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. Jafeluv (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Freaking hilarious. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These sites are not defined by Elvis' departure. Alansohn (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This category has left the building eh...Delete as OCAT. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OCAT and misnamed. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is worse than the usual performace by performer categories. If every performer was categorised for every venue they used WP would be swamped. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I guess there is not much room in Wikipedia for this sort of fun. Feel free to delete. Pete unseth (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2010 (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: Okay, okay. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Exactly what purpose does a category redirect serve? I have read several past discussions on these and I see absolutely no reason why they should stick around.There's no edit history worth preserving, as there would be for a merged/redirected article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category:Living People is probably the most heavily-populated category in wikipedia; it currently contains 432,777 articles. There must be thousands of new articles added to it every week, and if even 1% of the editors doing so mistakenly capitalise it as "Living People", there redirect helps out. If the category is added by HotCat, then HotCat will automatically resolve the direct; otherwise the bots will pick up the miscategorised articles and fix them. Both those helpful things will be lost by deleting the redirect ... and I can see no way in which it does any harm. Doesn't our esteemed hammer-wielding friend have more pressing targets for his clue-bat? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – 'I don't understand this' is not a persuasive deletion argument. Occuli (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category redirect keeps redlinks from appearing when editors don't get the capitalisation right. Where's the harm in having this- bots fix anything that lands here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers, especially in the light of the current debates on unrefed BLPs. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2010 (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. Kbdank71 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The article Anti-aging redirects to the article Life extension, and the two categories have significant overlap. As I see it, "anti-aging" is just another name for "life extension". Gabbe (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2010 (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. Kbdank71 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the creator of the category in June 2006, I have no objections to the proposed renaming. Road Wizard (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per main article, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2010 (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. "Fooish Fooians" is a good patern for immigrant communities or for communities in the Western world. That is because the "West" understands nationality as a citizenhsip, while the "East" understands it as a national and ethnic association. In Central and Eastern Europe the situation is quite different, because of various historical border changes, many national and ethnic groups found themselves in other countries. The Polish minority in Lithuania is one of them. As a traditional historical minority it has special status in the law, allowing it to have own schools, media etc. financed also by the Lithuanian government. Immigrant communities are without such legal and financial support. Therefore I think the category name should reflect this legal fact, and the fact that these people are simply "Poles from Lithuania" and not "Polish Lithuanians". Darwinek (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One would have thought that Lithuanians would object to being polished. Occuli (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, hold on. It doesn't seem to improve much. Yours truly, tangled in the same blood-or-taxes dichotomy, struggles to understand the scope of the proposed category. Is it, "Ethnic Poles /of any citizenship/ who emigrated from Lithuania /to anywhere/", or "Residents of Poland /of any ethnicity/ who immigrated from Lithuania"? Does the "minority in" (present tense) belong to "minority from" (past tense)? etc. NVO (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I this sense they are from Lithuania, as Poles always lived on this territory, only the "owner" changed. - Darwinek (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they have a Lithuanian passport, they are Lithuanian. There is nothing stopping them from also being Polish but if they do not have a passport which says 'Polska' on the front, they are not Poles. Let me put it this way: they have none of the rights or duties which Poles have but they have all of the rights and duties which Lithuanians have.Varsovian (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admission to the EU makes the point less important than it once was. And, anyway, absolute majority of the duties are imposed by the country of residence. Poles or Lithuanians living in Vienna are free from conscription into Austrian army but in their everyday life they must abide to Austrian laws. NVO (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the admission to the EU made the issue more relevant, since the EU legislation is crafted specifically to protect historical/traditional national minoritites, i.e. not Poles in Vienna, but Poles in Lithuania, Hungarians in Romania etc. - Darwinek (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Polish Americans are Poles, why do they need work permits to work in Poland? Poles don't need work permits to work in Poland. And if Polish Americans are Poles, why don't they need visas to visit the USA? Poles need visas to visit the USA. And if Polish Lithuanians are Poles, why can't they vote in elections to the Sejm? And if Polish Lithuanians are Poles, why are they not entitled to consular assistance from Polish consulates? And if Polish Lithuanians are Poles, why can't they have a Polish ID card? I could go on for some time.Varsovian (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are totally missing the point. You are speaking about citizenship, I am speaking about nationality, which are completely different terms. - Darwinek (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If Polish Americans are Polish nationals, why do they need work permits to work in Poland? Polish nationals don't need work permits to work in Poland. And if Polish Americans are Polish nationals, why don't they need visas to visit the USA? Polish nationals need visas to visit the USA. And if Polish Lithuanians are Polish nationals, why can't they vote in elections to the Sejm? And if Polish Lithuanians are Polish nationals, why are they not entitled to consular assistance from Polish consulates? And if Polish Lithuanians are Polish nationals, why can't they have a Polish ID card? I could go on for some time.
A Polish person is not always a Pole.Varsovian (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Polish national"="Polish citizen". But Polish nationality means Polish ethnicity, in the same manner as Lithuanian nationality means Lithuanian ethnicity for the Lithuanian minority in Poland. - Darwinek (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean they are not Polish nationals but their nationality is Polish?! To you they are Lithunanian citizens and Lithuanian nationals but they are still Poles? Sorry but they are Lithuanians, Polish Lithuanians. Further proof of this comes from the fact that they do not have the right to live in Poland. How can a Pole not have the right to live in Poland?!Varsovian (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. Then you'd have to move Poles in Lithuania article and dozens of other similar articles to "Polish Lithuanians" and other neologisms. This is just incorrect, as I stated above. These ethnic minorities are defined by law of respective countries and no discussion on WP, especially CFD can change that fact. - Darwinek (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? These ethnic minorities are defined by law of respective countries? Could you please be so kind as to post a link to the definitions which the countries use? Then we can check that all the people in the "Poles from Lithuania" category fit that and move all the ones who don't in to "Polish Lithuanians". I note that you have made no attempt to explain how some people who you call Poles have no right to live in Poland.Varsovian (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose as mistake. This category is for Poles in Lithuania, as it says on the category page, which says nothing about whether or not they now have Lithuanian citisenship. If anything they would be Category:Lithuanian people from Poland. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. It includes historic figures that don't fall into current well-established citizenship categories. It's a stab at creating a category similar to Category:Anglo-Irish people, which is, I believe, well-accepted and has an accompanying article, Anglo-Irish. Unfortunately there is no corresponding article for PL-LT. This analogy is not original research - see [1]. This paper could, in its PL-LT aspects, serve as a basis for such an article. Its author, Jan Jędrzejewski, mentions Adam Mickiewicz, Juliusz Słowacki, Józef Piłsudski, Czesław Miłosz, Stanisław Moniuszko, Tadeusz Konwicki, Karol Szymanowski, as persons of dual identities in this regard. To some extent the duality is mentioned and referenced in their WP articles, where their categorization as either Lithuanian or Polish has lent itself to long, painful disputes. But since several of the articles in this category include reliable references discussing the issue, I believe it is valid and should be kept. On another note, it would have been courteous to post a link to this discussion at Wikiproject Lithuania. Novickas (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of this category was mentioned at the Wikiproject Poland talk page on February 5, 2010 [2] and at the Wikiproject Lithuania talk page on February 14, 2010. [3]. Novickas (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is somewhat odd that only one side was invited to participate in this debate....Varsovian (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like Category:Lithuanian people of Polish ethnicity. It is an inconvenient fact, for those who like nationalities to be tidy, that there are many ethnic minorities in eastern Europe, partly due to the mixing of populations when all the countries involved were ruled by Austria, Russia, or Turkey, following the break-up of these empires, or in some cases the break-up of the Soviet Union. In this case, it may be the conquest of eastern Poland by USSR in 1939. The main article for this category is Poles in Lithuania. Some of the people may be of Polish descent (and language) without their ancestors ever (since partition) having lived in a Polish state. However Fooian Booian categories are unsatisfactory, sicne it is never clear if they are Fooians of Booain descent of vice versa; hence my suggestion. The normal form would be Category:Lithuanian people of Polish descent, but I suspect that would not fit the case here. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity/descent arguments can and have been reduced on WP by agreeing that when reliable sources categorize people as Fooian-Booians, it can be used here too. It seems to have worked for Augusta, Lady Gregory, kept as a Featured Article in September 2009 - she is described as Anglo-Irish in the third paragraph. The term Polish-Lithuanian is also supported by reliable sources. Britannica: "Radziwill family - an important Polish–Lithuanian princely family". [4]. Britannica's description of Mikolaj I, known on WP as Mikalojus Radvila the Old: "(Polish-Lithuanian noble)..." [5]. Some others: Anatol Lieven: "The understanding of 'Lithuania' with which Milosz grew up was close to that of Mickiewiecz and Pilsudski, both of whom came from similar backgrounds in the Polish-Lithuanian gentry' [6]. Jerzy Jan Lerski et al: "PLATER, Polish-Lithuanian noble family..." [7]. Timothy Snyder: "Before the attack, Pilsudski had sent fellow Polish Lithuanian Michal Romer to Kaunas..." [8]. Novickas (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that term is the one which the majority of reliable sources use, we should use it here too.Varsovian (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that in many instances "Polish-Lithuanian" means simply "of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" regardless of blood and faith (i.e. the Lipka Tatars are "Polish-Lithuanian Tatars"). NVO (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly most of the people currently in the category were from the era of the PL-LT Commonwealth. To see it otherwise would be recentist. The Radziwill family, for instance, goes back to ca. 1500. But I think the ambiguity/duality persisted after the era ended and remained alive into the 21st century. I've tried to show this here by posting links to recently published sources that describe notable 20th-century figures as "Polish Lithuanian" - Pilsudski, Romer; Milosz, d. 2004, never took a firm stance on his heritage in either direction. [9] Re the Lipka Tatars, I see some recent scholarship uses "Polish-Lithuanian Tatars". [10] Yes, that group transcends the article "Poles in Lithuania", which several editors here have cited as the primary article supporting the category. You're a troublemaker, NVO :) Hybridized categories are old news in the Western world. Less so in those countries that were behind the Iron Curtain. Novickas (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must be sick because I find these citizenship/ethnicity debates strangely compelling. Rename to Category:Lithuanians of Polish descent per convention. And keep up the excellent argumentation. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 11:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't call it sick - it makes me so happy to get outsiders' opinions. I see a couple of problems with a Liths of Polish descent category. Firstly - Polish-Lithuanians weren't necessarily of Polish descent. Consider the wording by this author: "...the Union of Lublin of 1569, which united Poland and Lithuania in a Commonwealth, achieved a marked Polonization of the Lithuanian upper classes..." [11] (my emphasis). Short of mass exhumations and DNA analyses we just can't know what the 'descent' of these people was. We only know that many of them are described in reliable sources as Polish-Lithuanian. Secondly, as NVO pointed out, the Lipka Tatars, rather distinct in terms of religion and culture, are also described as Polish-Lithuanian [12]. It would take time, which I don't have just now, to write a reasonable Polish-Lithuanian article (the current link is a disambig page) analogous to Anglo-Irish, but I've shown a couple of academic refs that could be used. Novickas (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I created a referenced stub for Polish-Lithuanian (adjective). Adjective because I don't know how to overwrite the disambig page. Comments welcome. Novickas (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (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. Kbdank71 14:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Because the associated article has been generalized, the category should be consistent. Cat4567nip (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Checking the logs, the move was done over 2 years ago in January 2008, so the new name is stable. Rename to match the parent article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2010 (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:reverse out-of-process emptying/renaming. (These changes—if proposed the right way—may or may not be appropriate per consensus. The nominator says "yes"; Alansohn says "no" (for at least for two of these); Nyttend doesn't express an opinion on this issue. These can be renominated for a renaming; I suggest that they should perhaps be nominated separately as different considerations may apply for each case.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WikiProject College football naming conventions means that the "College" and "University" denotations should not be there. I've already created the new/better categories sans college or university. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Out-of-Process Emptying / Keep There are some institutions of higher learning where omission of the word "college" or "university" makes the title more confusing. Despite the general rule of the omission of the word from team categories, in these cases, the title is more ambiguous, especially for Geneva College and Presbyterian College where confusion with Swiss cities and major religious denominations becomes a problem. That the categories were emptied out of process only adds to the issue here. Alansohn (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, emptying out of process is not the way to proceed. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2010 (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:Howard Payne University Yellow Jackets football coaches[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:delete (has remained empty, but I also confirm Bradjamesbrown|'s sentiments regarding how this was done).Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Speedy delete This is an improperly formatted category title per WikiProject College football's standards. The words "College" and "University" are never included when creating coaching categories. I've already gone ahead and created Category:Howard Payne Yellow Jackets football coaches; this one just still needs to be deleted. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename I wouldn't go so far as "never included", but in this case the title without "university" appears to predominate. Alansohn (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support end result, oppose the manner in which it was done. Category moves are always brought to CFD, and not performed out-of-process with CFD in effect asked to ratify the result. In the future, please bring renaming requests here, (and then a bot can do all the tedious work of changing the categories on articles!) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2010 (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:Double upmerge all - double upmerge each Category:X-Y relations to Category:Bilateral relations of X and Category:Bilateral relations of Y. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. a category that will probably have 1 article. relevant categories of Category:Bilateral_relations_of_Moldova and Category:Bilateral_relations_of_Spain already exist. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little apparent likelihood for expansion beyond the lone eponymous article. Reconsider and recreate if additional articles are created. Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agree with deletion of others. unnecessary spill of Molodovan cats. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, as BHG points out below we do need to upmerge the single articles to both applicable parents for each, which shouldn't be too labour intensive. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all: useless so far. - Altenmann >t 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to both respective parents. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to both parents: we are unlikely ever to have more than 2-3 articles, at most - one on each embassy and one on the relationship. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (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.
