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, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξxplicit 04:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per parent cat.s and articles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:14, 24 June 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:keep. (I note that the categories were not tagged for deletion with {{subst:cfd}} on the main category page. This doesn't affect the outcome here, but it does mean that the discussion perhaps didn't attract as many comments as it otherwise would had. I mention it just to be thorough and to serve as a general reminder to nominators to tag the categories they nominate on the main category page, not on the category talk page.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These categories are completely absurd. None of these have ever had more than 1 district, and Delaware is the only one of these with the potential for multiple ones, as it is the only state. As for the *Congressional districts of the Philippines, it has not even been part of the U.S. for 70 years or so. All of these are irrelevant, and until there is are least two districts for a given state/territory, it should not have a category titled 'Congressional districts of *insert name here*.' ToaNidhiki05 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWP:OC#SMALL explicitly allows for small categories that are part of a larger scheme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That applies to categories with a few members; these only have 1 each, and a category should, by definition, have more than 1 member. It is common sense to delete these. ToaNidhiki05
Oppose per Koavf. Deleting these categories will hinder readers who go to the main category for congressional districts. This is an international encyclopedia, and even if there is just one in the category, having them is not causing any trouble. To quible that "districts" is plural and categories should always have multiple articles sounds like a red herring. Having consistent naming structures and categories for all districts, including territories, assists readers not familiar with American government.DCmacnut<> 20:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:OC#SMALL and DCmacnut. There are plenty of precedents for single-article categories as part of a series. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a category called Category:At-large United States congressional districts that is intended for these. There is no need for a separate category for each of these; that assumption is ridiculous. I still se no reason to keep these. ToaNidhiki05 20:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That category is primarily used for the dozens of defunct At-large congressional districts (though I'm surprised Delaware is the only "current" district listed). Again, the central point is that these proposed deletions are relevant categories and serve a purpose as part of the broader categoriziation of congressional districts.DCmacnut<> 20:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all. —Markles 22:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All as these are part of a broader category navigation structure. Alansohn (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it makes more sense to have a category with only one article in it than it does to have a Category:Congressional districts of XXX for only 49 of the 50 states. — JPMcGrath (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, at-large is more than just territories.—Markles 00:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merger - Great idea. ToaNidhiki05 19:05, 27 June 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.
Hmm - both name forms have their problems. "Local politicians" is a fairly meaningless concept given the old adage that "all politics are local". "Councillors" doesn't easily cover directly elected Mayors and aldermen (and separate categories will be a nightmare). How about local government politicians? Timrollpickering (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's inclusive, but it feels a bit verbose and clumsy. I think I'd put that as the third choice, behind the other two. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "Local Politicians" is chosen, then candidates for office would be included. Vernon White. . . Talk 21:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vernon, that's a very good point. It makes more sense to me to keep these as category of office-holders, not just of candidates and activists, because as Timrollpickering points out, all politicians are local in some sense, and the defining characteristic being captured in this category is that these people are holders of elected office in local govt. So that makes up my mind: Rename to foo councillors, and use a headnote in the category to stress that it includes aldermen and mayors. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer "Councillors"; though strictly this would not include elected mayors and aldermen, most will previously have been councillors. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 26 June 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:Census Regions of the United States[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. Blurpeace 05:56, 25 June 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: Extremely provocative / bad idea for a cat; irrelevant, personal life info (BLP) and term 'RastafarianISM' is taken as patently offensive by Rastafarians - amazing people cannot even read our articles and learn something from them! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query – given that we have Category:Converts from Christianity (to all of which the 'irrelevant, personal life info (BLP)' rationale would apply) is there a rename which is not 'patently offensive by Rastafarians'? (The article is Rastafari movement. Incidentally the Bob Marley article does not support his presence in 'Converts to Rastafarianism from Christianity' as there is no info that he was initially 'Christian' and there is info that he was baptised in 1980. Does the Rastafari movement consider itself necessarily non-Christian anyway?) Occuli (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose "Converts from Christianity to Rastafari" would be an improvement, but it is still problematic, as they are not necessarily always considered mutually exclusive by all the adherents, as you pointed out. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could one rename Category:Converts to Rastafarianism to "Converts to Rastafari" and merge the other one into it? Or do you argue that Category:Rastafarians is sufficient and that the category system does not lend itself to encapsulating the progress of an individual from one calling to another? I expect we could find 'converts from X to Y and then Z' with a bit of digging. Occuli (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's nothing wrong with Category:Rastafarians and including people in it, what's wrong with including people in Category:Converts to Rastafarianism or Category:Converts to Rastafari, just the same as for other movements, etc.? If some BLP subjects don't treat their beliefs as mutually exclusive with some other religion, we need not refer to them as converts from that other faith, so I'm willing to grant that Category:Converts to Rastafarianism from Christianity is potentially weaker than Category:Converts to Rastafarianism/Category:Converts to Rastafari. The thing that matters, however, is that Rastafari is generally described as a religious movement, does happen to be described as a type of system that one converts to, and I have found plenty of Google Books sources from reliable publishers discussing "conversions to Rastafarianism" -- so long as it's a matter of WP:RS. And if it's a matter of semantics, that, too, can easily be fixed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for Bob Marley, whenever asked when or how long he's been Rasta, he would always insist that he became a Rastafarian at the beginning of creation, and thus did not ever "convert"...! At any rate, Category:Converts to Rastafari might be okay, but then it would largely duplicate Category:Rastafarians, since as you pointed out again, it is a rather "new" movement. A few exceptions might be younger generation people like Marley's kids who were born into it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename one and delete the other. Rename to maybe Category:Converts to the Rastafari movement to keep inline with the main article's name and delete the latter; technically, since Rastafari(anism) is a religious movement, someone can be both a Rasta and a Christian simultaneously (as, in fact, Bob Marley was.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this solution sounds good and sensible to me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:40, 24 June 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 all. — ξxplicit 04:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, uncontroversially accepted naming. East of Borschov 05:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom to match related article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator for consistency and to match title of parent article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 26 June 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:Civil war between the Armagnacs and the Burgundians[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. — ξxplicit 04:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds fine to me. ToaNidhiki05 20:53, 24 June 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.
