delinked. Birthday and death anniversary categories should not be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 22 January 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 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.
