Category:Burials at National Register of Historic Places (U.S.A.)[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: As worded, the current name indicates that people are buried in a place called National Register of Historic Places, which is not possible because the National Register is a list, not a place (much less a cemetery!). Also, the inclusion of "(U.S.A.)" is non-MOS and is unnecessary since the National Register is specific to the United States. The proposed new name is a more accurate description of the category contents. Orlady (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this really a defining characteristic for these people? If not a Delete may be more appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you should say that. Back in January, at the NRHP wikiproject talk page, I proposed that this category should either be deleted or have its name changed, but there was little reaction. After skimming the archived discussion earlier today, I figured it was time to bring the category here in hopes of having some discussion.
As it happens, though, this is a category of categories. Its contents are cemetery-specific categories such as Category:Burials at the Congressional Cemetery; it's not a category full of names of individual dead people. (There's one exception, for the tombstone of Charles Irving Thornton, which is individually listed on the National Register.) --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did notice that this is effectively a container category. But I'm not convinced that we need it. without a good reason to keep it, I'll support deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy for it to be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not defining of the burials or the places. Otto4711 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete, per Vegaswikian's reasoning. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:29, 22 September 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. This is for storms in the ocean and the list article includes the word ocean in its name. If this change is approved, then there will need to be a follow on nomination to change the rest. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 15 September 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:rename. Jafeluv (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match correct name Ultra Naté. Tassedethe (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per naming guidelines. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is likely non-controversial. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:28, 22 September 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:keep. Jafeluv (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The main article, Neo-Stalinism (which, btw, could go for an AfD as well) lacks any sort of coherent defition for the usage of a category. The article is a povish mish-mash with little encyclopediatic value, which lists anything from heaven to earth that has ever received the label 'neo-Stalinist'. Soman (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is a poor one, but the concept is a real one. I may vote the opposite way on Neo-Stalinists. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The main article may be poor (a different question: improve it), but the category concept is sound. Reading the underlying articles confirms this politics exists, at least in former states of the Soviet Union and somewhat elsewhere also. Hmains (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatically delete. No primary definition of "neo-Stalinism" but various multiple definitions, many mutually exclusive. This makes good categorization an impossibility. Nor does anyone call themselves "neo-Stalinist" – the category for those upholding Stalin's legacy in the communist movement following the man's worldwide denunciation is Category:Anti-Revisionists (see Anti-Revisionism). This is why the category is nonsensical, even if the main article should be kept (and I certainly think it should). Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - disagree with the nominator rationale. The article is half decent though its improvement has been hampered in the past by disruptive editing. The concept and the category themselves are very notable. Note the common use of term in sources.radek (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Radek, we are discussing the category, not the article. Why does everybody bring up the article when this is CFD? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the article because it was brought up by the nominator.radek (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep del nomination doesn't bring forward any serious arguments. the Category:Neo-Stalinism speaks for itself, like the sources out there @ gbooks, gscholar.--Termer (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a strong defining characteristic of the articles included. Alansohn (talk) 03:54, 23 September 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:keep. Jafeluv (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As an exception to the normal adjectival form of the country name we have chosen to use, so as to be inclusive of ethnic groups, or citizens of semi-autonomous divisions within the country, for which the term Russian would be confusing or inappropriate. List of Tuvans has been removed by another editor from this category for what I would consider a valid reason. This is a category I recently created. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. This is one of many complicated categorization situations, but since the category includes many articles that include pre-RF persons (in fact many pre-USSR people), 'Russian Federation' is not an improvement. Perhaps 'from Russia' could be used, if we don't want to use ethnic markers. --Soman (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The breakup of USSR has left a lot of Russian people stranded abroad in former Soviet Republics. Additionally there will be White Russians, who emigrated after the 1916 Revolution. Finally, it is not appropriate to categorise people from before the Revolution as from a Russian Federation which did not then exist. And what about South Ossetians, who have been given Russian citzenship against the will of Georgia, within whose borders they live. This whole proposal opens a whole can of worms. Category:Lists of people of the Russian Federation might well be a legitimate subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no. This will make sense a few generations later, when the kids born after 1991 will become notable :)) Right now the cat is composed primarily of people from the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire and even older entities i.e. List of Kazan khans etc. NVO (talk) 10:26, 16 September 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:keep. Jafeluv (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also note the lack of coherent definition at Neo-Stalinism. --Soman (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, for the same reason we have Category:Neo-Nazis. We have an article called Neo-Stalinism. Also, we already have a category:Neo-Stalinism. The deletion of the stalinism categories is unacceptable and seems to be an attempt to distort history and the category system for political reasons. If the stalinism and stalinist categories are deleted, then the Nazi and Nazis categories must be deleted too. Sarjow (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the similarity between Stalinism and Nazism at all apparent, nor do I see why one should or shouldn't exist based on the other. Could you elaborate on that comparison, and maybe respond to the comments in the original CFD for the Stalinists category explaining why they thought Nazi categories were different? Postdlf (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is pretty clear from the articles that these people desire a Stalinist state and Stalinist policies. Hmains (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - per my comment in NeoStalinism above and also per Sarjow.radek (talk) 21:14, 22 September 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:rename. Jafeluv (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. There is also an article about Haumea (mythology) in this category, but if you read it, you'll see that it is connected as well. Debresser (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Nice and straightforward clarification. Iridia (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This seems appropriate to me. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:25, 22 September 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:Keep per WP:SNOW. --Xdamrtalk 19:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Such categories have recently been deleted in other cases[1]. Certainly, we cannot employ different rules for different peoples. I see no relevance, and a term like "survivor" is considered POV by previous decisions. How is "survivor" defined? I suggest either delete or rename to something more precise. UweBayern (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. Ooooooffff. Ok, this is an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point - this user objected to this category being deleted and this is his version of payback. At that discussion it was pointed out that comparisons to the Holocaust are in very bad taste and uncalled for. Obviously this category (Holocaust survivors) is a very important category and there is no reason what so ever to delete it. This should be a "speedy close" with a rejection of the motion for deletion. Additionally, in light of some of the recent other edits of this users (for example [2] (removing sourced info on Nazi past of politicians, calling legit edits "vandalism")), and the fact that this is obviously meant as a disruptive edit (per POINT: If you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked.) someone might want to consider filing a report on this user.radek (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is user who nominated this serious??--Jacurek (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Holocaust survivor is someone who has survived the Holocaust, i.e. most of the times a Jew the Nazis have not managed to kill (and in this precise case someone who had not been in a concentration camp but in hiding, like Victor Klemperer, Gotlib or Rudolf Schottlaender). This is simple and notable enough.--RCS (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the uniqueness of the Holocaust and the few number of survivors make this a notable feature, not only in these peoples' biographies but also in public interest and world history, that should be reflected by a category. The notability of this feature is for exampel indicated by the return of 12,500 hits in a booksearch, publishing dates 1980-2009, string "holocaust survivor" OR "holocaust survivors" OR "survived the holocaust" [3]. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW seems a good reason to close this discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of course. Occuli (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like a very pointy nomination, and looking at links provided by radek and the background of the nominator strongly suggests a POV-pushing agenda. The category is appropriately descriptive, refers to a well-defined relatively small and notable group of people, and is readily recognised in common usage in English. As such, policy also strongly supports retention of the category. EdChem (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i'll be short: the most stupid category deletion proposal i have ever seen on wikipedia. Loosmark (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it should be quite easily to establish a sensible definition; "a person who was detained in German concentration camps during the Second World War, and survived". --Soman (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sorry to learn that Category:Survivors of The Expulsion was deleted, as I thought that a rename would have eben more satisfactory. However, this is an entirely different issue. The "expulsion" was the eviction of Germans from eastern Europe after WWII; it was not a genocide. The Holocaust against the Jews in Germany and German-occupied lands as genocide, and wholly unique. The victims of the purges of Stalin and Mao were generally not selected because of their race. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 15 September 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:rename. Jafeluv (talk) 05:51, 23 September 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 user 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. Jafeluv (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete or merge to Category:Wikipedians in Prescott-Russell - "Wikipedians by small location" category. Russell, Ontario has a population of only 14,000. Too small of a location to efficiently group Wikipedians to support collaboration. Precedent to delete similar categories here amongst other discussions. VegaDark (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- county should be as small a category was we need. I do not say merge, only because the one user is already listed in the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 15 September 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:withdrawn. As a result of the cleanup, re purposing and parent changes, there is no longer a need to rename this. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Single entry category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In doing more digging, I suspect that convention here is not the same one as where people go, but rather is the way you do things in fantasy literature. If so, we may need to consider what should be done. Any experts following this discussion? 01:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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:North American Science Fiction Conventions[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:Merge. While correct, the present name is confusing. Despite the name, this is an American convention and it would be less confusing if the contents were merged into the parent (which I just changed). Right now there are only three articles, so the merge should not present any problems. If more of the individual conventions get articles, then we may need to create a solution to the confusing name if we create a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the NASFiC is not limited to the United States but can be held anywhere in North America when the Worldcon is somewhere other than North America. This category is doubly important now that all of the articles have been moved to the "local" names rather than the formal names for these conventions. - Dravecky (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category names are almost universally plural. Aside from the lack of convincing rationale for the rename, making it a singular will only make it likely that we're back here in six months to correct it back to a plural. - Dravecky (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The North American Science Fiction Convention (NASFiC) is a specific event rather than a category for science fiction conventions in general. At the moment, if this category were full, it would have entries for the ten NASFiCs held since 1975 plus the parent article. Although it is possible that changing the category name to NASFiCs, while more obscure, won't result in the sort of confusion the nominator seems to have.Shsilver (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Happy with that, or with the modified nomination you proposed below. VJDocherty (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the category should be renamed "North American Science Fiction Convention" - to make it clear it is about a particular ongoing SF convention and not meant as a description of a SF conventions held in a geographical area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanitasStation (talk • contribs) 13:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons stated above; however, I agree that it should be renamed and the final "s" dropped, because the "North American Science Fiction Convention (NASFiC)" is the name of a specific, named convention, not a generic term for "all SF/F genre conventions held in North America." This category is as relevant to NASFiC as Category:World Science Fiction Convention is to Worldcon. Kevin Standlee (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For information, the short name of "North American Science Fiction Convention" (NASFiC) is (in the USA and pending in Canada) a registered service mark of the World Science Fiction Society, identifying a specific event. Kevin Standlee (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons stated above. I also agree to the renaming (drop the final "s"). --Lmv4321 (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A clearer and simpler way of accomplishing the same thing would be to delete the category North American Science Fiction Conventions. Instead create a category with a name that indicates such conventions as NASFiCs, WFC, Westercon, etc. That page would have links to the pages with information about those. That page would be linked to North American science fiction conventions and vice versa. Kovar (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modified nomination. The nomination has been modified to drop the 's' at the end which appears to be a good solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per modified nomination. - Fayenatic(talk) 13:01, 17 September 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. Looks like further discussion is certainly needed, and future deletion/merging should not be ruled out.Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge or delete As we continue to work through the literary devices/techniques categories, this one is an odd little collection (to me anyway) of grammatical terminology, literary techniques and styles. I have removed Noun from this category as it is not a "technique," and suggest that the rest be upmerged, or just delete the category entirely? There is still an awful lot of duplication in this area, I feel, with Category:Descriptive technique, Category:Literary techniques, Category:Literary devices, Category:Narrative techniques and still others possibly overlapping, but I do want to tread carefully. Your suggestions are most welcome. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category is already in 5 parents, but you want to merge to none of these, but a different one? Why not Category:Literary devices? Why does it not belong in the rhetorical category? I think I oppose the nom as it stands, although I agree this area is over-tangled. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've anticipated me: my next recommendation was going to be to merge Category:Literary devices and Category:Literary techniques, as the lead of Literary technique makes it clear that these are one and the same thing. I thought it would be clearer to take things step by step, but perhaps I should have nominated all three. Would you support that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten that there was still that outstanding article merge proposal: I'd tagged it a while back not expecting there to be much in the way of discussion. Yes, there's certainly no rush here (this is a pretty overlooked subject area, I think.) Any suggestions on how long to leave the article merge discussion up? It's only been 10 days. Should I just withdraw this CfD now and give the article merge a month? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coming round to oppose mergers of both articles and category:Literary devices. Once the articles have been improved with reliable definitions and examples, this will help you/us to repopulate the categories more accurately, and to see whether any should still be merged. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The related article merge is off, I agree. But as for this CfD, there is no article Descriptive techniques nor could I find anything on Google that suggests that this is anything other than Literary techniques under a different name. Comments? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was thinking of category:literary devices as well as the article merger. Perhaps category:Plot devices might be worth reinstating now that the definitions in the main articles are being cleaned up (see CFD Aug 18). I think the purpose of the nominated Category:Descriptive technique is to operate as a common sub-cat of Rhetoric and Literature, and therefore I would also oppose this one. These categories look unsatisfactory at present but perhaps they could be improved sufficiently by explanations of what they are for and re-populating accordingly. - Fayenatic(talk) 21:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My question remains, what is a "descriptive technique"? Does it refer to literary techniques that describe things, i.e. metaphors, similes and the like? I'm not familiar with this term nor have I found much on it via Google. Does this term and grouping have a real-world currency? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes, but also to category:rhetorical techniques that describe things. If you change your nomination to upmerge to that as well as to literary techniques, then I think that it could go ahead, as the connections to the other three head categories do not seem important. I've checked the category creator's contributions and it's not as if he removed any of the contents from any of the other head categories when he populated this one, so no other work or info would be lost by this merge. - Fayenatic(talk) 08:08, 20 September 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.
