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 per precedents. If people want to press for a deletion then I suggest an RFC at WikiProject Books, rather than a test case. – FayenaticLondon 05:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The original publisher runs contrary to WP:DEFINING in my opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you can pick this one category out for deletion. It is the next category up Category:Books by publisher that needs to be reviewed. I am not sure that original publisher is defining; these sort of things are probably best covered by a list. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! I didn't realize it had siblings. Still, better to try a test case first rather than petition for wholesale eradication. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see publisher as a defining characteristic. For mathematicians, a Springer book is something they all know and many love. How reputable a book is depends in part on the reputation of the publisher: ask a physicist of what he thinks of CUP or OUP books vs World Scientific books. What is a Harlequin romance novel without Harlequin? --Mark viking (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The original publisher is certainly defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete in principal I do not think original publisher is generally seen as a defining characteristic of a book. Normally author and date are much more important than publisher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2014 (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.
Obviously as the creator I would support keeping this topic, renaming it (as discussed above) and adding to it so that golfers that all golfers that have or currently do play on this tour are included. I know it's a lower level tour but I think that it could be useful to know which golfers have played on it and gone on from there, hence providing evidence of it's success (or lack of) as a feeder tour
However (User:Tewapack) you are a far more experienced user of wikipedia that I am (as I have only just started using it) and therefore I will fully support whatever decision you choose to make on this topic. If you do not believe it appropriate to keep this the I will not oppose it's deletion.
One a separate note, as a seasoned golf editor would you be able to let me know on my talk pages if I am doing anything else incorrectly on the pages I have created and/or edited, I'd like to try to do things properly so any advice is always welcome
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:Disambiguation lists of Hawaii-related topics[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear what a "Disambiguation list of Foo-related topics" category is and this is the only such category in enwiki. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. See also the related discussion. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 09:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Personally, I find the former more natural-sounding, but I'm fine with standardizing the Category:Genocide victims subcats. When I think of genocide victims, I think people who died, but I suppose the survivors are victims too. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The current name could also include people forcibly sterilized, people forcibly adopted into other ethnicities as children, and other people who suffered from policies that are classed under genocide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet Genocide inevitably involves death, so that "died" is tortology. Suvivors are not victims of the genocide, though thney may have suffered as a result of the killing of relatives and thus be secondary victims. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, as JPL points out above, a victim of genocide does not have to die to be a victim of genocide. Legally, genocide can include things like rape, forcible sterilisation, forced displacement, taking children away from parents, etc. It is entirely possible for genocide to be committed with zero deaths having resulted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"-cide" words when I learnt Latin referred to killing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's the (complete or partial) killing of "a group" (genos). To kill a group one does not necessarily have to kill individuals. (E.g., if everyone in the group is forcibly sterilised—the group has effectively been killed because it will not continue beyond the living generation.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, so long as we are OK with this changing the scope of the category. Not all genocide victims are killed in the genocide (per my comments above), but I think what these categories are trying to communicate is that they are for people who were killed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all, all genocide categories have been checked to see that they comply with the new scope of the categories.Hoops gza (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2014 (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: The phrase "Festung Jersey" appears nowhere else on Wikipedia, so I propose a clearer title consistent with other subcats of Category:German military occupations. The current scope note says the category is for German fortifications in Jersey, so the rename would include a widening of scope. I think that would be a good thing. BDD (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nom and similar categories of the same format. Brigade Piron (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete as I feel compelled to recognise the majority below as a consensus, but I have listified the current contents at List of songs about rain to facilitate re-creation if a centralized discussion points that way. I looked but could not find such a discussion via WT:SONG or the talk pages of the editors below. Bearcat indicates specific problems with at least some of the contents of this particular category. – FayenaticLondon 21:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING. Most of the members of this category don't mention what the lyrics are "about" so inclusion must be based of the use of the word "rain" use the word in the title. The lyrics to one song start "I'm gonna love you like nobody's loved you come rain or shine" Is rain a defining categoristic of that song? "Songs about..." categories remain a repository of original research without any redeeming factors. Richhoncho (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers the usual problems of "about" categories as pointed about above: how much "about" rain must a song be? and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much "about" rain? Pure OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What of the other "about" songs categories?Hoops gza (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting, not opposing. My question is literal, not rhetorical.Hoops gza (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For just two other examples of the problem, "Don't Rain on My Parade" and "Set Fire to the Rain" have been included here, even though they both use the word "rain" only metaphorically, and are in no meaningful way about rain per se. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About categories are considered on a case by case basis, and when the case before us clearly shows the name leads to unmeaningful and too broad inclusion, we should deleted the category as not serving a useful purpose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as part of a series, per my comments above in the April 26 discussion of songs about loneliness. The rationale is sound, but it applies equally to many other categories. Cherrypicking individual examples of the principles fragments the discussion, wastes editors energy, and risks inconsistent results. There should be a centralized discussion of the principles set out in the nom. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only. I note BHG's comment above and have withdrawn the 3 other nominations (which were intended to be a group nom of "songs about..."). This category was created on the 24th, nominated on the 25th and today is only the 26th so it appears to be correct to let this nomination to run. I also note a divergence above, JPL suggests that they should be decided on a case by case basis, yet BHG objects they are not considered together.--Richhoncho (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I have no problem with an individual nomination if it is because the perceived deficiency of the nominated category is something which distinguishes it from other "about" categories. However, this nomination is based on the broad premise that "Songs about..." categories remain a repository of original research without any redeeming factors. That broad proposition should be tested against the set as a whole. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That ignores the fact that there are some "songs about" situations that are supported by lots of study of the intersection, but we have lots and lots of categories that are not. This is more like the award categories, where we allow a few exceptions, but basically a category has to be proved to stand, and in general these categories are hodge-podges of songs that really are not "about" the claimed subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2014 (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:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages[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.
Not sure of the best solution - one would be to merge up all of the "x-th century Christian female saints" categories, and have a broader grouping of just Christian female saints, and then ensure they are all in the right gender-neutral-by-century category - this is the solution that was used at Category:American novelists. I'm open to other ideas, of course. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query Are you proposing a tree structure of "Xth-century Christian male saints" -> "X era Christian male saints" -> "Christian male saints" as a parallel to "Xth-century Christian female saints" -> "X era Christian female saints" -> "Christian female saints" with each set reporting to "Xth-century Christian saints" -> "X era Christian saints" -> "Christian saints"? Is this supposed to represent some sort of equality or balance? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
for now I'm proposing getting rid of the xth century female saints, and just putting them next to the men, as well as in a generic Christian saints + women cat. But as I said open to other options, not sure we need to fully gender split the tree though.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Split all saints into by gender cats. The fact of the matter is that the process to sainthood is different at these times for males and females, and their gender is closely linked to the process. This is a place where gender does matter, and we should make that explicitly clear in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- With one exception, this is a container categfory and should be tagged as such. However, in the 21st century AD we cannot have more than 21 by century categories, so that saints by cenutry ought to be adequate. We seem to have a few national categories by era and we might possibly keep it to parent them. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category groups together a number of unlike things, and it also has no other analogues anywhere else in the nobility tree (i.e. I was unable to find any other instances of nationality+women+nobility.) People in the nobility tree are normally sorted and grouped by their titles, but here instead we lump together children of nobles, nobles in their own right, women married to nobles, etc. The only thing they have in common is their lady-like nature.
The proper solution is to split this, and put the countesses in their proper category by title, princesses and queens elsewhere, and children in a separate cat. In general, the whole nobility tree in every other country is split by (usually) gender-specific titles (eg count/countess, prince/princess), so there is no reason to lump all of these women together in an undifferentiated mess.
If we don't have or know of a specific title, they should just go into Category:Irish nobility, otherwise they are being very clearly ghettoized from their male peers.
If you're wondering, "Are these women ALREADY ghettoized" - never fear, we can answer that rather easily... the answer is... YES. ghettoized. This search looks for all of the women in this category, and removes any that are in the sibling categories where their brothers/husbands/fathers are. Guess what? out of 42 women in this cat, a whopping 40 are ONLY in this cat - even if they are queens and countesses and, as Drmies was so proud to point out, Nobles in their own right. This cat is a ghettoization mess waiting to happen (or one that has already happened), it should split and then binned. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Firstly, it's quite poorly populated so not sure that there's enought to warrent splitting. Secondly, it includes Gaelic nobles who would not have adopted the English grades of nobility yet were still noble, being the daughters/wives of Chiefs/sub-kings etc. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if they were noble they must have had titles, so we should categorize by their titles. It's what we do to the men why treat the women separately in a ghetto?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is the linguistic equivalent of what we would have with Category:Irish Lords. Due to modern linguistic usage, noblewomen is more clear as a cat title. Although actually, I don't see why we can't have Category:Irishnoblemen to go along with that. Leave those two categories, and work everything else under them somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the noblemen are mostly in more specific title cats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I can see some logic in splitting this between Irish (Gaelic) nobility and Ango-Norman and Anglo-Irish nobility, but "countess" will not do for baronesses or earl's daughters. I am not clear what was Irish about Melusine von der Schulenburg, Duchess of Kendal, except that George I had conferred on her some Irish titles. For men giving an Irish title was a means of providing a title without a seat in the British House of Lords. I would thus deplore including people in this category merely becasue they had an Irish title, unless they had a clear link with Ireland, such as having Irish estates. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2014 (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:double upmerge. – FayenaticLondon 09:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Rank this as another success for stub sorting and the anime editors. Very few anime characters have stub-level articles. Propose keeping template, but upmerging to Category:Anime and manga stubs. Delete the undersized character category. Dawynn (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Armbrust. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. It was opposed as ambiguous, and the nominator has not replied to the objections. Moreover, multiple citations in the article use "avant-garde. This discussion might have attracted more comments if the pages had been re-tagged with direct links instead of relying on finding a link from the Speedy page. – FayenaticLondon 16:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After closing, I found that there was a RM in the past, although it was poorly supported. I have suggested reversing the RM of that page, see Talk:Experimental metal. If that happens, then the 3 existing target categories below for albums can be nominated for reverse merging. – FayenaticLondon 17:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Experimental metal, and Avant-garde metal is just an alternative name of it. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECT to speedy rename This should have a discussion. The article has a hatnote for post-metal, and "experimental metal" is not just a music term so should have "(music)" attached if this is renamed. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use "experimental metal (music)" instead, if a rename is warranted using experimental metal. "experimental metal" means prototype, outside of music. Though, per the article, "eperimental metal" also means "post-metal"... so would seem to be hopelessly ambiguous for use as a category name (unless you called it "experimental metal (avant-garde metal)" ). -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the categories are only tagged with a link to the speedy page, no direct link to this nomination. @Armbrust: please tag the pages and relist this discussion. We should also then notify relevant WikiProjects. – FayenaticLondon 12:54, 22 May 2014 (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.
Merge Categories should be by subject, not what name is used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there's some need to categorize articles where the common name IS the topic. Set indices and disambiguations may be about the application of a common name to multiple species; the name is the topic. Category:Fish common names and Category:Plant common names, while containing some miscategorized stuff, primarily include articles where the common name is the topic. The only entry presently in the mammal category that is about a common name is warty pig (which I have just now recategorized under Category:Animal common name disambiguation pages). Mammal common name isn't worth keeping with present contents, but if a similar category may be useful if mammal editors start trying to keep track of common name DABs and SIAs. Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages are not articles and do not have a topic; they are merely a navigation aid to help readers reach the article about the topic they are looking for. Dab pages should only be in dab page categories (e.g. Category:Animal common name disambiguation pages).
If editors want to keep track of dab pages where some/all of the entries are mammals then there are talk page categories like Category:NA-importance mammal articles or a more specific category could be created (e.g. like Category:Disambig-Class bird articles). Much more latitude is given to talk page categorization (which is hidden away from readers) - e.g. many different wikiprojects may express an interest in a page. Another advantage of such wikiproject-based categorization is article alerts - e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals#News currently contains a note about this discussion. DexDor (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2014 (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:Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
