Category:Economics of innovation organizations[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It would appear that the correct name for this cat should be 'Innovation economics organizations", but in any case, none of the entries currently in this cat actually seem to have anything to do with innovation economics. Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some articles are clearly irrelevant to the title of the category (the Office of Technology Assessment wasn't primarily concerned with economics). The rest are research centres concerned with technology or economics. That doesn't mean that they are primarily concerned with the economics of innovation unless you have such a broad definition of the term that the category would include every mainstream business school. In any case, the inclusion criteria seem subjective. Pichpich (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Most of the content is universities (etc) that research this subject, but they research many subjects. This is thus too like a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete -- just because it needs updating doesn't mean it should be deleted. There are dozens of organizations that exist purely in the realm of the Economics of Innovation. Maybe it could be consolidated to the main entry "Economics of Innovation", but the idea shouldn't be done away with . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.238.66 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a needless small cat with no clear inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 7 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'REanme all -- the consensus having renamed RoC articles to Taiwan is that PRC articles & categories should be at China. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/upmerge per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Again, unless it's renamed Mainland China. The correct name is the PRC. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This seems like a straightforward follow-up moving the main article from PRC to China. And pragmatically, I think most readers will find these titles more intuitive since the overwhelming majority associate the word China with the state formally known as PRC. Pichpich (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Looks good, makes sense, given the recent merges to China and to Taiwan. czar·· 16:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the new names reflect common usage of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Seems like a sensible default, especially as their all "in" and "of" China. CMD (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and per prevalent naming convention. - Darwinek (talk) 19:16, 5 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:51, 8 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus. No prejudice against an immediate re-nom or a group nom. - jc37 04:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.:“People associated with Ibiza” has a distinctive difference to “people from Ibiza” as this category list people who have been born on the Island e.g Olivia Molina (actress), Born on the island in 1980, Where as, for instance Raoul Villain sort refuge on the island and then died there. this gives him the distinction of having an association.Stavros1 (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.:No problem with this Category, plenty of examples on Wikipedia but needs an introductory explanation and possibly a subcategory for people born on Ibiza ie This category contains biographical articles about people with a strong association with Ibiza. People actually born on the island are listed in Category:People from Ibiza, which is a subcategory of this one.--palmiped | Talk 18:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess to being confused (Wikipedia categories often confuse me, and when I nominate them for deletion, I always do so with trepidation). I thought that categories from a certain place don't necessarily mean just people who are born there but also people who have lived there or been raised there. I've certainly seen articles that use from cats that way. Either that's a misuse of the from cats or I don't see why we need an associated cat. And what's the point of even having an associated overcategorization rationale if it's, uh, not true?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no schema for creating "people associated with x" categories when x is a place. This is not an accepted way to categorize people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do a search for `people associated with` many examples for places. --palmiped | Talk 18:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Associated with" is such a vague term that its scope is huge, and the lack of anything remotely resembling a non-arbitrary definition of scope makes this sort of category rather useless. Palmiped above refers to a "strong association", but that's a thoroughly subjective concept, depending largely on an individual's area of interest. The rest of the hierarchy under Category:People associated with places needs to be zapped too, but we can start with this one. However, deletion should be done manually, because some of the articles may belong in more specific categories. e.g. Abel Matutes clearly belongs in Category:People from Ibiza, several of the articles should be categorised as DJs in Ibiza. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A category called DJ in Ibiza, as suggested by BrownHaired girl, would be Vague, as many of the DJ’s who appear in Ibiza arrive, do there gig, and then leave the island.In the case of a DJ, saying that he/she has an Association clearly describes that persons relationship with the place Stavros1 (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, at least I have done something useful, even if it's only to compile a list of existing categories for deletion. I think, however, that these categories are justifiable, because the nature of the association should be described in the person's article, and cited, just like any other defining characteristic that we use to categorise people. – FayenaticLondon 09:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Stavros1. If a DJ's only association with Ibiza is that they did one gig there, then they should not be categorised under Ibiza. That is a form of performers by performance category, and if we categorised musicians by every place they performed, we'd have massive category clutter on most musician articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a fair comment! Most of the DJ’s, But not all, on this particular list have weekly residencies in some of clubs. But do not stay on the island as a rule. But would be regarded as a regular performer in Ibiza. As far as I can see the DJ’s on that list would be considered to have an association with Ibiza, and especially with the clubs. If this still annoys you, why not create a category called DJ with residencies on Ibiza and then make it a sub-category of say, OOWW!! People associated with Ibiza' Stavros1 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should perhaps let BrownHairedGirl reply but the whole problem is with the phrase "as far as I can see, the DJs on that list would be considered to have an association with Ibiza". Membership in categories should ideally be unequivocal and clearly this isn't the case here. I would add that DJ residencies can be fairly fleeting things which brings up many questions with subjective answers. When is the residency long enough to make a DJ associated with Ibiza? If the DJ has a residency for a year, does he stay associated with Ibiza for his whole career, despite the fact that ten years later, an overwhelming majority of people may be unaware that he ever set foot there? And now how do you compare the degree of association to Ibiza of a DJ who works there every week with a painter who has a famous painting of a sunset there? Two famous paintings? With some wealthy person who owns a second home in Ibiza and spends a week there every year? A month? There are no objective answers to these questions which is why "associated with" categories are explicitly discouraged in the guideline. Pichpich (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the key word we need here is eligibility. The example of DJ’s (which this discussion seems to have been become focused on) that are notable or having a long term affiliation with the island could be described as eligible for such a category. The example of a wealthy person who owns a second home in Ibiza and spends a week there every year, has an association but is not necessarily notable and there for would not be eligible. A contributor would have to make an informed decision on eligibility of a person to be included, and were possible add reference to that persons notability within that article to back up the inclusion. Stavros1 (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But who determines eligibility? Who determines notability of an association? It's still subjective so it seems to me that we're back at square one. Pichpich (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already suggested an answer to eligibility in the last sentence of my last comment Stavros1 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call me dense but what I see is "contributor would have to make an informed decision". That's subjective inclusion criteria and all our guidelines say it should be avoided. Of course, you can (and should) provide evidence that person X is linked to Ibiza because of reason Y. But you can't provide evidence that reason Y is sufficient for eligibility since you're inventing criteria as you go along. Pichpich (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This getting very boring and going no where fast!. An informed decision is not necessarily subjective/slanted as a decision can be made gathering previously available material, look at the evidence, and then come to a conclusion based on that available material. Wikipedia would have no content if all editors stuck to your distorted view of the guidelines. Stavros1 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Distorted view? How else do you interpret the following sentences:
The problem with vaguely-named categories such as this is determining what degree or nature of "association" is necessary to qualify a person for inclusion in the category. The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" categories are usually left unstated, which fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; but applying some threshold of association fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
I think that's fairly unambiguous. Note that I fully agree that there's a need for subjective choices by editors to build articles. This debate is about categorization, an area where subjectivity should be avoided. Pichpich (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly vague and subjective. Other categories of this type should also be deleted. Pichpich (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of arguing to and fro about the merits of this category. If I could put forward a suggestion here. The category hierarchy begins with Ibiza then the grading could start with People of Ibiza, then the current list would need to be placed into sub-categories such as People born in Ibiza, Politicians of Ibiza, Artist of Ibiza ect, ect. This would involve a lot of work for someone! I’m happy with the way things are but if someone puts in the work to change the current hierarchy and titles, that is up to them, and I have no problem with that. I only want to see that the current list is still categorized with the island of Ibiza. I also think that the editor Bbb23 (talk) who suggested deletion should put the work in to come up with an alternative. Stavros1 (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: this category is currently the hierarchical link between Category:Ibiza and Category:People from Ibiza, so the hierarchy will need to be reinstated if this is deleted. (The same applies to its sibling categories that have sub-cats.) – FayenaticLondon 09:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BrownHaired Girl says it best. This is entirely vague and invites the weakest of sourcing. It's not Bbb's job to come up with an alternative, and the conventions for such categories are clear. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this category serves the function of grouping articles for People of Ibiza. It's a holding category for articles for later re-categorizing into other appropriate categories. A centralized depository for such articles is helpful to readers to navigate there way around the subject.4hawthorn(talk) 07:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change . I think the category hierarchy should begin with People of Ibiza and within that category there should be a category: People from Ibiza, as this will make a distinction between of and from. Unlike the suggestion above I think that the word from indicates the origins, whereas of indicates that the person or object would now have a connection with Ibiza. Beechgrove (talk) 11:09, 20 November 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.
Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China[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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeCategory:Wars involving the People's Republic of China to Category:Wars involving China This is a valid period breakdown in the very long history of China. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to be coherent with the main article China. As for the comment by the IP user above, I believe that Category:Wars involving the PRC should be merged with Category:Wars involving China. The existing distinction was very much a product of the fact that we had the main article under PRC. Pichpich (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all but Wars. The diplomatic ones are all good moves, covering mostly current articles, and can contain historical articles of previous administrations. The territorial disputes and UN categories are targeted at redlinks, so there's no other trees the moves would be messing with. The territorial disputes category seems to be mostly if not all current disputes, and there's no reason it couldn't contain historical ones. The UN category would be a good overall cat for both administrations of China that were recognised during the UN period, especially as any dealing with the unrecognised one would likely involve the other anyway. The wars are actually split up by administration, so the current category makes sense. CMD (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the wars. I have struck the wars out of this nomination, because there is clearly a case to be argued for keeping it under its current title. I am not really persuaded by that case, but since Category:Wars involving China is partly broken down by historical era, I think that this category should be examined separately on another occasion when CFD should take a wider look at Category:Wars involving China. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 7 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:55, 8 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization - there is no general category scheme of "priests by parish" (and it could cause significant category clutter if it did). All four vicars are mentioned in St George's Church, Edgbaston, which is the obvious place to check for people connected to the church, and all are sufficiently categorised as CofE clergy already, so no upmerging is required. BencherliteTalk 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT; the list in the article is more appropriate. – FayenaticLondon 21:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT per nominator. Vicars serve in many different churches in the course of their career, and categorising them in this way would cause huge clutter. Additionally, being the Vicar of X it is very rarely a defining characteristic of an individual (unless, of course X=Bray or X=Wakefield). All of the 4 people in this category are notable for other things in their careers, and if they had only been Vicars of St George's it is unlikely that they would pass WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am surprised taht one church should manage to ahve four notable vicars. They are already listied in the article, so that we lose nothign by deleting this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete down this road lies madness, considering how many different parishes some priests have been assigned to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 3 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename all; move. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: some of us are rolling out this "works based on works" pattern to other categories; in Sci-Fi, we started with Dr Who and Star Trek. The other old names should not hold this back. – FayenaticLondon 12:44, 2 November 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:Bitcoin companies and organizations[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 SPI creation of the cat aside, this is far too broad a cat title, and very likely incorrect given its scope. I would assume this to be "groups associated with Bitcoin," but it is a mix of company-related articles and "businesses that accept Bitcoin." As we don't maintain categories for "payment types accepted," we don't need this category, and as there are only two articles that would fall into the "associated" category, we don't need a cat for that either. MSJapan (talk) 19:37, 1 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 21:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We either need to make a much larger scheme for audio files by topic or delete this single category of one political persuasion with one file. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So the category is working as intended, and is well populated. Solution in search of a problem. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think we have enough audio files to justify this level of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 7 November 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.
Ambassadors of and to the People's Republic of China[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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename/merge all to match the head article China, which was recently moved from People's Republic of China. These are call theoretically eligible for speedy renaming per C2D, but they are clearly controvesial. One editor has been moving these categories out-of-process to the PRC format (e.g. [3], [4]), so a full discussion is needed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. PRC is the correct name or would you prefer Mainland China. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support PRC may be the correct full name but it's not the common name and it's not the name used for the corresponding article. I understand and respect the fact that this is a politically and emotionally charged issue but if one accepts the move of the main article to China, it's hard to argue against an equivalent change for categories. Pichpich (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- recetn convention is that WP calls PRC "China". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per the naming convention of the main China article. Mar4d (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Mostly current articles, and any historical ones can be dealt as they are with every other country. CMD (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and per the prevalent naming convention. - Darwinek (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as measures incidental to giving effect to the community's decision to move of PRC to China. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:20, 6 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Small category, not part of a larger overall scheme of similar categories and unlikely to expand. Merge to all parents to retain the single film in the structures. Buck Winston (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is far too specific, there's only one article in the cat anyway, and we seem to also have a qualified upmerge. Better to delete this and put the film directly into the da Vinci cat. MSJapan (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Many more films about this genius were made. Stefanomione (talk) 01:23, 20 November 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.
While I'm not against renaming per se, the first article on which I used this category, after I recently created it, was about a cemetery, which is neither building nor a structure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where a discussion belongs, but cemeteries in my mind are neither a building or a structure. Where is the correct place to discuss the issue of categorization? I have been moving some into established in yyyy categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ISTR there was a discussion about this somewhere before. As an architect's input into a cemetery is some combination of boundaries (=structures), gatehouses, offices and chapels (=buildings), carriageways (=structures) and associated landscaping then "buildings & structures" fits well enough. Wikipedia:WikiProject Death is the place for discussing cemeteries in addition to the main article. Ephebi (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ephebi's succinct summary. I have been categorising cemeteries under buildings and structures on the same basis. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 2 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete - jc37 05:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure and simple. People will have lots and lots of descendants, and categorizing them together does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT, much like any of the "descent" categories, which after one or two generations as argued by BHG, are trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Carolingians, and Prune all those not direct male-line descendents. He's the founder of a royal house - which is not a trivial characteristic - but this should only list those whom qualify as primarily direct descendents of Charlemagne and not some other house. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone with European ancestry is descended from Charlemagne [5]. This is not a defining characteristic. DrKiernan (talk) 14:24, 13 November 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:Delete. Duplicate category to the much larger and more complex Category:Military personnel of World War I, to whose sub-categories its members should be added (those that aren't already). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of World War I veterans, and purge. It's not a perfect duplicate, because veterans are those who survived the war .. but there appears to be no precedent for a separate category of survivors. However, the category does contain 10 lists of WWI veterans, and it is a sub-cat of Category:Lists of military veterans, so it would work fine as a list category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not part of a regular categorizing scheme at all, and disrupts the general by nationality break-down of people who served in specific wars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but make sure all those listed here are listed in their correct national categories. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If kept, this category should be renamed to match the head article Hazrat Mai Safoora Qadiriyya. However, eponymous categories for people are discouraged per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, and there seems to be no need for this one. The 3 articles in the category are already adequately interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Both the descendants and Mausoleum are covered in the bio-article. Those subsidiary articles can thus be made "main" articles for the requisite sections. Links can also be added in the infoboxes, with which the article is somewhat overburdened. We therefore do not need an eponymous category. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:17, 3 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete - jc37 05:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia doesn't have a category structure for "Drugs banned/controlled in Foo" because the legislative controls on a particular drug in a particular country (which may vary over time) are not defining and would lead to category clutter; for the same reasons, I don't see the point in starting a similar structure with the UN's decisions about drugs. BencherliteTalk 21:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete while it might make sense to categorize things the UN regulates, the fact of the matter is the UN can unregulate at any time, and we generally avoid temporary categories, and so I think we should just delete this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Substances controlled by International Narcotics Control Board-- WE do not categorise drugs by which country prohibiuts them, but I think that we should have a category for those contolled by International Treaties. The UN body here is clearly not UNO itself, but United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. That article refers to it providing the secretariat for International Narcotics Control Board, which seems to be the entity concerned. The UNODC seems to be more engaged in conducting interational campaigns. The articles on both organisation are cluttered by "criticism" sections, some of which refer to rhetoric between Iran and Israel and really ought not to be in the main article. this page lists 119 narcotic substances controlled. In addition there are controls on 116 psychtopic substances and on precursors. The controls have been in place for 40 years, so that this is no temporary thing that will change frequently. We should keep a category such as this, unless some one can find a category to merge it with. Perhaps it should be Category:Substances controlled by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs - another UN body, as it appears to be the organisation with power to amned the schedules. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? What category on control of drugs other than this exists. Do we have Category:United States controlled drugs? No, because it was delted following a CfD last July. The general view is that legal regulation is not a categorizable feature of the drugs invovled.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bencherlite. Categorization has giant clusterfuck written all over it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:23, 19 November 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:Interdisciplinarity in contemporary art[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Neither of the two articles mentions interdisciplinarity, and I have found no related category or article. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete On top of the objections raised in the rationale (which I agree with), the category name implies that this is about art movements or theory or something besides just artists. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is too subjective to be a sound basis for categorization. There's no real agreement on what constitutes "interdisciplinary art" or even "contemporary art" and these subtleties can't be conveyed through a category. It could be an interesting article though. Pichpich (talk) 16:27, 7 November 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:Delete. I can't find any other categories relating to regeneration of a city, and it's hard to see how to define any inclusion criteria for such a category. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say Delete unless there is a proposal for a re-name to a more tightly defined category. In the historical context of things the inclusion criteria is almost impossible to define. Where do we draw the line? There are some subjects (e.g. White City, Greater Manchester) that have been re-generated numerous times in their history. When do we consider a subject to be no longer re-generated? White City might be an example of past regeneration projects. However, I would say it is currently more of a candidate for re-generation than an example of current re-generation. Many areas of the city (e.g. Hulme) are also examples of numerous previous regeneration projects. However, it is quite a wide net to throw as there are parts of parts of said area that weren't regenerated in the latest round. Equally large parts of Manchester City Centre could be given as examples of Victorian regeneration of the medieval town/city. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fayentic London's most recent suggestion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 14 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus - Feel free to immediately re-nom for further discussion. - jc37 05:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Yes, I know that this will change the meaning of the category, but it will restore the category to its original purpose. I created this category to have a Latter-day Saints by nationality category that I could put Jonathan Napela in. So the intention was to use this category for people who were Hawaiian by nationality. It has now been turned into an ethnic category, but that was never the intention. I feel we should try to restore it to its original nationality purpose, since that is an accepted way to subdivide Latter-day Saints, but we have really never agreed on a by ethnicity schema for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep name as is Do no rename or delete. Native Hawaiians still exist in Hawaii and elsewhere; they did not disappear when the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown. The current name is historically correct. Hmains (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sub-dividing Latter-day Saints (and most other religions) by nationality is an accepted action. Subdividing them by ethnicity requires specific coverage of that overlap, which we lack in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is an article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Hawaii which can be seen as a basis of having a by nationality category for Latter-day Saints of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It should also be noted that Latter-day Saints from the Kingdom of Hawaii would not be limited to people who were ethnically native Hawaiian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we also have gagillions of articles on virtually every bishopric in the Roman Catholic church, too; that doesn't mean we now get to categorize Roman Catholics by see. The article you point to has virtually nothing on the members of the LDS church, rather more on its hierarchy, history, and real estate (little different than the RC bishopric articles, other than the usual list of occupants of the clerical office). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment and that would just mix up a people (bio) category and structure with a non-people category structure. Hmains (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this currently stands as a sub-cat of Category:American Latter Day Saints, Jonatana Napela, who was a Native Hawaiian from a noble family and one of the two men involved in trasnalting the Book of Mormon into Hawaiian, and the person for whom this category was specifically created, does not belong. Napela did come to Utah to go to the temple in I believe 1869, but was not allowed by Hawaii to bring his wife and returned home shortly after. He died before Hawaii was annexed by the United States and is clearly in no way an American. This would be like classifying a resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico who died in 1844 as an American. He would clearly be a Mexican at that point, and calling him an American would just be plain wrong. The same is true of Jonatan Napela.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to reiterate that this category was created as part of the established Latter-day Saints by nationality tree, but with an imprecise name. It was later hijacked into the non-existent Latter-day Saints by ethnicity tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 19 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete as a "performers by performance" category per WP:OC#PERF, which specifically includes models. It is in the nature of a top model's work that they will appear on many front covers, and this form of categorisation causes massive category clutter. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per rationale. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's reasons. We do not allow such categories. Possibly Listify but I doubt that is worth while. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 3 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:withdrawn by nominator. – FayenaticLondon 14:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken; I too didn't look far enough. I'm withdrawing this nomination, so please add it below. – FayenaticLondon 14:19, 1 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Opposed - jc37 05:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation is absolutely not needed. Not sure if this is a speedy criteria or not. —Farix (t | c) 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename of topic category Category:Yuri (genre), which matches main article Yuri (genre). Indifferent on the others. (For info, Yuri is a Japanese jargon term for content/genre involving love between women.) Where a head category needs a qualifier like "(genre)" for disambiguation, we do generally use that all the way down the category tree in some hierarchies such as music, but it is not essential here where there is no ambiguity. – FayenaticLondon 21:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose "Yuri" is a personal name, so will end up collecting people named Yuri, and therefore this is highly ambiguous. And as there are anime and manga artists with this name, it will end up collecting their works as well. Yuri is a disambiguation page. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other Yuri categories to disambiguate from, so why is disambiguation still needed at the category level? Just like Category:Harem anime and manga isn't at Category:Harem (genre) anime and manga even though the main article is at Harem (genre). Disambiguation is only needed at the article level, not the categories. —Farix (t | c) 15:16, 4 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. Consensus holds that these categories should contain both images and other types of files. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain only images. Rename without prejudice to re-creating head "media" categories if they become necessary in future. I believe I have excluded all the categories in Category:Video game media that also contained sound files. This follows the recent Mortal Kombat test case and these should all be processed for the same reasons. Moreover, the "media" name can be misunderstood as mass media rather than Wikipedia files; I removed a couple of sub-cats for journalism and anime. – FayenaticLondon 12:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to <work> files There is a possibility that any one of these category could contain something other than image files. But just because they currently contain images should not affect the name of the categories. <work> files is more encompassing and correlates with the File namespace. —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That sounds a proposal worth making for the categories that I am leaving out of this nomination. At present, Category:Video game media has three parents named "Images", which is not right; we should therefore separate images from other media files, and that is the goal of this nomination. – FayenaticLondon 13:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to separate images from other media files. Those parent categories should be renamed as well, but their current names should not matter here. It would be much better to use a broad name, such as the current names or the "<work> files" schema, to prevent having to rename the categories later when a non-image file is added. —Farix (t | c) 13:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Category:Silent Hill media An audio file has been added to the category since its nomination here, which means it no longer has images solely. Hula Hup (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have withdrawn that one. – FayenaticLondon 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The nominator has withdrawn Category:Silent Hill media from the nom. because it used to contain only images and no longer does; that establishes as fact that these categories are about media files, not images, whether they currently contain only images or not. It is a pointless and wasted effort to rename them all "until something other than an image is added", which is exactly what this nom is trying to accomplish. A "basket of fruit" doesn't stop being a "basket of fruit" because it contains only apples; it stops being a "basket of apples" once it contains other fruits. This nominator has it backwards; he should strive to rename "<work> images" to "<work> media". Salvidrim! 02:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename as this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Keeping these categories as media makes it convenient to add other file types if and when needed, which we have seen can happen at any time. I like Salvidrim's fruit analogy also. —Torchiesttalkedits 14:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: my intention is to add "images" sub-categories for Konami, Nintendo, Final Fantasy, Silent Hill and the other categories excluded from the nomination, and manually transfer the image files to the images sub-cats. The aim of this nomination is to be able to use a bot to re-categorise the straightforward cases. If people would prefer it, I am willing to immediately re-create (undelete) every nominated "media" category as a head category for the new "images" category. If people support this, I suggest you vote as "keep and restructure". – FayenaticLondon 15:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious question - Why do this? Salvidrim! 18:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm bad at understanding or you're bad at explaining, but I still fail to see a compelling reason to use your proposed system. My !vote stands. Salvidrim! 05:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question is, should the categories current content dictate the name of the categories or should the name of the category dictate its content (both present and future). I'm of the latter thought and do not see a reason to rename these categories to "images" when they will (hopefully) include other non-image files as well. It would be a pointless exercise to change the names of the categories one way only to open a new CfR to rename them back again when other files are added. —Farix (t | c) 15:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that's all a misunderstanding. We should end up with categories for media files and sub-categories for images. If audio files are added, there would be no need to rename the image category back; in fact that would defeat the object. If a sound file is uploaded, then re-create the media cat as a head category over the image category and the sound file. Is the proposal clearer now? – FayenaticLondon 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current contents merely dictate whether we are allowed to use a bot to put the images into an image category, or whether an image sub-category will have to be set up and populated manually. – FayenaticLondon 12:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - After hearing the uploader's rationale, I still do not think this is a good proposal. The current system has proven not to be a hindrance and as such, should remain as is. Oppose votes from other users edify on this point, so there is little more for me to say that has not been already said. DarthBottotalk•cont 07:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason to limit the type of media that can go in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 24 November 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:Delete. "Black British" is an identity wheras "Black English" is not. As an aside, User:MaybeMaybeMaybe has been creating a lot of categories recently, a lot of which should be deleted and the user appears to be ignoring the messages on their talk page. (Should be merged back to Category:Fictional Black British people). –anemoneprojectors– 09:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I didn't realise the category for fictional Black Scottish people was there. I would nominate that one as well (one article in it!) but I'm just too lazy right now. To be honest, Category:Fictional Black British people doesn't have so many articles in it that it needs to be split by country (and remember these are countries within a country anyway). Do we even need a category for fictional British characters by their ethnicity at all (Category:Fictional British people by ethnicity)? –anemoneprojectors– 17:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL. Trivial triple intersection. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is a fictional person being black and english any more trivial than a fictional person being black and british?
Keep the category container category for Black English people has existed for 18 months without issue. Why not have its counterpart for fictional characters there are plenty of articles covered by it.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anemone Projector's reasons, also agree about the Osborne Family category, should be deleted. — M.Mario (T/C) 13:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Black British. With fictional characters, it is going to be difficult to say more than that they are Black people who reside in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and John Pack Lambert. Nymfhideliho! 09:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge this and Black Scottish: Obviously the representation of an ethnic minority is an encyclopedia-worthy topic, especially in how the US and UK contrast these, and how identity is formed. I think Black British should definitely be kept, but this needless parochial subdivision adds nothing.Zythe (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per AP and JPL and PKI. - jc37 08:20, 24 November 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 subcategorization is not needed and smacks of canon-ology fandom. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The categories are each large enough, and have several distinct head categories. – FayenaticLondon 14:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first set. I am less sure on the second set. The first set is clearly Star Wars Films, their odd claim of being "episodes" does not change that. I am not sure on the second category, but am leaning towards merger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 1 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I submit that neither "hardcore techno" nor "hardcore punk" has a unique claim to the term "hardcore" in music. Therefore, I suggest that the term "hardcore" in music be clearly labeled as either techno or punk specifically rather than left ambiguous. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This should probably also include Category:Hardcore music genres, which refers specifically to techno and not to punk, so again the "hardcore" is ambiguous. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:49, 1 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete - jc37 08:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "metaphysics" in Wikipedia is reserved for scholarly and academic philosophy, not spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism. Let's not mish-mash the two, as it is a disservice to legitimate scholars, and hurts the credibility of Wikipedia.Greg Bard (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Greg Bard (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles involved are adequately covered by other categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two of the historical articles with which I am familiar, Celestial spheres and Dynamics of the celestial spheres (both Good Articles FWIW) deal with models of the universe that were founded variously on the model in Aristotle's Metaphysics and the model in Ptolemy's Almagest and Planetary Hypothesis. Aristotle and Ptolemy certainly fit within the criteria of scholarly and academic philosophy and these two articles are quite properly about metaphysical cosmologies that deal with the ultimate nature of the universe. After User:Gregbard recently recategorized them to Religious cosmology I have restored their original categorization. The fact that these cosmological models were later adapted to religious use by Muslim and Christian philosophers and theologians does not make them fit the pejorative trio of "spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism". --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as "Celestial spheres" are concerned, it seems that Category:Early scientific cosmologies would suffice, which is under the scholarly and academic "physical cosmology" category tree, consistent with what you are saying.Greg Bard (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm convinced. The category Metaphysical cosmology seems to have about the same value as the "Metaphysics" shelves in the mass market bookstores. I'll withdraw my Keep "vote". --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...No more religious than scholasticism itself. I don't know what all was there previously, but these are perfectly legitimate. It's ridiculous to characterize them as "spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism". Early scientific cosmologies would certainly be appropriate too.—Machine Elf 1735 09:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay the whole point is to make a distinction between the scholarly, and the nonscholarly stuff. This category had contained all the nonscholarly stuff and was giving a bad name to the term "metaphysics." Please reconsider. This is very ill advised. Greg Bard (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here is saying esoterica is synonymous with metaphysics and I agree that's unacceptable. Anyway, my !vote isn't kept. In terms of using it correctly, I can only think of a few more Aristotelian/Platonic articles... but if it's been prone to abuse, perhaps that's just too obscure?—Machine Elf 1735 23:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do we have the issue of scholarly v esoteric, but we also have the issue that a lot of editors in the sciences see philosophy and esotericism as being in the same category. So there actually are several good reasons to delete this category. It isn't right to put philosophers of time, philosophers of physics and legitimate academic metaphysics in the same category as the esoterism, and that is what was happening. Please support deletion. +Greg Bard (talk)
bit of a mess here Someone emptied the category out-of-process, so it's anyone's guess what's supposed to be in it. That said, the history of this is problematic. Metaphysical cosmology got merged into cosmology after a discussion which, as far as I can tell, never really happened; the two subjects are threaded together as if they were separate. Meanwhile religious cosmology continues to exist as a separate article. The very first sentence of cosmology is quite problematic: "There are two very different senses in which the term Cosmology is used." Um, OK, so we're going to start this thing off with a disambiguation? We need to resolve the issue of what the subject areas actually are, because right now the two articles discuss the matter as if there were three subjects: religious, metaphysical, and physical cosmology. If two of them stay merged, then we don't need this category; but it looks to me as though we do need three articles and not two. Mangoe (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my fault. I thought it would be noncontroversial. I hadn't counted on people within the philosophy department attempting to "reclaim" the title "metaphysical" for the scholarly subject. I just don't see that as useful for the reader, nor as helping the credibility of WP, nor academic metaphysicians. The content of the category "metaphysical cosmology" was all the occult, and esoteric stuff. My goal here was to preserve the term "metaphysics" for scholarly, academic philosophy. There are only two subjects, and really, there is no need for either the article "cosmology" nor the category "cosmology". There are NOT three subjects, that's for sure. There are only two as described in the article "cosmology" and the category page for "cosmology". Please, help us straighten this out by supporting the proposal to delete. Greg Bard (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category doesn't have a good idea of what should be in it or not or what it wants to be. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my fault. Up until this point I would just plow ahead putting things in their place, and then propose the cleanup afterwards. But, I have learned my lesson. In fact, I have a proposal to split Category:Initiatives and referendums in the United States, because not every ballot question is either a referendum, or an initiative (and other reasons). I managed to do it correctly this time.Greg Bard (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- I observe that the main article (which is all that is currently in the category) is a redirect to Cosmology. I cannot believe that we need a category for something without its own main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Nobody has moved to repopulate this so it's apparent that the need for it isn't compelling. Mangoe (talk) 02:47, 24 November 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:American people of Latin American descent[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:no consensus. Clearly, there is some overcategorization here, but what to do about it needs more discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale this is functioning as a sub-cat of Category:Hispanic and Latino American people. That is where all its contents should really be. In theory maybe Category:American people of Haitian descent could go in this category, and would not go in the other, but it is not in this category, so we probably do not have to deal with the issue. In reality Hispanic and Latino Americans is the prefered and common usage at the present time. It is a bit more expanisve in some ways than this term, but as it stands this category is trying to make a distinction that really does not exist in actual usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree, JPL. This is overcategorization and Hispanic+Latin American should be sufficient. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom & OCAT; another anomaly of these cats is inclusion or not of Mitt Romney. His ancestors did live in Mexico - part of Latin America - for a time, so in WP-speak he's of Latin American descent, even though he wouldn't be of Hispanic/Latino, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD October 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The propsal is to delete this category, but the arguments appear to support upmerger. I hope that further discussion may clarify which action is intended.
Comment They will not mess up anything. The whole Latin American descent being seperated out is just totally against how "Hispanic and Latino" is actually used. There is no reason to create some supra-sepearion of those from Spain and those from Argentina.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment in all cases, editors should read the category contents and parents before making nominations and comments. Hmains (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge rather than plain delete. If kept it should be tagged to be a container-only category, but the difference between this and the Hispanic and Latino category seems too slight for us to need both; or am I missing something? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Vote: Upmerge. This is slightly confusing because what I really want to due is just remove this whole level of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment There are at least 6 other countries with similar categories in Category:People of Latin American descent. No reason was provided as to why this American category should be singled out for deletion and those for the other countries remain. Categories are created for ease of navigation to other categories and articles. This category has 24 subcategories. Deleting this category will simply make navigation more difficult for our readers. Hmains (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The usages for ethicity and descent categories should respond to the usages in the country. In the United States the term is "Latino or Hispanic" and we do not group people into some "Latin American ancestry". In the US the "Hispanic or Latino" form should be used. Other countries use other forms and that is a different usage. This term is not the same as "Hispanic or Latino" but that terms existence prevents any menaingful existence for thi term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 18 November 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:American Jews of Latin American descent[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:no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale this is a biazrre and irregularly named category. The whole notion of trying to create by continent holding categories for ethnic groups to sort them within a place by continent of origin is going to fail, because it is forcing an odd mixing of terms that really does not work. If this system is kept up soon we will be putting all Category:American people of South African descent as a subcat of Category:African-American people which just does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Non-notable triple intersection. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD October 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The propsal is to delete this category, but the arguments appear to support upmerger. I hope that further discussion may clarify which action is intended.
Comment No I support just deleting this category. The two sub-categories will work just fine with this parent deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it does not work. The child categories are named such that they could include non-Jews who have Jewish ancestors, the parent category is clearly limited to Jews. To be a proper child category these would have to have names like Category:American Jews of Mexican-Jewish descent. As long as they do not, they cannot be child categories of Category:American Jews by national origin. I will not support putting a people category as a child of a more restrictive Jews category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia's obsession with categorization of people by "descent" seems to have no parallels of multiple "descent"s other than Jews. We don't have Category:American people of Anglo-German descent or any other such combinations in the US melting pot. I have long held opposition to the "descent" categories as not particularly defining or meaningful, much less provable several generations back - on the male line - unless we are assuming no illegitimate births, and methinks no-one has WP:RSes for what transpired in bedrooms years ago to prove such to the WP:BLP standard. But multiple intersections such as Latin American + Jewish seem even further from defining, meaningful, or provable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we do have Category:American people of German-Russian descent and Category:American people of French Canadian descent. I think I have to explain the qualification for all four categories. An American person of Brazilian Jewish descent is an American who has ancestors who were Jews living in Brazil. A American person of Mexican Jewsish descent has ancestors who were Jews living in Mexico. Thus the child of a Jewish immigrant to the US from Israel and a Mexican immigrant to the US from Mexico does not qualify. It has to be ancestors who were Jews in Mexico. The slight issue might be if you have ancestors who converted to Catholicism from Judaism in Germany and then emigrated to Mexico, but if one parent is Jewish and the other is Mexican, the person does not qualify. The person of German-Russian descent is a person who had ancestors who were ethnic Germans living in Russia. The person of French-Canadian descent has ancestors who were French-Candaians. This is people who identiy as French-Canadian, in general meaning their ancestors emigrated to what is now Canada while it was controlled by France. French-Candian is a clear ethnic group, and in general would not included someone born in 1950 in France who then emigrated to Canada.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will be the first to say descent categories have been used beyond all logic. I have deleted hundreds if not thousands of cases where people are so categorized without any reference to the person having any ancestors from a given place. Others have references in the article that should indicate categorizing is inapropriate. One article included a quote from the subject who said "the only thing Irish about me is my name" yet they still were categorized as being of Irish descent. Another included a reference to the person having grown up in an area of Philadelphia that was inhabited by familes of "Irish, Polish and Russian descent" or some phrasing. The phrasing made it clear that there were families of each of those descents, and made no statement about the article subjects ancestry. They were put in all three of those descent categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the other hand there are many people who had parents or grandparents who immigrated from the countries of descent, and others who were raised speaking German, Polish or Italian instead of English. It is clear that in some cases some descent categories work, but at times it seems like some people have gone through and assumed that everyone with a last name ending in -ski must be of Polish descent. The assumption of ancestry from a last name should never be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename -- Being a Jew is technically religious, but primarily ethnic, becasue the Jews have kept themsleves apart from Christians for centuries. We are dealing here with a Jew, probably from eastern or southern Europe, who emigrated to (say) Mexico and whose descendants emigrated to US. We do not allow categorisation of a person with a French and a German perant as of "French-German" descent, preferring to identify them as both "of French descent" and "of German descent". However this is not a category for a person of hybrid ethnicity, but a single one depending of two separate emigrations. It is therefore a legitimate category. If there is a problem over how it is being parented, tat is a differnet issue, and may mean that the category needs to be renamed and purged or alternatively broadened to fit the scheem of the tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all people who had ancestors who were Jews in Latin America are Jewish themselves. The 50%+ outmarriage rate of Jews in the US makes the assumption that these categories will only contain Jews untenable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep nomination is factually confused. No reason is provided for targeting this category of the multiple subcats of Category:American Jews by national origin. This cateogry serves the valid purpose of navigation to articles. Comments about whether certain articles belong in a category are not accepted arguments for deleting a category. Hmains (talk) 03:41, 15 November 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:Hawaiian players of American football[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale At present the category head says this is for Native Hawaiians. Without the rename it is unclear how this category differs from Category:Players of American football from Hawaii that up until recently this was mistakenly a subcat of. To be in this category people have to be Native Hawaiian by ethnicity. They do not have ever had to have been on Hawaii at all (although probably most were probably born there, but that is not material). This is a classification of American football players by ethnicity, but the current name is not explicit enough in that regard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2012 October 24 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There id clear support renaming this category if it is kept. There is also there is a strong argument that this category should not be kept, an argument which is supported by WP:CATGRS's deprecation of intersections between occupation and ethnicity unless the the intersection is itself an encycloedic topic. However, there is no consensus so far for either approach. Also, the editors opposed to retaining the intersection recommend deletion but their the arguments support upmerger to both parent categories. I will notify the participants and WP:HAWAII of this relisting.
Comment I am not really sure upmerger works. The category is so inprecisely named, that I would not assume it has been correctly applied. My experience is that a lot of people who have been tagged as Native Hawaiian should be at most in Category:American people of Native Hawaiian descent and that some of them should not be in the category at all. In a lot of cases "Hawaiian" in a category name has been treated as an invitation to put all residents of Hawaii in the category, or at least people born in Hawaii, and so I think just deleting the category would work and letting people reduild with consideration of actual sources. I have seen way too many articles put in ethnic and descent categories with zero mention of that in the article to trust that such tags have been at all adequately used in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 1 November 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.
