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. The process here was far from ideal. The nominator's actions almost got me to invalidate the discussion and set it all back on principle. But the consensus is actually favoring the new, more specific form, so the change is going ahead.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is consistent with standard naming practice and others in the same category. The main issue is to distinguish government leaders from other, (e.g. is Miss Harris County a "leader" in this sense? Perhaps she is, but it is still a good idea to make government categories clear.) Greg Bard (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "standard naming practice" described by the nominator is in fact a "standard" that he established about 24 hours ago when he unilaterally decided, without discussion, to empty and get rid of the long-existing Category:Leaders of counties in the United States and replace it with Category:County officers in the United States (not the same terminology as the "county officials" that is now proposed for the individual states). The "county leaders" categories, as they existed in the past, were not in fact populated with the full range of county officials (which can include county clerks, county executives, county commissioners, sheriffs, assessors, and a variety of other positions), but in fact were limited to people who held the chief executive position in a county -- a position that is commonly, but not universally, called "county executive". The nominator apparently didn't recognize that this was the purpose of the "county leaders" category, as he created new separate categories such as Category:County executives in Maryland that are now subcategories of the "County leaders" categories he is asking to rename. --Orlady (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: After starting this discussion (and after I posted my first comments here), the nominator has created the proposed destination categories. Thus, this is no longer a rename proposal. I infer that the nominator now wants to merge the "County leaders" categories into the "county officials" categories. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move for the Tennessee category. Consistent with my comment above, the scope of this particular category is not the broadly defined "county officials", but rather is limited to the subset of county officials who held the CEO position. The "county leaders" name is not necessarily ideal, but it was adopted for this category in order to conform to the standard hierarchy that was in place until yesterday -- and for want of an obvious alternative. There is no obvious alternative because in Tennessee the office of "county executive" has gone by (and continues to go by) a variety of other names. Historically, this position generally had the archaic title of "county judge", and some of the people categorized here had that title. Others were "county executives". The term "county mayor" has been in use in some counties for many years and it became the standard term for this office by decree of the state legislature a few years ago, in all but a couple of counties that asked to keep the "county executive" name. The category name "County officials" is OK for the broader scope it describes (and I much prefer "county officials" to "county officers" because "officer" is often a legal term with specific meaning that may not encompass all people normally thought of as county officials), but I don't want to lose the useful distinction between top-level leaders and other officials. "County leaders" manages to encompass the various titles that have been used in Tennessee, without implying the inclusion of officials such as county legislators (the function that "county commissioners" perform in Tennessee, but not in all states that use the "county commissioner" title), county clerks, assessors, and sheriffs. --Orlady (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose the move for the Wisconsin category. In Wisconsin several counties do have county executives. The proposed change is too broad and not accurate. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So just because not every single county has county executives (a claim which I doubt), that means we should not be able to properly categorize the ones that do? That makes absolutely ZERO sense. Greg Bard (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A significant problem with these categories -- and one that I know Gregbard has thought hard about -- is that structure of county government is radically different in the different U.S. states that have county governments. One example is "county executives": this job title exists in many states, but not all; meanwhile, the county executive is an elected official in some states but can be a hired/appointed manager in others. "County commissioners" are another example: in some states that use this title, county commissioners are the members of an elected legislature called the county commission, while in other states county commissioners are full-time officials who run the county on a daily basis (similar to county executives). These disparities mean that it is impossible to create a single set of position-specific categories that will make sense in every state. The category name "county officials" is one that should work as an umbrella category for all states that have county governments, but different states will need different categories for different specific positions. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. What is a county leader? Is it the elected sheriff, or the appointed head of the school district? Is it the elected members of the county commission or the leader that they in turn appoint? Is it the appointed executive that is the day to day manager? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent question, which it isn't really my place to answer. Personally, I wouldn't call a county assessor a leader, but there is also a very generous interpretation that would. I wouldn't call a sheriff a leader either, because I don't really support the whole culture of celebrating law and order and portraying authorities as heroes at the drop of a pin. (But that is just me.) My original question was about beauty pageant winners. They perform ceremonial roles which could easily be called leadership. The whole idea of having a category identifying "leaders" is inherently POV. Who is and is not a leader depends on whether or not someone will follow them (i.e completely individual and subjective). However, who is and is not holding an office is completely unambiguous. Greg Bard (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've invited User:Tom, who created the first "county leaders" categories back in 2005, to this discussion to clarify his intention in creating them (if he recalls).
I can speak to my intention when I created the "County leaders in Tennessee" category in 2011. I chose the "county leaders" title to conform with the existing category structure that I found at the national level and in some other states. I created the category after I observed that men who had been "county judges" had been improperly categorized in categories for the judiciary, although their positions were what in latter years has been called "county executive"; I was (and still am) rather sure that if I put these men into a "Tennessee county executives" category, sooner or later someone would "correct" my work by removing them from the category. I perceived that the "county leaders" categories were being used for people who held positions that could be equated with chief executive officer (or possibly sometimes chief operating officer) in a county, so I thought this was a reasonable choice for the people in Tennessee who have been variously called "county judge", "county executive" or "county mayor". There are currently 9 people in the category, including four three who had or have the title of "county mayor", three two who were called "county judges", two who were called "county executives", and one who was first a county judge and later the mayor of a consolidated city-county; all of them held (or hold) essentially the same elected position as the principal leaders of their counties' governments, and I think it would be absurd to create three separate categories for three different titles used for this one job (note that some individuals have held the very same job under two different titles -- because the job title changed for their jurisdiction or statewide -- during their tenure in office). There may be a better title than "county leaders", but I oppose upmerging the category into the umbrella category "county officials" just because the state does not have one consistent title for these officeholders. I don't believe that this situation is unique to Tennessee, as I believe that several other states also have used different titles for this job at different places and/or times. --Orlady (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
County head of government might work, but leader just plain does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to rename these categories to "County heads of government in...." or "Heads of county governments in...." The point is that these are categories for people who held a top-level leadership position; they are not for county officials in general. --Orlady (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "leader" is just not the right term. We might have categories for the head of government in a county, but that is problematic. In some counties there is no one clear head of government, and the way sherriffs, county prosecutors and such are elected makes this very problematic. In Michigan three counties have county executives, all other counties have as their theoretical head of government the chair of the county comissioners, however having lived in a county without an executive, at least for a time the Sherrif was the de facto leader. The "leaders" term is too open to POV interpretations. Officials is a much better category, which will allow sub-cats for specific titles in specific places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom to match most of other subcats in Category:County officers in the United States by state. Officials can be elected or appointed; can include county executives of any kind regardless of names used in particular staes/counties. Hmains (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, "officers" and "officials" are broad terms that can include not only county executives, but also sheriffs, county clerks, clerks of court, justices of the peace, tax assessors, county commissioners, bailiffs, registrars of deeds, district attorneys, dogcatchers, etc. Those words are appropriate for broad categories (but please use the word "officials" rather than "officers"; the words aren't synonymous), and would be a very poor substitute for a category specific to the principal executive officer in a county government. --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Officers is the parent category for all these officials subcats. I did not invent it nor support it. Change it. Hmains (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you didn't invent or support the creation of that parent category. Gregbard created it, without prior discussion, a few hours before this discussion started, then declared it to be the "standard naming practice" in the category. --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support moving from "officers" to "officials". At some point fairly soon, I will propose several changes to make things consistent within the whole county government area. Greg Bard (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] There are already separate categories for sheriffs (thanks to the law enforcement fans of Wikipedia) and some of these other positions (mostly as a result of Gregbard's work since starting this discussion); it would be incongruous to lump the top officials (who can be powerful people) into a generic "officials" when less notable officials are slotted into job-specific categories. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. The standard, which Gregbard is essentially proposing through his recent edits, seems to me to be a reasonable one that will work. I understand but am not convinced by the reasons given by those who have explained their opposition to it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment This discussion is moot for the Maryland case because the only articles directly within the source category were both county executives and therefore were moved to that category. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, all the pages in the Missouri and Texas categories fit in, and have been placed into, other relevant categories. Those two categories are redundant. --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the contents of the Nebraska category have now been moved to the destination category that Gregbard created after he started this discussion. It also is now redundant. --Orlady (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Appears to be the most sensible solution. LK (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As noted earlier, the nominator separately created the destination categories and other relevant categories after starting this discussion. Many pages have been manually moved into the various new categories. As a result, much of this discussion is now moot/irrelevant/overtaken by events. Here's my analysis of the current situation:
Category:Leaders of counties in Ohio - Most of the pages in this category are about county commissioners, and thus could be slotted into the newly created Category:County commissioners in Ohio, but several of them also served in other county offices, such as recorder or treasurer, so they will also need to be in another county-government category besides commissioners.
Category:Leaders of counties in Tennessee - There are currently 13 pages in this category. All are about people who were or are titled as county judge, county executive, and/or county mayor. (All are the same job, but the "good old boys" in the legislature like to play around with the terminology -- including permissively allowing specific counties to keep the old terms if the current officeholders prefer those terms.) Rename to Category:Heads of county government in Tennessee.
Category:Leaders of counties in Utah - Apparently has been mostly moved/replaced manually. The only content is a subcategory. Most Utah counties appear to use the three-commissioner form of government, wherein three commissioners have combined executive and legislative authority. However, Salt Lake County has a mayor-council form. Ideally, someone in Utah would weigh in here with ideas on how to structure these categories.
Category:Leaders of counties in Wisconsin - With Gregbard's newly created categories for county executives and county supervisors, most of the category contents have been moved manually. The one remaining page is about someone who held some other county office. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 24 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.
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. None of the arguments against this category offered any plausible reason to delete this category, while keeping all the other sub-cats of Category:Torture victims by nationality. There may be a case for deleting Category:Torture victims and all its sub-categories (I didn't see one here, but maybe there is such a case) ... and if editors want to make that case, then there should be a group nomination so that all the categories can be considered together. In the meantime, if some of the articles in this category are not torture victims, then that miscategorisation can be fixed in the usual way, by altering the categorisation of that particular article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant cat as Category:Torture in Bangladesh was created at the same time. We also have Category:Human rights in Bangladesh so both of these cats are a bit POV. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly it create negative expression, so could be considered as POV. Right now 6 persons are listed there, one of them is very much known for his political career and others are known for journalism. "Sylhet Protidin" is a news paper. If we start adding every sorts of torture (ie. police torture, political torture, torture by hijakar...etc) can you imagine how large it will be?--FreemesM(talk) 18:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep : The argument for delete seems to have more to do with publicity than building an encyclopedia with consistent categories. If this category is deleted, then all the Bangaldeshi victims would have to categorized under the general category of "Torture victims", while other nations would retain their nation-specific categories. The current structure includes many countries, and not just Bangladesh, and so the argument that this category is POV is false.Crtew (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep as long as there are Bangaldeshi torture victims (or any other nationality) who have been tortured by any country, a category is an approviate navigation tool for WP readers to be able to locate them. There was no argument above that there are no Bangladeshi torture victims. Hmains (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how are these folks' claims of torture been validated, so as to not run afoul of WP:BLP by casting aspersions of torture on the people in charge of their incarcerations/interrogations? If that cannot be solved - to the high standard of BLP; these must go. Let's take the first person Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir, where it states in para. 1 "As a leading opponent of the Bangladesh National Party, he was detained without charges and tortured during 2002." No citation, no source, no nothing. The weaselly worded sentence is capable of several interpretations, but nowhere does it tell us WHO did the alleged torture: the party, the state, one nasty prison warden? His personal account, is of course not a WP:RS, any more than David Koresh's claims to be Jesus are to be given any weight. Also, there is no standard definition of torture, so your definition of torture may vary from the next person's making these categories purely Subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the editor speaking of Bangladesh or about every country (by country)? The nomination itself is flawed.Crtew (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Damned if nominate all, damned if you don't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAP - these are all problematic and after this one goes; the rest will be nominated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least this is a valid reason, which is more than the parties above are providing. However, perhaps there is a way to limit entries in the category or some other solution. Deletion is still not appropriate for this reason, IMHO. Crtew (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the structure of the category is being followed as in Category:British torture victims then how is it that that category is populated by ex servicemen who were tortured as POWs? While Category:Bangladeshi torture victims has only people who have claimed to be tortured? And one article does not even mention torture[1]Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment It seems that people will not understand that this is not a cateogry of people torturned by Bangladesh but Bangladeshi people who were tortured by some entity or another inside or outside of Bangladesh. People should actually read the category tree and the inclusion criteria before commenting. And problems with articles in categories are solved by validing each article, not by deleting categores before doing and so avoiding the validation work. Hmains (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir alleges torture based only a report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which claims to be based on at least three sources (Amnesty International, World Organization Against Torture, and a website run by the alleged victims son)
Munier Choudhury alleges torture without quoting sources, but this person apparently died after Bangladesh declared independence but before the war ended so arguably this could be better categorised under Category:Pakistani torture victims
Dhirendranath Datta alleges torture based on a single Bengali source but I have been unable to find it even on the Internet archive; this person apparently died after Bangladesh declared independence but before the war ended so arguably this could be better categorised under Category:Pakistani torture victims
Nilima Ibrahim is noted for writing about rape and torture but the wiki-article does not allege she herself was tortured so I don't think this is the right category for this article
Mahmudur Rahman has several strong sources about alleged torture
Sylhet Protidin is a newspaper whose editor was alleged to have been tortured but does not have a wiki-article of his own, so this is another mid-categorisation
Overall there appears to be a strong case for having a category on torture in Bangladesh but only two of these seven articles make a strong case for inclusion in this category, whereas there are three weak cases and two that don't fit here. The justification of keeping the category because other nationalities have similar categories is a very weak and unencyclopedic reason. Green Giant (talk) 03:01, 25 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.
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.
I see your point about the main category, but I do not believe that all the sub-categories need such disambiguation. As a compromise, I'd be OK with renaming Category:Western films to Category:Western (genre) films, if "(genre)" is removed from the sub-categories above. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how "Western comedy film" is not going to be confused with "Western comedy film" in relation to "African comedy film", etc. so all of them need "(genre)" -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose in an encyclopedia with world-wide coverage we need to make sure that we distinguish multiple meanings of western. Even if we shy away from the dualism of western vs. eastern, we have to ackwoledge the reality that University courses in western culture are not about in the main the struggles of cowboys and Native Americans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is This proposed change is not an improvement; it makes navgation searches more difficult for the WP reader who will be confused. Hmains (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it looks cleaner and nobody will get confused. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should point out again that these two sub-categories are the only ones that use "(genre)" in the title, while all the other categories pertaining to western films simply use the word "Western" with a capital W. If the consensus is that "(genre)" is necessary to differentiate these categories from other cultures, it will need to be added to ALL the sub-categories of Category:Western films in order to be consistent. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The parenthesised "genre" is needed as a disambiguator. The parent category should be speedily renamed per WP:C2D to match the head article Western (genre). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose A "Romantic Western Film" could be a romantic film made by Italians as opposed to one made by Syrians, and might include Life is Beuatiful if we do not include the disambiguator. I am reminded of my college western civ teacher mentioning the student he had who asked when they would get to talking about cowboys.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 27 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sport in Portarlington, County Laois[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.
Support per nom and the Damascene-converted Finnegas. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:21, 19 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.
Members of the Senate of Puerto Rico by session[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge all to Category:Members of the Senate of Puerto Rico. Following up my previous close, we don't do this for the United States Senate, so doing so for a legislature governed by that one seems unnecessary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with the earlier discussion regarding Category:Members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, Members of the Senate should also not be categorized by individual legislative session that they sat in. Each and every time a person gets reelected to a new term, they would have to be added to another new category, resulting in category bloat. Lists by session are warranted (and in fact already exist for sessions 20-25 per Category:Senate of Puerto Rico by session); categories should be by political party. Delete as WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. Bearcat (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Which Senate a senator sat in is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Senators are not a group of atomised individuals but a collection of people at a particular moment in time. The significance of a Senator depends on who they served alongside and who they did not. Using the term of each Senate is the appropriate measure as each SEnate has its own different character and its own different pressing issues. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it's important for us to have the information of who served in which session — but Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus that this type of information should be presented in list form rather than categories, because having a separate category for each individual term in the same job is a violation of WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. Not every piece of information needs to be presented in category form. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such longstanding consensus. Similar sets of categories for legislators have been kept many times in the past. Do you want me to post a set of links? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. Do you want me to respond with a set of countervailing links to the significant number of times when such categories were deleted for exactly the reasons I've listed here? Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and the previous discussion for the HoR categories. I don't see why these should be kept when the HoR ones were deleted. Categorizing by session is overcategorization for legislators, in my opinion, and it leads to gross category bloat in numerous cases. (The UK MPs category being the most infamous example.) This is information that is to best presented and maintained in lists. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Puerto Rico HoR discussion was not a one-off decision, but was fully in line with an already existing consensus against this type of categorization that has been upheld numerous times in the past when this same thing has been tried in numerous other political jurisdictions. And as anybody who knows much of anything about politics is fully aware, people who serve multiple terms in the same legislature are the majority, not the exception — so the outliers are the people who would end up in only one sessional category, while the ones who would end up in two, three, four or ten of them simultaneously are the norm. That's not an "unimpressive trick", it's the reality of what this type of categorization actually leads to — and the fact that this particular set hasn't been fully populated yet doesn't change that fact. And this is not the first time I've reminded you that while you're certainly within your right to present a case for why an existing consensus should be changed to allow a new type of categorization that has previously been deprecated, you are not entitled to argue from the position that the current consensus doesn't even exist in the first place. I'm frankly beginning to suspect that your approach in CFD is to just automatically take the opposite position of anything I say just because I'm the one saying it — because you seem to be absolutely incapable of participating in any CFD discussion where I've also commented without lapsing into an argument that has far more to do with casting ad hominem aspersions on my basic competence as a Wikipedian (dismissing my arguments as "opinions" or "unimpressive tricks", accusing me of bad faith even when I've acted wholly correctly, pretending that any existing consensus I point to as evidence doesn't exist in the first place even when it quite clearly does, etc.) than it does with the substance of the debate itself. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, please try to calm down. Your walls of angry assertiveness with bolded text don't help a discussion. Nor does your petulant insistence when challenged that everything you do or propose is in line with an existing consensus. In this particular case, I can point you to numerous precedents for keeping this type of category, so your insistence is not just petulant -- it's wrong. Either you haven't done your homework, or you are being intentionally misleading. I don't know which. I don't know what you think you are trying to achieve by this approach, but you come across as stressed. You would find consensus-forming discussions less stressful if you approached them as an opportunity to discuss an issue and try to reach a consensus, rather than simply as a chance for everyone else to accept that no sane person could disagree with Bearcat's assertions. On the substance of the example, you chose to base your case on an extreme example, rather than by analysing a representative sample. If you don't like being challenged when you make that sort of an argument, then there's an esay solution: don't make that sort of an argument. And as to your suggestion that I joined this discussion just to disagree with you; please stop making silly allegations like that, because it makes you sound paranoid. If you had actually checked the history of discussions about legislators-by-legislative-term categories, you would find that I have taken a consistent view in at least a dozen such discussions over more than 6 years. As to your basic competence as a Wikipedian, I have not had reason to question it so far (although posts like the one I'm replying to will lead me to do so if you continue). So far the only conclusion I have reached about you is that your systematic and unrepentant side-stepping of CFD processes is a disgrace, and that unless you change your ways then some day I will start an RFC/U about it. But maybe somebody will get there before me; at this time of the year, I have long days on the land, so it'll take a prolonged rainy patch to give me the time. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I can point you to far more numerous instances where CFD has deleted similar categories as WP:OC#OVERLAPPING — this has been tried in Canada and CFD deleted it, this has been tried in the mainland United States and CFD deleted it, and on and so forth — so while there might be a few conflicting results in other countries, the issue here is not one of me not having "done my homework", but of one or two outlying results that are in conflict with an otherwise strong consensus against this type of categorization. And again with the assertions that I've done anything that constitutes "systematic and unrepentant side-stepping of CFD processes"? Again — and I will say this in bold as many times as it takes for you to get it — I have never, not once acted in any way inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and procedure. You're certainly free to have a different opinion about what categories should be allowed or disallowed here, and to make that case by arguing the merits of the categories rather than the demerits of the nominator — I have absolutely no problem listening to and discussing differing opinions that are argued on the merits of the case rather than by attacking me as a person — but I have never acted improperly under existing Wikipedia consensus and procedure, and you're the one who's going to find yourself on the receiving end of an RFC if you ever assert otherwise again. It's not your opinions on the issues that I have a problem with — I'm more than capable of respectfully disagreeing with and debating someone as long as they're respectful of me in return — it's your repeated ad hominem attacks on me as an individual that I take issue with. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop being silly. I have not attacked you as individual. I have criticised some of the arguments you have made, and agreed with you in other cases. I deplore your CFD-dodging conduct, which I continue to regard as disgraceful ... but I didn't raise that here. You raised it, because you assumed in bad faith that my disagreement with the nomination was motivated by some personal issue. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like the way "CFD-dodging conduct" and "systematic and unrepentant side-stepping of CFD processes" are being used here to describe some of Bearcat's past actions. Such phrases imply that Bearcat's intentions are known and that the intent was to avoid CFD in situations where he knew that CFD should be used. I don't think that's a fair characterization at all, unless Bearcat has admitted as much, which I doubt he has. Having been on the receiving end of similar phrases where a bad faith intent is assumed, I can sympathize with him feeling personally attacked. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GO, I think that "CFD-dodging conduct" and "systematic and unrepentant side-stepping of CFD processes" are entirely fair descriptions of Bearcat's habit of simply redirecting categories which he doesn't like. The bots then depopulate them, so this amounts to speedy deletion of the categories concerned. There is no speedy deletion criterion which permits this, and Bearcat's defence that these are categories of a type frequently merged or deleted at CFD is no excuse for speedy deletion out of process. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that maybe you need to consider the possibility that another user might interpret the appropriateness of their actions differently than you do. It is possible that another user interprets the guidelines and policies differently than you. You can describe their conduct and what actions they have done—that's fine and I don't see a problem with it—but what I see as not OK in this case is imbuing that conduct with accusations of bad faith, since there is obviously (at least to me) a disagreement about the underlying appropriateness of the actions themselves. "CFD-dodging conduct" and "systematic and unrepentant side-stepping of CFD processes" imply bad faith, and are inappropriate uses of rhetoric. If you can't help yourself and have to make such accusations, you should follow your own advice (given below) and take the issue to ANI, where such allegations are considered (and therefore they are appropriately made there). Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bring it up here; it was Bearcat who chose to personalise this discussion by trying to misrepresent my !vote here as a personal attack on him. If he wants to complain at ANI, he's welcome to do so. It may well be, as you say, that Bearcat takes a difft view of the appropriateness of his conduct. I just described the behaviour, but have no magic insight into whether it is due to bad faith, incompetence, or whatever. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again: policy does clarify that categories are allowed to be deleted or redirected on sight, without necessarily having to be taken to CFD first, if they were created by a banned user. One certainly can still take it to CFD if there's a reason to believe that consensus might favour keeping the category anyway — frex, if it's genuinely useful and/or well-populated — but for a three-item category that's explicitly in defiance of a properly established consensus, the mere fact that it was created by a banned user is sufficient basis to speedy it. That's the "magic insight" option you seem to be deliberately or accidentally overlooking here: completely correct understanding of policy as it actually stands. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly attacked me as an individual. You repeatedly make this assertion that I've acted in bad faith ("CFD-dodging conduct", etc.), even when I've demonstrated that my actions were fully in accordance with correct policy and procedure, and you repeatedly lapse into arguments that are less about the reasons why a category should potentially be kept on its merits and more about accusing me of incorrect or improper reasoning or behaviour — I can indeed point to one recent case where you actually argued that a nominated category should be kept solely because "Bearcat is acting in bad faith", without presenting even the slightest attempt at an argument that there was any merit-based reason to keep the category whatsoever. You may not be intending to attack me personally, but that most certainly is how your arguments are actually landing — so if there's a disconnect here it's between what you intend to say and what you're actually saying, not between me and non-silliness. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, if you regard criticism of your misconduct as a personal attack, then go to ANI. The recent example to which you pointed was a case where you massively expanded a guideline relating to categorisation, and then 2 or 3 days later cited it as a rationale for a nomination without disclosing that you had just written the section you were citing. That's disgracefully sneaky conduct, which falls well below the high standards expected of an admin. If you don't want to be criticised for that sort of chicanery, then don't do it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in pursuing this discussion any further in this particular venue — but again, the fact that you continue to characterize a fully transparent and fully policy-compliant update of a policy document to provide a fully accurate summary of the current and properly established consensus around a particular type of categorization as "disgracefully sneaky conduct" and "chicanery" is exactly why you are the one who needs to rethink your understanding of the difference between "criticism" and "attacking", not me. At no point did I ever act improperly, and the fact that you continue to assert that I did is exactly the problem here — as is the fact that you posted the first comment in this discussion that cast aspersions on my editorial judgement and now are trying to turn it around so that I'm at fault, I'm the one who "brought it up", even though you took the first shot in this discussion and I simply responded to it. Perhaps I shouldn't have taken the bait, but you "brought it up" here, not me. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except the 'current' one, which should be renamed to 26th or whatever its number is. I agree with BHG that each is a defining characteristic. Oculi (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extreme over-categorisation. Tim! (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is almost exactly the same as the House of Representatives case and presents the same flaws of massive overcategorization. The senate a senator is in is no more defining than the house a member of the house is in. There is no real difference in the two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In PR both the senate and the house have terms of the same length with the same start and end times at present. There is no difference between the senate someone is in and the house someone is in. They have different numbers because at one point in the past the house served for shorter terms, but at present they serve for the exact same length, with the same start and end times, so there is no difference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 21 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.
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. We don't categorize places by who lives there. Presumably London, Istanbul, and New York have Azerbaijanis (both ethnically and citizens) living there, too. See also [Our deletion of similar category] Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not categorize in this manner. We do have some other categorizes along these lines, but most are in process of being deleted. Also, when we do have these cateories we require a much clearer definition that some people, and this category gives us the added nighetmare of not being clear if it is about ethnicity, nationality, or the combination of the two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, not relevant at all. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:21, 22 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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category for a 2 year college. Tinton5 (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: irrelevant rationale. Whether the college courses last 2 days or 2 decades is utterly irrelevant to whether there should be a category. Per WP:CAT#Overview, a category exists to group articles by a shared defining characteristic, and facilitate navigation between them. If we have enough pages relating to the category, it should stay. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have never thought that the three of a category for alumni, a category for faculty, and a main article alone were enough to justify a category, but users seem fond of creating these based on just those three. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, small size like that does not justify a category. But it's tedious to see a nom made on spurious grounds. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems kind of petty and technocratic to oppose a nomination just because spurious grounds were cited. It makes more sense to me to point out that the rationale is spurious but then go on to consider the appropriateness of the category in isolation of the nominator's reasons using the background knowledge you bring to the table. Maybe that's what you did implicitly; that seems to be the approach taken by the users who have subsequently commented. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion I had thought about creating a category for alumni, but I had never thought that there would be enough to justify. I must say that I'm surprised that there are well-populated subcategories for alumni, faculty and athletics, above and beyond the minimum necessary to justify a structure. We have corresponding categories for high schools and other non-tertiary schools of learning and i see no policy justification for deletion of this structure, which serves as an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Looks like a perfectly valid category. It has a guideline-compliant scope and purpose and it's populated with appropriate contents. --Orlady (talk) 05:42, 21 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.
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: Contains just one article, which could be recategorised under the one of the parent categories (Proposed country subdivisions). Green Giant (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but do not upmerge content to Category:Provinces of Thailand, as it is an invalid entry for that category. The article should probably be re-categorised together with other failed government projects / proposed laws instead. (It still needs to be categorised under something in the Thailand tree.) --Paul_012 (talk) 06:20, 24 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.
