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. Virtually everything here is about groups and organizations and not buildings. So since theater is ambiguous, this would be renamed to make the link to groups more clear and the intention less ambiguous. So a rename to Category:Youth theatre groups, Category:Youth theatre organizations, Category:Youth theatre companies or a similar name would be most appropriate. If there are any buildings included, they can be cleaned up after any move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Youth theatre groups. This is mainly to be like musical groups. Groups seems the best word to indicate a collection of people who practice an art form. Organizations tends to sound more like a sponsoring organization, and companies is best left to businesses. Troupes might also work, but I think groups is a good term and gives the sense of meaning we want.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Youth theatre companies. Most are theatre companies. I noticed that The Egg (Theatre) is a youth theatre building, but it is already categorised as a theatre by location & date, and I don't suppose there will be sufficient notable cases to justify keeping a category for youth theatre buildings. – FayenaticLondon 20:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from McDonald, North Carolina[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: Per WP:SMALLCAT Town is less than 120 people with two persons in the category ...William 21:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur - I agree. Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. While there might be an argument that most articles indicate place and not county, I think it is simple enough to move up to the county, and there are lots of extremely small places involved that are not worth seperately categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom --DBigXray 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from St. Pauls, North Carolina[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 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:Wikipedia requested photographs in Eastern Mountain Coal Fields[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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 main category. It is reasonable to make subcategories and side categories of this, however. The term "Indian rock" as a group name for bangla and raga rock makes sense, but the article is really shaky on the applicability of a clear genre here. Category:Raga rock music groups would make a fine category, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Split. Indian rock being a legitimate rock music genre, the current category commingles groups playing this style of rock with rock groups from India. I'm not able to suggest the right name for the category for bands playing Indian rock though, so some clever suggestions are needed, __meco (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is why the x of y format might be better for musical groups. Category:Rock music groups of India would seem the natural way to seperate this out. I guess I would support this, but am not sure other will support a special usage here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the established scheme is the country name in front. Changing all of that would be a much bigger issue, and I'm not sure the issue here is so big we need to do that. That's why I wanted to change the genre category name. __meco (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The usual format for groups from the US playing this genre, in Category:American rock music groups by genre, would be "American Indian rock groups", but I don't think that would be helpful. "Indian people" was kept at 2011 July 13, but this may be an occasion to depart from the standard... to what, though? – FayenaticLondon 08:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the article Indian rock, which is poorly sourced, I'm not convinced that it really is a genre; the page rather to be about the whole variety of the usual rock genres, plus some local ones, within the country. In which case, just keep. – FayenaticLondon 19:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I came to make this nomination is the existence of the Norwegian rock group Raga Rockers which is known for playing raga rock, which is a rock style of Indian origin. Similarly bangla rock I suppose (I haven't checked) is being played by other than India-based rock groups. __meco (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps it would be sufficient to add a new sub-category Category:Indian-rock groups outside India. However, apart from their name containing "raga rock", the Wikipedia article on Raga Rockers does not mention Indian influences; their infobox mentions it, but even there it is along with rock'n'roll and Finnish rock, so it's not presented as strongly defining for them; and their fan website home page says they sprang out of the punk community in the 80s. I don't see that there is sufficient material to form a new category for Indian-rock groups. – FayenaticLondon 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)That would be a very "quick and dirty" solution. __meco (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2012 (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.
Aren't both these names a bit POV? Couldn't we come up with something more neutral? __meco (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Meco, both of these have a POV and are against current community consensus. please see my comment below.--DBigXray 20:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Kashmir independence movement in the article on Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front it is stated that this organization seeks the independence of Kashmir. Freedom seems much to for a particular point of view, while independence makes it clear what these groups want. The current name is also difficult because some of the rhetoric of those who favor all Kashmir being part of Pakistan would suggest that such a result would equal the freedom of Kashmir. This category is meant to group those who advocate for the indepedence of Kashmir, so it should say that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Kashmir independence movement" per John. By the way, the separatist movement is irrelevant to Aksai Chin because there is no permanent civilian population there, among other reasons. Shrigley (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Kashmir seperatist movement per current community consensus. Because this is the most neutral and correct term at the moment. Kashmir gained Independence in 1947 and it is already independent. The current movement is seperate these parts controlled by Pakistan, India and China to into a new territory. A Template on the topic is also renamed as Template:Kashmir separatist movement after several lengthy debates on AfDs. As Kashmir Conflict is a controversial topic with different sides being sensitive to the words, I feel it is best to follow the community consensus --DBigXray 20:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Kashmir seperatist movement" per DBigXray's rationale. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can live with the seperatist name. I would argue indepepdence/freedom are too loaded of terms. The claim "Kashmir gained independence in 1947" just stikes me as coming from the mindset that says Mao was no imperialist despite what he did to Tibet, and the relationship of China and Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia, but that is another story. Seperatist works though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that was just a fact from pages of history, placed here to help contributors with a context, Not sure how to tweak those words of this fact that were presented in the exact same way in history books around the world. As for the category name Category:Kashmir seperatist movement is the most neutral name I can think of, plus it has community consensus. --DBigXray 07:56, 3 August 2012 (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 this seems both not defining and overly broad in application. In fairness, there are 40+ other WP categories with "children of...", but the parents in those categories are generally more restrictive groups (e.g., monarchs of thus-and-such country). I haven't surveyed extensively, but I wonder how many leads of the biographical articles included in this category mention that they were a child of Presbyterian clergy. Jbening (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hard to see how this will be a notability-defining attribute of, well, almost anybody. Even if "child of clergy" is somehow notably defining, will the Presbyterian-ness of it be the defining quality? --Lquilter (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename - I created this category and was not aware of the apparent prior controversies surrounding similar categories. I based my research for this category, in part, on other Wikipedia articles such as manse (which in turn discusses the phrase "sons of the manse" and List of children of clergy, so I think there is some basis in Wikipedia for this category. In researching the category, I found that almost every individual article that I linked to did, indeed, mention the Presbyterian aspect of the subject's background, so, again, I don't think this category is as trivial as the critics seem to believe. I don't have the time or engergy to engage in a prolonged debate on this category and will accept whatever decision is made by the powers that be. One option is to create a new article based on the category, since this seemed to work for the above-mentioned precedents.~~Bismarckboy~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bismarckboy (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in on your creation, Bismarckboy. It's not that I think these are "trivial" attributes; it's that they are not "notability-defining". Categorization is a different and arguably higher threshold than simply being noted in the article: It's a question of whether viewers to the encyclopedia will be expecting this category, and will they expect to find these articles in it? "Children of clergy", generically, I can see an argument for; certainly, there's a certain amount of lore and study around the cultural attributes of these folk, like "military brats". But breaking it down by type of clergy seems to not capture the (arguably) defining quality. Now, for their own religious orientation, "Presbyterian" is certainly a reasonable category. But defining them by their parents' religion seems a bit non-defining. --Lquilter (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2012 (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.
Indian independence activists from West Bengal[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 the people working for Indian independence lived in an undivided province of Bengal. The idea of "West Bengal" is a post-independence one. To apply it to this category is totally anachronistic, and creates a false division among a people in what was then a unified political division.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 'Category:Indian independence activist from Bengal(British India)' Nice to see the follow up nomination, JPL. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Indian independence activists from Bengal" per above reasons. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2012 (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.
