Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 31 April 2 >

April 1[edit]

Category:Visitor attractions (and its subcategories)[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 'Visitor Attraction' is a totally subjective term, pertaining to the business of marketing. Just as one visitor might deem an "attraction" worthwhile seeing, another visitor would say to avoid it altogether. Gilliam (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the previous discussion and this one and this one and maybe some more. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gad. This business of category names being "POV" is getting a bit out of hand. We call them "visitor attractions" between sources call them that, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that it can be asserted (with sources) in articles that something is a 'Visitor Attraction', categories are not meant to editorialize.- Gilliam (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the category does "editorialize". It's a relatively benign description. If a lot of visitors or tourists go to see a certain thing, it becomes a visitor attraction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but purge of sub-categories that do not consist (almost) entirely of articles about visitor attractions (e.g. I've just removed Category:Spaceports). Add text explaining that the cat is for articles about things developed/constructed for the primary purpose of being a visitor attraction. DexDor (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and purge per above. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Indeed, "visitor attraction" is a somewhat ill-defined term, but: 1) I know it when I see it, and 2) without it, e.g. Niagara Falls and Great Pyramid of Giza would have nothing in common in terms of categorization. This would be rather odd because an average person, if asked to identify what the two have in common, would have no trouble answering.
(On a side note, once there was a category named Famous patients. It was deleted for rather predictable reasons (Is this about famous people who happened to have a medical condition? And what does "famous" actually mean?). Anyway, as a consequence of this deletion, Joseph Meister and Louis Washkansky have no longer anything in common in terms of their respective article categories, an outcome that is rather unfortunate - even if we accept the fact that categorization cannot be used to encode all meaningful relations.)
Major purging/cleanup is definitely needed, though. Many subcategories in particular were added indiscriminately. GregorB (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is nothing remotely point of view about this. A visitor attraction is something which attracts visitors, plain and simple. In other words, do people make a specific journey, or a detour on a journey, to visit the site? That is easily verifiable. The use of attraction is not in the sense of something being pleasing, which appears to be the nominator's misapprehension. The category is useful as it groups 52 subcategories and five pages which would otherwise have to be placed directly into Category:Tourist activities or Category:Tourism, thereby swelling those categories unnecessarily. Incidentally, DexDor is wrong in his assumption that all visitor attractions are constructed with the main purpose of attracting visitors. Pompeii is undoubtedly a visitor attraction, but its main purpose was never to attract visitors. Likewise Edinburgh Castle, the Kremlin and the Statue of Liberty. Nor is a visitor attraction necessarily man-made: beaches, lakes, mountains, forests, islands, and waterfalls can all be visitor attractions, and very often are among the things that most attract visitors to an area. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People may use a mountain/forest/lake etc for many things (sport, recreation, industry, religion, transport, military ...), but those uses aren't a defining characteristic. Articles such as "Tourism in Foo" or "Foo Visitor Centre" should be under a Tourism (or similar) category, but not articles about geographical entities that existed long before humans. DexDor (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:I agree with the above comments and definitions from Skinsmoke. There are many types of things that "attract" visitors and are often highlighted on tourism websites, websites for countries, states, counties, municipalities, hotels, etc. The category links very disparate subjects that nonetheless do interest visitors (and hopefully residents).Jllm06 (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: categories like "Entertainment venues" and "Cultural heritage" are better places for these things. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think you're missing the point here NaBUru38. Two of the most popular visitor attractions in Scotland are Loch Ness and Loch Lomond. They are neither Entertainment venues nor Cultural heritage. Nor would all Entertainment venues, or all of Cultural heritage, be appropriate as subcategories of Category:Tourism, and so it would be necessary to add all the appropriate items from those two areas, plus the many others that don't fit into those areas, directly into Category:Tourism: a job that is fulfilled perfectly by Category:Visitor attractions. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I wrote "like", I didn't mean to name all possibilities. Loch Ness could be categorized in (Natural) Landmarks. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • All irrelevant as the lochs are not in this category tree. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subjective criteria which is unstated (which makes it subjective!). I've seen WP:BOOSTER-type categorization labeling a non-descript college as a "Visitor attraction in X." The problem for the reviewing editor is I have no way of determining whether this is correct or not; no "visitor figures," no nothing. In other words, no claim in the article. But I first have to review the article to discover if they've posted a WP:RS which seems to "suggest" that people might conceivably visit them for purposes other than to see their kids. Meanwhile there are a number of editors out there who also watch the article. They have to go through the same process to determine whether the label might even conceivably be correct. This is making too much work for editors for no particular purpose other than someone at a particular location wishes to "promote" their building/school/area as a "visitor attraction." C-of-C type thing. WP:BOOSTER for schools. If we limited our categories to objective criteria ("Born in Budapest", "New York City", etc.) these would be essentially non-controversial and objective. Let's stick with objective and force the promoters to use other means (.com sites, for example) to publicize their employer. Student7 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be kept in mind that this is largely a container category for types of facilities built to attract visitors. There are only a handful of direct members, presumably because they don't fit into one of the other type subcats. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked through the Detroit category, and I realized somewhing. Everything there is either in a sub-category that does not need this parent, a convention, reccurring event, a park, a casoino or a statue. I have actually vistied some of them, and other then the historic districts few people live there. However it seems there are better ways to name these things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Visitor attractions in Detroit, Michigan shows why we need these categories; upmerging all the subcats/articles in that cat to Category:Detroit, Michigan would not help navigation. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Tourist attractions to match main article and then purge. This is a high level category with numerous subcats. This will require a massive follow-up nom for all the national and local subcats. In theory "tourists" and "visitors" are not the same: tourists are probably visiting for a holiday; visitors may only be on a day (or afternoon) out, but I do not think that makes a serious difference. IN theory, being attracted or repelled is a POV issue. Theme parks with rides are clearly within the category (however named), but personally, I am not attracted. However that is my personal POV: they are actually very popular. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this option since the vast majority of these are not only for tourists. As a local in an area, I may visit attractions. So a name that implies that locals may not be attracted to these is simply a bad choice for a name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tourist attractions would be even worse then the current name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A rather clear and defining characteristic, which is used in reliable and verifiable sources about these places. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not a subjective term. Something attracts visitors or it doesn't. It is a quality which can be measured, should be supported by references and if used appropriately the category is perfectly valid. I see no reason to delete it. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Good Ol’factory ("We call them "visitor attractions" between sources call them that, and I don't see anything wrong with that.") I do find it a bit depressing that after all these years so many people have still not understood the entire basis of the Wikipedia project, ie. WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia is entirely based on real-world, external sources, including our categorisation system. So, if the real world categorises stuff as "visitor attractions" (and it does), then so do we. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mais oui! They're real world categories. Mark Hurd (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2013 (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:Territories and dependencies of Mauritius[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 as nominated. The article has remained stable at Outer islands of Mauritius for several weeks now. No one has presented any good arguments in this case why the category should not match the article name (as is standard practice). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I recently move the main article from Territories and dependencies of Mauritius to Outer islands of Mauritius as it is commonly and officially known, and therefore want to move its category. i think we should also merge the sub category Category:Dependencies_of_Mauritius to Category:Outer islands of Mauritius. Kingroyos (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Dependent islands of Mauritius, or possibly as nom (which matches the present main article). The article that "ought" to be the main article is a mere dabpage. The present structure has more categories than the scope of the possible content could possibly justify. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think the the term 'Dependent islands' is good because these islands are not only Dependent but forms part of Mauritius, also Rodrigues is an autonomous island and Cargados Carajos does not have any inhabitants.Kingroyos (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2013 (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:Phoenix songs[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be more in tune with WP:NCCAT, not to mention with Category:Phoenix (band) albums. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 19:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support highly ambiguous. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer "Songs by Phoenix". --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This could have been speedied C2D - matching category name with article name.--Richhoncho (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Phoenix is a higly ambiguous term, and the band is nowhere near the primary meaning of the word.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2013 (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:Rape victim advocates[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: Everyone agrees a rename is appropriate, but there's not much consensus on what name to use. There are a number of options were possible here, but I have selected Category:Sexual abuse victims activists simply because it is most consistent with Category:Sexual abuse victims advocacy and the entire Category:Activists tree. If users decide a different name is preferable, we can have another CFD about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The definition of this category goes beyond rape; in addition, the current name makes it seem like those in the cat are victims themselves (which may or may not be true). Activists vs Advocates may be another option, the broader tree uses the term Activists. I'm also open to better suggestions... Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rationale seems reasonable, but we lose something by going from the relatively simple phrase "Rape victim advocates" to the wordier "Advocates for Vs of SA". I guess I support the renaming for clarity although I'd love it if we could come up with something as succinct as the original. --Lquilter (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about Sex abuse activists? or Anti-sexual violence activists or Anti-sex abuse activists - I guess another issue is, there is quite a broad spectrum represented here - some go after the root causes and perpetrators, while others rally for victim's rights, or a mix of all. I'm not satisfied either with the original proposal, so please throw some other ideas out there...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't able to come up with anything better and also non-ambiguous. But I'm thinking and will keep checking back ... --Lquilter (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those titles would imply that they support abuse, rather than oppose it or support victims. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2013 (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:Afrikaans phonology[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. The only article in this category was Afrikaans phonology. There are no other articles on the phonology of Afrikaans. — Lfdder (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2013 (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:Literature by theme[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match others in Category:Works by topic. – Fayenatic London 12:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have notified WP:LIT. – Fayenatic London 12:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Artistic works have themes, which has nothing to do with topics. Harry Potter has "magic" as topic, but maturity as theme. Nevertheless, the current subcats refer to topics, not themes, so I support the renaming. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, makes sense to follow "Works by topic". --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2013 (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:World War II Croatian concentration camps in former Yugoslavia[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. – Fayenatic London 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the appropriate name for this category which contains only concentration camps established by the Ustashe. The Independent State of Croatia only existed in WWII, and "former Yugoslavia" is imprecise. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one, and the fake name has long become a sort of a meme in and of itself. It's a classic case of WP:POVTITLE - in real life mainstream historiography. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. There are other similar categories which should be also renamed using the same rationale, i.e. [[Category:Serbian concentration camps in former Yugoslavia]]....--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the content, that one should rather be Category:Serbian concentration camps in the Yugoslav Wars. It could also be subcategorized per individual war. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2013 (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:Serbian war crimes in World War II[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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These crimes and perpetrators are all Chetniks. To describe them as Serbs is inappropriate, many Partisans were Serbs and the Partisans also committed war crimes. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All six entries in the category right now are indeed about Chetniks. For Partisan war crimes, a separate specific category can be made, that matter is off topic in this particular case. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Serbia didn't exist during WWII; it was occupied, and there was a Yugoslav government in exile but not a Serbian one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wolrd War II war crimes in Yugoslavia. This is a location category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator's reasoning. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. There are plenty of other categories which should be also renamed from "war crimes of Foo ethnicity" to "war crimes of members X force". I.e. [[Category:Serbian war crimes in the Balkan Wars]], [[Category:Serbian war crimes in the Croatian War of Independence]] ....--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's little to no confusion as to what "Serbian" means with regard to those two specific wars, unlike in the case of WWII where there was a significant division between Serb(ian) entities which might have caused confusion in categorization (yet it didn't in practice). I suppose you could subcategorize the latter category per each particular self-proclaimed entity, but they were all both self-described and described in secondary sources as - "Serbian", for better or for worse. Just like "Croatian" is the most straightforward adjective for the other parallel category. The only possible exception is the JNA, which wasn't formally self-described as Serbian, but I see no obvious practical benefit in accounting for that in categorization. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2013 (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:Edmonton Drillers[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 per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The Edmonton Drillers is a disambiguation page, and these category titles should also be dismabiguation pages, using {{category ambiguous}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete category per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. This is proven by the fact, that the main article of the category (Edmonton Drillers) is a disambiguation page, which also says the following: "Edmonton Drillers have been the name of three different soccer franchises" Armbrust The Homunculus 09:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both – WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES refers to unrelated topics which happen to share a name. Here we have topics related to various incarnations of soccer in Edmonton. Oculi (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment For that there is already a category called Category:Soccer clubs in Edmonton. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Keep both I agree with Oculi's reasoning. Category forms a useful function. In addition not everyone researching Edmonton Drillers would assume that there was three different incarnations. These categories and the disambiguation page will help people navigate the whole story and see the whole picture. DjlnDjln (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete both. The category is currently grouping together three different teams. When there are multi-year gaps between the teams and they are in totally different leagues it is not all the same thing. To group them together makes it look lije there is a continuity when in fact there is none. We have three articles, we have three players cats, there is no reason to have a holding cat for all three articles or all they players cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both The teams and players should be listed at the level of the incarnation of the team they played for. These individuals have nothing in common in these two categories other than playing for one of three teams named the "Edmonton Drillers". There are (at least) three teams that have been called the "New York Giants", who are separated into categories for Category:New York Giants (NL) players, Category:New York Giants (PL) players and Category:New York Giants players and it would be beyond ludicrous to lump players from the National Football League and two different baseball leagues into one category simply because they share a common name and people may not realize that there were three different uses of the same name for very different teams. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2013 (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 the West Midlands (county) executed by hanging[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 to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This county was created in 1974. Hanging was abolished in the UK in the 1960s. I have emptied the category of the two articles erroneously added to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have repopulated the category (with Oswald Grey and William Booth (forger)). Categories should not be emptied before a discussion.
    There are two ways of reading the title "Foo in X county": a) topics relating to that area when it was called X county; b) topics relating to the area that is now called X county.
    There is no neat solution to this issue, because county boundaries have changed several times over the century, which makes it hard to achieve the two aims which editors seek for a geographical category: a) a consistent geographical scopes, and b) the avoidance of anachronisms.
    Personally, I prefer to accept the apparent anachronism, by reading the category title as a geographical descriptor rather than a historical one. That's what we do in all sorts of categories: thousands of articles under "History of Foo" categories relate to places relate to topics from times when those geographical areas didn't exist, at least in their current form. In this case, the execution of those people is part of the history pf the area that is now West Midlands (county).
    However, in this case I think that problem has a simpler solution: to upmerge all the by-county sub-categories of Category:English people executed by hanging (except perhaps London). That category is too small to need division by county, and the attempt to do so has produced dozens of categs which fail WP:SMALLCAT. If the nominator will withdraw this nomination, I will do a group nom to upmerge the lot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that "categories should not be emptied before a discussion" is false; especially when the category is misapplied; and to only two articles. I have reverted its use on each of those articles as blatant untruths. Feel free to propose re-merging the categories; this nomination stands, an does not preclude that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question of whether the category was misapplied in those 2 cases is one of the issues being debated here. Leave the articles in the category while that is being discussed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I created the category, and when I originally saw that it was proposed for deletion, I thought that it would be on the basis of overcategorization (the point that BrownHairedGirl is making) -- which certainly would be an arguable thing. (I had created it because Category:People executed by hanging was becoming an unmanageably large group at nearly 1000, so I started subcategorizing it by nationality; as it turned out, the second-level subcategorization Category:English people executed by hanging was still too large at 150+.) I am surprised that it is being proposed on the basis that the county did not exist. It did not exist at the times of their death, but it exists now as a geographic entity and is a well-defined geographic entity. Geographic division is pretty much the best NPOV way of further dividing the English people at this point, as far as I can see. (Otherwise, people from countries like China, with previously ever-shifting place names and divisions, can never be reasonably divided by geography. Indeed, the United Kingdom and its geographic entities are kind of a demonstration of why we have to use the current geographic divisions; otherwise, we get stuck with old geographic divisions that difficult to define and use at this point.) As far as for overcategorization, I am open to opinions; I do think that otherwise it would still be too large of a category to manage, but I certainly would allow for the possibility that the county-level is too fine of a categorization. --Nlu (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection to categorising people geographically, but to categorising people according to modern political subdivisions which did not exist for nearly two centuries after their death. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would further comment that these category may be small, but they are small partly because Andy depopulated them based on what I see as an incorrect point. (Certainly he's free to disagree with me about this and certainly it would be an arguable point, but I still see as an incorrect point.) If they weren't depopulated, each of them would be somewhat larger. I should also note that, for example, Kaohsiung used to be named Takao, and geographic boundaries get modified as time goes by. I don't think we should have separate categories for when it was called Takao, or for when someone born in what is now Tainan was born then in what would have been back then in the prefecture of Takao. Modern geographic boundaries should apply because otherwise we have an unmanageable mess. Do we really want to have separate categories for Category:People from Beijing, Category:People from You Prefecture, Category:People from Fanyang, Category:People from Ji Prefecture, &c., &c., for people came from what is now Beijing? I don't think so. The same logic applies here. --Nlu (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you would be wrong. I depopulated only one category (singular; not plural), which otherwise had only two members. This us not about the change of name of settlements, but about the invention of new constructs in 1974, which are being applied in relation to 19th century events. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I stand corrected. I saw you make a couple more changes, but those don't have to do with this particular branch of the category tree, so I was wrong. --Nlu (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- the category is an anachronism, as the nom suggests. The one restored article is properly a Staffordshire one. We have recently been merging or renaming anachronistic national categories of the kind "Syria in 1911", because Syria was then part of Ottoman Empire. This should apply here. Pre-1974 items should appear under their appropriate pre-1974 county. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's quite different. Using old geographic boundaries, I think, confuses the definitions of geographic boundaries. "Syria" in that context, however, would be referring to a political entity, not a geographic one. --Nlu (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The West Midlands county is a political construct, not a geographical one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Andy, don't be silly. The West Midlands county has clearly-defined and uncontested geographical boundaries. Its geographical form serves political and administrative purposes, but political and geographical constructs are not mutually exclusive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Silly"? Oh dear. I look forward, after you've read Map#Map types and projections, to the apology you owe me for that remark. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • More silliness. Technical issues around types of mapping are a different matter to whether something is a geographical area. If you really believe that politically-created areas are not geographical constructs, then go ahead and open a mass CFD for all the geographical categories based on countries and sub-divisions thereof. But until you have succeeded in that gargantuan exercise, leave the silliness out of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we should have a broad discussion on whether "people from Foo" categories are for people from Foo (A) only when Foo was extant or (B) anyone from within today's (and tomorrow's if it changes) borders of Foo counts. I thought that we have more or less standardized on the form (A), haven't we? If so, this category gets deleted as a nullity. If we start a trek toward (B) all those folks from Prussia are now from Poland, etc. Not pretty. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is in fact quite standard for German people (as I've found out the last few days); they who were born in what is now Poland, the Czech Republic, and Russia were typically listed with the respective Slavic place names rather than the German names. And, as I've noted in my argument against Andy's argument, using his concept as to Chinese people will make the Chinese people categories an unusable mess. Which, in turn, I think, casts doubts on the wisdom of using non-modern geographic divisions rather than modern ones. --Nlu (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it makes no sense to claim that people were from a place that did not exist until after their death. The people above are ignoring we have Category:Ottoman people, Category:Yugoslav people, Category:Czechoslovak people, Category:People of British India and Category:Soviet people. So we clearly do categorize people related to places that no longer exist. We also have Category:People from Constantinople. We also classify as Germans people from anywhere in Germany, even if the area is now Poland. We would not put chemists, writers or such born in 1850 in what is now Kalingrad in Category:Russian chemists, even though Kalingrad is now in Russia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you are aware (and it is standard treatment) that, for example, Category:People from Constantinople is a subcategory of Category:People from Istanbul? Your illustrative examples in fact show it is standard for historical people to be treated as "from" the modern entities. If necessary, subcategorize them further. (Again, this is standard treatment for central European articles.) --Nlu (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we should exclude from sections on people from a specific area those who lived before it came to exist. It makes no sense to say that Chief Pontiac was from Michigan, because he died in 1769 and Michigan in any form was not organized 1805. We should only put people in geographic categories that made sense at the time. This is a different issue than how to name the location a person is from. If a person came from a place that is clearly the same as the modern place, even if it had a different name, than we can put them in that category, thus I see no problem with Category:People from Gdansk, including everyone who ever came from that city no matter what it was named. However to act as if people from a county of Hungary were really from a sub-unit of Ukraine just gives flase ideas of connection. With England, it is very clear that West Midlands did not exist before 1974, and we should not class people who died in 1973 as from it, anymore than Rudyard Kipling should be in Category:Pakistani people due to his having extensively lived in Lahore.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But people from West Midlanders are not an ethnic/national group. If they were, I might see your point, but it is clearly a reference to the geographic entity, not a nationalistic entity. --Nlu (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither are people from Michigan an ethnic or national group. We should not categoize people as being from a place who died before the place was organized. For example John Okemos is properly considered from Michigan, even if he was the Ojibwe Chief on the other side of negotiations with Lewis Cass. He clearly belongs in Category:People from Ingham County, Michigan, since the county was formed in 1839 and he lived there until the 1840s, and also in Category:People from Ionia County, Michigan, where he lived for the last 15+ years of his life, since that county was formed in 1831. He does not belong in Category:People from Shiawasee County, Michigan since he was never a resident in that county after it was formed in 1822, only long before the county was formed. Chief Pontiac likewise does not belong in Category:People from Oakland County, Michigan. This is not at all an issue of ethnicity, I am not treating the Ottawa Pontiac differently than the Ojibwe John Okemos, it is an issue of historical accuracy, Okemos lived in Ingham County and in Michigan, Pontiac never lived in Michigan because there was no Michigan. We should not apply designations of places before the places were formed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The point about Rudyard Kipling is nonsense, I'm afraid. He is quite correctly categorised under Category:People from Lahore which is itself a subcategory of Category:Pakistani people. Let's have a look at the example of Alfred the Great. He was born in Wantage, and is correctly categorised under Category:People from Wantage. This is a subcategory of Category:People from England. However, Wantage was not in England at the time of Alf's birth, but was in Wessex. The advocates of using historical geographic accuracy will argue that he should be placed in Category:People from Wessex (which doesn't exist at present). That would mean that Category:People from Wantage would have to be divided into each of the territorial areas to which Wantage has belonged over the years: Category:People from Wantage, Wessex, Category:People from Wantage, Berkshire and Category:People from Wantage, Oxfordshire. Otherwise, he finishes up in a subcategory of Category:People from Oxfordshire (which is where most people would now consider him to have been born, given that most people under the age of 40 aren't even aware that Wantage used to be in Berkshire, let alone Wessex). Do we really want to go down that road? Will it help either our readers or our editors? Or will it just cause such confusion that the whole categorisation system for the People from XXX category tree will collapse under the strain? Skinsmoke (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kipling is not in Category:Pakistani writers and if you tried to put him in that category you would be shot down. The odd and questionable parenting of from city categories should not be taken as a precedent to directly categorize people in anachronistic ways as directly saying they are from places that did not exist until after their deaths.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone has suggested he should be in Category:Pakistani writers. Am I missing something? However, he should probably be in Category:Writers from Lahore, which itself is a subcategory of Category:Pakistani writers. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Category:People from Gdańsk which is a subcategory of both Category:People from Royal Prussia and Category:People from Pomeranian Voivodeship, which seems a somewhat inaccurate but necessary compromise. We really should have a Category:People from Danzig which is part of the Prussia tree with "see also"s but the cat structure is not well designed for see also structuring. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The fight against anachronism in the category structure is like tilting at windmills. It generates endless amounts of ink, but is essentially impossible to resolve - how can we have people from anywhere when boundaries - even silly things like county boundaries, are constantly in flux. Trying to capture this through the blunt tool of a category system is useless. We have had so many of these discussions, they never seem to end - so my conclusion is, the best and cleanest solution is to use current geographical boundaries in almost every case. Just accept the anachronism. The category system is full of them, and this particular cat fits into the pattern of the cats around it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can categorize people as from the places that existed at the time they were alive. Anyway county boundaries are not "constatly in flux". Just because we cannot avoid all wrong categorization does not mean we should put Paul the Apostle in Category:Turkish people because where he was from is now in Turkey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, haven't you noticed? He is in Category:Turkish people under the subcategory Category:People from Tarsus, Mersin. Which simply indicates the folly of naming these categories at national level XXX people, rather than People from XXX. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the inaccuracies of categorization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he was in Category:Turkish Roman Catholic Saints then you would have a point. He is in no category that says "Turkish". The placement of by city categories in nationality parents should not be taken to imply that the people in the city categories fit the nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Gdansk example probably misses more than it covers. When Gdansk was founded just over 1000 years ago, it was more of less a Polish city. It is only later that it comes under German control. However the West Midlands never existed before 1974 any more than Pakistan existed before 1947. What next, will people want to called Baldwin I of Jerusalem an Israeli?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. This category is not about calling anyone anything. It exists to group people from the area now known as the West Midlands county, because they are part of the history of that area. If at the time of their notability, the area was a a part of another county or of Wales or Uzbekistan or whatever, then put em in that category too ... but please son't try to pretend that the history of an area began only when its current geographic boundaries were set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The history of Pakistan begins with the formation of Pakistan. To call the actions of John Kipling in running the Lahore Museum part of the history of Pakistan, or to call Paul the APostle's teaching in the Province of Asia or John's writting to the Churches there part of the history of Turkey is just incorrect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, on 14 August 1947, this land appeared out of a vacuum, populated by ppl of all ages who also materialised out of this vacuum. The buildings they lived in, the roads they walked on, and even the graveyards of their ancestors also popped out of this vacuum at precisely the same moment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was not Pakistan, it was India. The events happening there were happening in India, the people were in India. In fact, most of the developments and actions that lead to the creation of Pakistan occured in what is now India. The main area of operation for the Pakistan movements was in Uttar Pradesh. So, the people and actions going on in what is today Pakistan have no special connection with modern Pakistan by virtue of their location. Retroactive applying of categories is a really, really bad idea. The Crudader Kings were not Israelis, no matter how much partisans for Palestine would like to re-write history to make them so. You end up pushing an undefensible POV if you apply modern geographical names before the places they described existed. If this was just a case of West Midlands having had a different name it might be OK, but the borders where totally redrawn when the current county was created so retroactively applying the name does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2013 (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:Yugoslav partisans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as proposed, except using Category:Yugoslav Partisans members. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per consistency with Yugoslav Partisans of which this is a sub-category discussion below Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per consistency with Yugoslav Partisans of which this is a sub-category discussion below Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per consistency with Yugoslav Partisans of which this is a sub-category discussion below Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per consistency with Yugoslav Partisans of which this is a sub-category discussion below Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per consistency with Yugoslav Partisans of which this is a sub-category discussion below Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined all these since they raise precisely the same issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support revised nom. Category:Yugoslav partisans might also be acceptable for the people. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as this should've been "Serbian/Montenegrin/Macedonian/Croatian Yugoslav Partisans", or even Yugoslav Partisans from Serbia/Montenegro/Macedonia/Croatia" unless each... uh, republic, had its own chapter/organization that organized exclusively for activities in that republic that used the "Serbian/Montenegrin/Macedonian/Croatian Partisans" name. –HTD 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all the specific sub-groups to Category:Yugoslav Partisans. That is what they were. The attempts to seperate them out more specifically is an unreasonable rewrite of the history dictated by later events and should not be how we categorize these people. They were acting in behalf of the Yugoslav government in exile, at least that was their own claim, and they should be categorized as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is far more subtle than ethnicity, but granted, it's not obvious from category names. For example, Rade Končar was not of Croatian ethnicity, but categorizing him as a "Croatian partisan" is fair because he did indeed come from Croatia. I see now that he's also categorized as a "Serbian partisan", because the adjective also works for ethnicity, and that's also fair. (I implore all the readers of this and similar threads to avoid the silliness of saying that the countries of Croatia, Serbia and others magically disappeared because they joined the state of Yugoslavia, or that they ceased to exist before WWII because the Kingdom had no subdivisions named like that. There's a problem with delineating them in those time periods, yes, and that's a perfectly valid categorization concern in and of itself - but that doesn't mean we should slip on that slope and start arguing extremes.) We simply need to define the criterion for these categories - for example, do we intend them to match ambiguously, do we intend them to match ethnicity, do we want them to match the Yugoslav republics, or do we want to eliminate them in favor of categorizing into "Yugoslav Partisans" plus "Fooian people of World War II", and then define what the latter adjective should mean? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, "Yugoslav Partisans" is an organization, that may not include other "Yugoslav partisans" (notice the common noun on "partisans"). That's why I argued above that it's wrong to label a Croatian member of the Yugoslav Partisans as a "Croatian Partisan", unless a "Croatian Partisans" organization did exist; although you can argue that the Croatian was a "Croatian partisan" (common noun). JPL above you has argued that categorizing by ethnicity the various members of the Yugoslav Partisans is wrong, and I sorta agree, but on a reason that it is overcategorization, but not on his reasons. –HTD 15:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The distinction between the common noun and the WWII resistance movement doesn't actually exist in this context - there is no meaningful categorization of Yugoslav or Croatian or whatever partisans meaning anything non-specific. The uppercased P is a style fix, but as far as substance it's inconsequential.
      • The Partisan movement was not restricted to any subset of Yugoslavia, but it didn't erase the individual components of Yugoslavia, quite the contrary - as a result of the movement members' work in AVNOJ/ZAVNOH/etc, the delineation of those components became clearer than it was before the war. The components were the republics, and most of the republics had ethnic names. Again, I'm not saying we should necessarily use that, I'm saying it's not an option that should be disregarded just because it had something to do with ethnic nationalism (the republic/country names arose through that, but much earlier). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support creation of a Category:Yugoslav Partisans members for members, with the retention of Category:Yugoslav Partisans as main category for the article. "Yugoslav Partisans" is a proper noun, so the proper way to categorize people whose organizations are in the form of "<Noun> <Adjective>" is "<Noun> <Adjective> <position of the member>", just as the British Liberal Democrats politicians aren't categorized under "Category:Liberal Democrats (UK)" (which is rather about the party per se), but as "Category:Liberal Democrat (UK) politicians" (a container category). Unsure on further categorizing the members via the respective republics, but JPL has a convincing argument to avoid what could be overcategorization. –HTD 15:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the new songs category and on JPL's and HTD's suggestion of merging all "X Partisans" to a "Yugoslav Partisans members" category. The current ethnic proposal fails to take into account the Bosnian Partisans or Partisans of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which composed a very significant portion of the Yugoslav Partisans, and would require creating new categories for the Bosniak, Jewish, and Italian ethnicity Partisans. It also raises the risk of ethnic category edit-warring in an area that's notorious for it, such as the Serb/Montenegrin case that is frequent. The current "X Partisans" format can also cause problems since it can be ambiguous and result in an article be tagged with multiple similar categories for Croatian Serbs, Bosnian Croats, and Montenegrin Serbs for example, defeating the purpose. The all inclusive "Yugoslav Partisans members" category is the best way to go. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good points all. I can see the logic of eliminating the ethnicity issue by absorbing them all into a "members" category, and I take the point about overcategorisation. I am thinking Category:Yugoslav Partisans personnel is more in keeping with the terminology for military-related organisations. Generally such categories are rendered as Category:Fooian personnel of World War II for example, but World War II is inherent in Yugoslav Partisans, so the diambiguation is unnecessary. Why don't we just merge them all into Category:Yugoslav Partisans personnel? Peacemaker67 (send... over)
I won't oppose a category called "Category:Yugoslav Partisans personnel". –HTD 11:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I started this discussion in respect of the Slovene wing of the Yugoslav Partisans a few days earlier (see the March 31 log), and one editor has suggested there is a case for the Slovene Partisans to effectively have their own set of categories because they were "largely autonomous". Without getting into the evidence for that view, I suggest anyone interested in this thread also look there? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I need to elaborate an option I mentioned earlier... Both the military and the political organization of the Partisan movement was such that they e.g. had one AVNOJ but also six component organizations in each of the six constituent countries (see the navbox {{AVNOJ}}), or one central military command overseeing a set of headquarters one per each country (republic, province). The military reorganizations over the course of the war resulted in a removal of this kind of delination of components, while the political reorganizations pretty consistently kept the concept. Based on the AVNOJ delineation, the Yugoslav republics were formed, and today in turn these republics are independent. When categorizing individual people as Partisans, it's possible to take the point of view that they were primarily a soldier, so a delineated categorization is moot, and it's also possible to take the point of view that they were broadly speaking a member of the resistance that resulted in SFRY, which could leave little doubt in the appropriateness of a delineated categorization based on SFRY. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of changes that occurred in the command and control of the various Partisan organisations during the war, not the least of which was the fact that their were Operational Staff for East Bosnia, Vojvodina, Herzegovina, Bosanska Krajina etc, and Provincial Military Staff of Bosnia-Herzegovina etc. There were also Provincial Committees of the KPH (for example) for Dalmatia. Significant numbers of Partisan formations were recruited in one area but served elsewhere (the Vojvodina divisions served in the NDH for most of the war), and the Proletarian divisions and most of the Shock divisions were under the control of the Chief Operational Group of the Supreme Staff (ie Tito), or the multi-ethnic Corps (after they were formed) not provincial military staff. Given the complexity and potential for problematic "category-warring" and over-categorisation, I believe the merge of them all to Category:Yugoslav Partisans personnel is the most appropriate way to go. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's complex. I don't agree there's a noticable potential for extra abuse if the standard SFRY divisions are used. That is, the kind of people who would be so out of touch to abuse articles categorized using such a setup would be just as likely to abuse them if a single category is used. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't share your confidence, particularly given all the argy-bargy that goes on regarding the make-up of the Partisans in terms of which ethnic groups were most represented. I also believe that in most cases, clear "republic-based" categorisation would be difficult. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that nothing changes WRT that with a merge. The overly proud people will still be wanting to change "Yugoslav Partisans personnel" to "Whatever-they're-proud-of Partisans personnel". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but if they create those subcats we can point here and request speedy delete... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still, like I said, no real potential for extra abuse. A similar amount of problems that require effort to fix can happen either way. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2013 (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:Purefoods Tender Juicy Giants players[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the team has since changed into San Mig Coffee Mixers. –HTD 04:11, 1 April 2013 (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:Burger King Whoppers players[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the team has since changed into Barako Bull Energy Cola. –HTD 04:10, 1 April 2013 (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:Democratic Action (Philippines) politicians[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: relisted at CFD 2013 April 9. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article of the category is now at Aksyon Demokratiko. –HTD 03:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but is English not a widely used language in Phillippines as a former American colony? If so, was the change of name necessary?
    • While English is a widely used language in the Philippines, some parties' names are in local languages, even if English is the language used in the rest of the text; this is actually a result of prevalence of English, as even non-English names are treated as if they are English. Think of it as the case of Fianna Fail, Kuomintang or even Saenuri Party. See this English news report, for an example. In addition, while the party is referred to as "Aksyon Demokratiko" in English, it is almost never referred to as "Democratic Action" in any language, just as news reports in English don't refer to a "Soldiers of Destiny Party". –HTD 15:50, 1 April 2013 (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:H2 symmetry group[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Redirects from H2 symmetries. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete this sort of category consisting only of redirects is often useless, especially in cases like these where the redirects are not even categorized themselves. And given that the category itself isn't categorized either (this could be fixed of course) it would be a complete miracle for any reader to notice the existence of this category. On top of that, technical limitations mean that the titles of the redirects don't even use correct orbifold notation. I suppose an article on the topic (or more realistically a section of some article) might make sense but as a category this doesn't work. Pichpich (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep: I created this category for ongoing article/subject development. ABC symmetry redirects represent short name to jump to an article and section so I can continue to work on them collectively. Once the content is better fleshed out, the category allows all the redirect links to be identified for removal, renaming or updating. For instance, the various sections in progress might be extracted to a different organizational framework. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in that case, the links should be kept as a list in your user space or as a subpage of an article talk page. Pichpich (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We ought not to have categories consisting entirely of redirects. On the other hand, the targets are not all the same one, which suggests that there is some merit in having a category of some kind. Perhaps we need an article in which they can all be listed, with links to the appropriate article. I regret that my memory of group theory is inadequate to comment further. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_1&oldid=1079336570"