Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 20 September 22 >

September 21[edit]

Category:Famines in British Empire[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as it is inherently non-NPOV terminology, created by User:Zuggernaut who from his edits to British Empire, India, and Famine in India, amongst other articles, clearly believes there is a causal link between the British Empire and famines, and is determined to have Wikipedia reflect this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it's not an inherently non-NPOV category, it's just redundant. Everything in it is already in Cat: Famines in India or Cat: Famines in Ireland except the Highland Potato Famine. Roscelese (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would keep the category as it is helpful to readers trying to locate famines suffered by the citizens of the British Empire. IMO, POV allegations stem from a very strong affiliation of User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick with British Empire. Another user has justified the rationale behind adding Famine in India to this category.[1] While the category mostly contains Europeans and Indian famines currently, famines from Africa and other parts of the world can be added if they were citizens of the Empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep the category as it is helpful to readers trying to locate famines suffered by the citizens of the British Empire. This thinking indicates a selective agenda. What about famines in, to mention just a few, the Austria-Hungary, Ottoman, Russian, and Spanish empires?? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pace Roscelese, notable famines occurred elsewhere in the British Empire. Numerous reliable sources (e.g., Famine: a short history by Cormac Ó Gráda; The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire; Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis; At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability, and disasters by Piers M. Blaikie) discuss the issue of British famine policy, reaching different conclusions overall, and sometimes different conclusions concerning different places. So long as RSs are discussing the matter, and we describe them with NPOV, there's no problem. Nor does a category x phenomenon in y domain imply that being in y causes x (See for example, Category:Infectious disease deaths in the Ottoman Empire) Like other issues of relevance to the British Empire: say industrialization, slavery, or cricket, it's legitimate to use the Empire as a superordinate category (which isn't to say that we must create a category for these other examples right away).--Carwil (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree that British Empire famine policy is important - the category itself just seems redundant. Actually, maybe "Cat: Famines in India" and "Cat: Famines in Ireland" could be listed in both "Cat: Famines" and "Cat: Famines in the British Empire"? (Are there articles on famines elsewhere in the empire?) Roscelese (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the two categories in "Cat: Famines in the British Empire" would wrongly associate famines that happened before and after the period with the British Empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All except one of the ones in the India category were at least under Company rule, it seems, and all of the ones in Ireland seem to be in that timeframe. I'll concede that that comment didn't allow for the possibility of future articles, though. Roscelese (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion, I'm explicitly considering future articles: there's a wide range of notable pre-British famines, and the "near miss" events of the independence period are probably best discussed in this category. So are not yet existent articles like Famine in Malawi (or Nyasaland).--Carwil (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Selective category apparently designed to further an agenda. See my comment above. Perhaps it's easier to just create a category than explore, write, clarify and source complex or complicated historical information, and do it without violating copyrights or Wikipedia rules. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t is entirely correct. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make a strong case for a Famine in the British Empire article to "explore, write, clarify and source complex or complicated historical information" on the topic. However, I would ask you to take a breath, and consider again whether a category such as Famine in the British Empire or say, Murder in the United States expresses a point of view, or whether you're simply upset that Zuggernaut seems to to you to have one.--Carwil (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am hardly the only one to detect Zuggernaut's agenda. I count at least three so far. And please be more careful with the patronizing tone. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to 'Famines in British rule in India'. It is appropriate to categorise the events into major periods of history of India. Shyamsunder (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Category:Famines in the British Empire as it is not restricted to India. I must say that I don't see that a category 'X in Y' expresses any point of view. It is not 'Category:Famines inflicted deliberately on helpless indigenes by the ruthless colonialists of the British Empire' or 'Category:Famines rendered relatively painless due to the prompt and selfless actions of the wise and benevolent British'. (I would not myself place Famine in India in it.) Occuli (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the connection between famines and the BE? "Famines that started on a Tuesday" would be ridiculous, but why? Because they could equally have started on a Wednesday and it wouldn't make a material difference to anything - there is no connection between a famine and the day of the week. So what is special about a famine that started in the British Empire? It's not a geographical term like Ireland or India, it's a political body. The common thread is that the British were in charge. That is not expressing some kind of POV? I think some of you are being rather naive here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Synthesis and POV to boot. RS do not draw links between famines in different parts of the Empire. Neither should we. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider these RS:
  • Bender, Jill. “The Imperial Politics of Famine: The 1873–74 Bengal Famine and Irish Parliamentary Nationalism.” Éire-Ireland 42, no. 1 (2007): 132-156.
  • Caldwell, John C. “Malthus and the Less Developed World: The Pivotal Role of India.” Population and Development Review 24, no. 4 (December 1998): 675-696.
  • Gray, Peter. “Famine and Land in Ireland and India, 1845–1880: James Caird and the Political Economy of Hunger.” The Historical Journal 49, no. 01 (2006): 193-215.
The grounds for this category is not that the BE precipitated these famines (although Watts' 1983 study of northern Nigeria suggests British agricultural policy played a role there), but because there are cross-empire aspects of famine response policy including the shared ideological training of colonial officials (Caldwell, and also the polemical but scholarly work by Mike Davis), and the evaluation of government responsibility to help (Gray). Other RS claim that the Famine Codes produced by the 1880 Famine Commission played a model role elsewhere, and that British military policy drained resources away from famine relief. As you can see, RS have a variety of POVs on the issue, but all give grounds for having such a cateorgy.--Carwil (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The grounds for this category is not that the BE precipitated these famines; however the provocative categorization and title imply as much, as Carwil acknowledges. An encyclopedia does not (need to) lure informed readers with provocations but puts the truth (sourced references) out there and allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Obviously with more than three million articles in English language Wikipedia, and who knows how many editors, anonymous or otherwise, POV seeps through but that doesn't justify it or mean it shouldn't be removed wherever possible. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BE 1880 famine codes that User:Carwil pointed out are still the basis of famine relief in India and elsewhere. Hope that helps neutralize POV allegations. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category is problematic for reasons mentioned above. But id also like to say the fact it was created by Zuggernaut, whos actions over recent days has been to insert clearly POV material into articles, violate rules on canvassing (which was done in a POV way) and now these new categories hes created, all of which relate to his views on the British Empire highlights there is an agenda here which undermines wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for a history expert - is it accurate (or indeed, strictly true but misleading) to describe mid-19th-century Ireland as part of the "British Empire"? If I recall correctly, Ireland at that time was an integral part of the United Kingdom and not an imperial possession. Not saying that the majority of inhabitants were happy with it, but I still wonder whether the distinction is important. Would it be correct/fair to describe e.g. Scotland, Wales or London were parts of the "British Empire"? TheGrappler (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the history expert you're looking for but I like to think if a smaller sub-set is a a part of a larger set then all attributes that apply to the larger set apply to the sub-set. Also, in my view, the UK itself was the chief and primary component of the British Empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not the history expert you're looking for but I like to think ... ... [Also], in my view..." Question: If you are not an expert on history then why are you creating contentious categories on such a complex topic?
Also I should belatedly point out that the category would have been more properly and accurately named Famines which occurred during the time of the British Empire or something along that line, clunkier but more grammatically correct. (Although in doing so the flaws in the category might seem clearer.) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an amateur who happens to have studied the period, rather than an expert, but I think it would be fair (and not especially misleading) to describe Ireland as part of the Empire. Roscelese (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection I actually think there might be a problem with it - it strikes me there is a big contrast between the British Empire and the German and Russian Empires: for the latter pair, the "core territories" (Germany/Russia) really were referred to as "Empire" whereas for "British Empire" the emphasis does seem to be on the colonial possessions. Contrast this to the rhetorical term "American Empire" when used to describe the influence of the U.S. abroad, particularly in "satellite" or "client" states - admittedly it's the use of the word "Empire" as a rhetorical device, but it's again clearly referring to the overseas influence rather than the territorial core; there's no suggestion that Ohio or Utah are "part of the American Empire" in that sense (NB I'm talking about the "Yankee neo-imperialist" sense rather than the Jeffersonian "Empire of Liberty" sense, where the focus really was what it is now the continental U.S.). It strikes me that pretty much nobody seems to call the Channel Islands and Isle of Man (which are not directly part of the UK, nor overseas territories with British jurisdiction, but do form Crown Dependencies) as "part of the British Empire", presumably precisely because of their proximity to the "core" United Kingdom. Calling 19th-century Ireland "part of the British Empire" therefore seems even shakier - it may well be the Irish nationalist point of view, but it certainly wasn't an imperial possession per se. It's also not true that Ireland was part of the British Empire in a precisely analagous way to how Bavaria or Prussia was part of the German Empire (an uncontroversial statement). I'm not saying that it's definitely wrong and/or misleading, but I'd like someone who really knows their stuff to have a look at it. TheGrappler (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did understand why you were questioning the inclusion of Ireland; I was saying that in terms of British policy wrt Ireland, it would arguably be fair to describe it as part of the empire in a way that was not true of Scotland or Wales. Roscelese (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried that to call Ireland part of the British Empire in a way that Scotland and Wales were not, is straying far deep into Irish nationalist point of view to be completely neutral: at the very least there was no such distinction from a purely legal point of view. And of course some pretty lousy things happened in Scotland too, yet both Scotland and Ireland returned MPs to the House of Commons, and people who saw themselves as Scottish or Irish as well as British - in the same way that others felt both English and British - sat in the House of Lords, held leadership positions in the British Army, and conquered and administered the overseas Empire. I'm not saying that it's an invalid point of view that Ireland was treated like part of the Empire (in particular, anti-Catholic discrimination had a massively disproportionate impact in Ireland compared to Scotland or England) or that most people in Ireland regarded themselves as British. But in your statement that "it would arguably be fair to describe it as part of the empire in a way that was not true of Scotland or Wales" I fear that such a description is "arguably fair but of contestable neutrality". If someone with a British/Unionist point of view objected I think they'd have a fair point too. TheGrappler (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC) [Of course, if a whole bunch of Brits, or expert editors who understand British perspectives, come on here and say "No contest from us, there's very broad agreement between the British and Irish nationalists, that Ireland was part of the Empire", then I'll withdraw my objection. But in the interim, I'm suspicious that there's an NPOV problem here. TheGrappler (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)][reply]
It is certainly complex, which highlights the problems of this category trying to simplify the issue by grouping all the famines together caused by many different reasons and including ones that took place within the United Kingdom itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the British Empire defines that entity as, 'comprised [of] the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom.' As Ireland during the European Potato Failure was part of the United Kingdom, it could be argued that it was in no way part of the Empire. You could argue the opposite as well, but either way sounds POV. Hence why the category is dubious. Can we have 'Category:Famines exploited by nationalist politicians' as well? 90.193.97.39 (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. If we already have categories for famines in India, Ireland and elsewhere, there is no need for this category. I'd add that I see no point to this category's existence. Resolute 14:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless other articles can be added to the category which are about famines elsewhere in the British Empire than India (Ireland technically having been part of the UK at the time). Subcategorising the famines in India would be redundant because there are only 18 in that category. If they were going onto a second page that might make sense. Munci (talk) 15:15, 29 September 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:American Football League first round signees[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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American Football League first round signees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as a non-defining characteristic. This is better off as a list if someone is so inclined. TM 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not defining, vague and confusing. First round of what? Signed what? Why is it important to know that a person was taken in the first round before signing but not the second? I'm well aware of the level of poaching against the NFL, NHL and NBA when competitor leagues were formed in that time frame, but I can think of only very, very few cases where a player making such a jump was truly defining. Resolute 14:48, 28 September 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:Aleatory compositions[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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aleatory compositions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Dubious inclusion criteria, very small category, not likely to expand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:14, 21 September 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.

French Revolution events[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: Merge. Dana boomer (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:1794 events in the French Revolution to Category:1794 events of the French Revolution
Propose merging Category:1795 events in the French Revolution to Category:1795 events of the French Revolution
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. Tim! (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no need for two categories for the same subject. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:30, 27 September 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:Shows on Tickle-U[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Shows on Tickle-U (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. We don't categorize by programming blocks on networks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:51, 21 September 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:Catholics opposed to the Third Reich[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 Catholics, Keep German Catholics. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Catholics opposed to the Third Reich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German Catholics opposed to the Third Reich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category and subcategory is subjective, of no utility, and potentially unlimited. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are there any categories for other religions/religious groups which may have opposed the Third Reich? No, as far as I can tell. This is a ridiculous category; i.e. what about Category:Catholics opposed to abortion, Category:Catholics opposed to heresy, etc? Amateurish absurdity. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain if you would, do you object just to Category:Catholics opposed to the Third Reich or its member Category:German Catholics opposed to the Third Reich too? The argument about "ridiculous as 'opposed to abortion'" does not work here. The Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, and broadcasts this opinion to lay Catholics very clearly. We can take it that Catholics oppose abortions, by default. But the relationship between the Church and the Reich was not as straightforward. Millions lay Catholics willfully followed the Nazis when the Church was repressed, then appeased with concordats then repressed again etc. I might support renaming to reflect the fact that the members of Category:German Catholics opposed to the Third Reich are Catholic clergymen or the conservative politicians (Christian Democrats) affiliated with the Church. East of Borschov 11:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:: Updated WP:CFD in accordance with East of Borschov's suggestions for the same reasons as initial cfd. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the relationship between the Church and the Reich was not as straightforward. Millions lay Catholics willfully followed the Nazis...: Absolutely right. The Third Reich was heavily Catholic in its upper echelons. You would be better advised to explore that and update Wikipedia appropriately or create a page on that topic in the name of scholarship.Nonetheless, the category is still amateurish, subjective, and potentially unlimited.Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is useful - "opposition" is far too fuzzy. And of course I'm sure that most German Catholics made very vocal statements of how opposed they were, in retrospect! A more objective criterion might be based on actual membership of the German Resistance but even that is fuzzy and I suspect "Catholics in the German Resistance" would be overcategorization. TheGrappler (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - i do not see how this is really notable or useful. Jewish supporters of the Third Reich would certainly be useful, but this one adds nothing. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial intersection between religious and political beliefs. Resolute 14:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As long as the German Catholics category remains and any Germans in the to-be-deleted parent are recategorised. No doubt most Polish Catholics were opposed, but becasue they were Poles, not specifically because they were Catholics. Similarly for English Catholics: opposition will be because they were loyal Englishmen. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 30 September 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:Fictional mongooses[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: SNOW keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional mongooses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Excessive sub-categorisation. Upmerge to parent category:fictional mammals: doesn't belong in category:mongooses as it evidently doesn't fit the format of the other entries in that category. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand the rationale for this proposal. Perhaps the nominator didn't notice that there are dozens of other sub-cats of Category:Fictional mammals for specific kinds of mammals, which are also parented in the respective categories for the real animals. Cgingold (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rikki-Tikki-Tavi is a mongoose and clearly belongs in a subcategory of Category:Mongooses. Having a distinct "fictional" subcategory actually keeps him nice and separate from the more scientific articles, which is surely what the nominator desires? TheGrappler (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this one, using the format of every other subcategory of Category:Fictional mammals. Not sure why this would be any different.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. "Fictional [insert animal here]" is generally an acceptable subcategory of Fictional mammals. (Didn't know that Meerkats are a type of mongoose; also, I added Mina Mongoose.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For all the reasons above and I already learnt there are fictional mongooses other than Rikki-Tikki-Tavi. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, part of a hierarchy. Many sorts of animals and other things have "fictional" categories within the main categories. It doesn't matter that category:mongooses contains species while this one contains fictional characters. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:45, 22 September 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.

Quarterbacks[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: Merge all. Dana boomer (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American Football League quarterbacks to Category:American football quarterbacks
Propose merging Category:National Football League quarterbacks to Category:American football quarterbacks
Propose renaming Category:Lists of National Football League starting quarterbacks to Category:Lists of American football quarterbacks
Propose renaming Category:Lists of college football program starting quarterbacks to Category:Lists of American football quarterbacks
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Similar to this ongoing nomination, all of these players are categorized by their teams, which indicate what league they're in by association. I'm not as certain on the third and fourth nominations, but it may make sense to do so if we remove the top two.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support much needed recategorization. per WP:OCAT--TM 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:37, 21 September 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:Marxism task force articles[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 all. Dana boomer (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marxism task force articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The Marxism task force has been merged into WikiProject Socialism per this discussion. Greg Bard (talk) 02:21, 21 September 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:Burials at missions[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 to Category:Burials at Spanish missions in California. Dana boomer (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Burials at missions to Category:Burials at California missions
Nominator's rationale: to be consistent with supercategory (California missions) TheGrappler (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – this is the brain-child of EstherLois, aka Pastorwayne, who could create dubious categories far faster than cfd could delete them (for which he was eventually blocked, a block which he continues to attempt to evade via socks such as User:Loisnaomi, blocked yesterday). I personally think that Category:Burials at missions should be upmerged to Category:Burials at churches. (The 2 subcats are in California via other parents.) Occuli (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I take the point, but I think there's actually some mileage in this one (for people who are unclear, this category actually really is "Burials at California missions" but is under a rubbish name). It's a particular subset of churches, and the California missions category (which certainly should exist) could meaningfully have this as a subcategory. TheGrappler (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually (non-expert) I've only heard the word "missions" in this religio-military colonial context, referring to the Spanish in the Americas. Weren't the early Dutch, British and French settlements in the Americas (and Africa) generally called "forts"? (And didn't they lack the religious component?) I'm not sure whether there were Spanish missions e.g. in the Philippines. But even if there are, if there aren't articles on them, there's not much point creating the supercategory "Spanish missions" just yet. At any rate, "Spanish missions in California" seems a perfectly reasonable and well-defined category, regardless of chicanery elsewhere in the category tree, and "Burials at California missions" or "Burials at Spanish missions in California" seems a decent subcategory. TheGrappler (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I recovered from a viral episode just in time to be of some use (hopefully). The Spanish missions were much more than mere churches -- they were the nucleus around which a settlement would form, and as such were an integral part of Spanish colonization in the Americas, which was carried out very differently from the French or British approach. The strange thing is that there are only two categories for mission burials. Surely there must be articles for burials at other missions, and not just here in California. So in anticipation of additional articles & subcats, I would suggest Renaming to Category:Burials at Spanish missions in the United States (with Category:Spanish missions in the United States as one of its parents). Cgingold (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burials at Spanish missions in California would work and I would prefer it. However, "Burials at California(n) missions" would also work. But "Burials at Spanish missions in the United States" is not appropriate, as the USA was patently not relevant to that part of north America at that time. Thus the category above: "Spanish missions in the United States" is also flawed. Ephebi (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that upmerging too far? This category specifically covers burials at Spanish missions in California, it just has an awful name. TheGrappler (talk) 22:59, 22 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_21&oldid=1142606100"