Category:Organizations affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Its a nasty subject. there are groups, perhaps groups is a better word, that have sworn traditional Arabic oaths to ISIL. There are those that want to say that this makes them part of ISIL and, without suitable categorisation options, this is how the groups will be defined. I am also planning to start a category of "organisations/groups allied with the I...." Its amazing that they are defined as Islamic. Anyway, this is what we've got. Related discussion is at: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Standard for Naming ISIL in Sinai, Libya etc. TY Gregkaye✍♪ 16:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is declaring allegiance to some group or another defining for that group? Even in this instance? We don't have, for example, Category:World War II Axis members or Category:World War I Central Powers or anything akin to that, which presumably was much more formal for each country to become than just saying, "hey we like what you're all about and we'll help you do what you're doing" which essentially is these pledges of allegiance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46 editors are either going to categorise these groups as in allegiance with ISIL or they are going to categorise them as ISIL. The former is more accurate and doesn't falsely present an escalated presentation of the situation. The effect of deletion would be that Wikipedia will say that ISIL are spread in various locations in Africa and the Middle-East. In this case Wikipedia will have enforced a falsehood. This is not relating to groups saying "hey we like what you're all about". This is about groups that go out and kill people. Gregkaye✍♪ 13:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced material that ISIL is "in Libya", etc., can be deleted by any editor. That someone has pledged allegiance to a group, whether a good or bad group, is not something on which we ought to categorize. Many wars and criminal enterprises - ISIL seems to be both - are rendered by proxy, but we don't categorize the proxies by their puppet masters, real or aspired to. I just think it's a bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the category is not tagged. Oculi (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it if someone else didn't already. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the defining characteristic for these groups may be jihadist, islamist, terrorist, or anything like that. But the proposed category has no potential to be a defining characteristic, per Carlossuarez. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 25 November 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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Eponymous categories each containing only its eponymous article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:07, 20 November 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: Estonia did not exist yet in the time of the Prince-Bishops. Estonia and Latvia together were Livonia. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Estonia/Latvia are the modern terms for Livonia now, and many people may not know what Livonia is. Although that was the name when the Prince-Bishoprics were around, I think it'd be best to keep with the modern-day terms. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support matches parent category and better reflects topic. Disagree with Fimatic in that if people think Livonia is obscure, then they probably won't be searching articles on Livonia or its Prince-Bishoprics. SFB 18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We should categorise historical things according to the contemporary polities, not the present successors. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 25 November 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:Terrorist incidents in Canada in 2014[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:full upmerge (to all parents). The categorization of the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu attack as a 'terrorist incident' is an editorial decision and should be made at the level of that article. However, there is consensus that there is not enough material to warrant a country-year subcategory. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is gross overcategorization for only two (both contentious as far as "terrorist incidents" go) events, and Category:Terrorist incidents in Canada already exists. There are no other by-year categories, also. That the category creator made this at the same time as his authorship of the 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack article in which he fabricated statements claimed to be in sources but weren't in order to pitch the "terror" line, and has edit warred with false edit comments there to try and restore his POV/false statements is not incidental to this, and there is a wide debate in Canada whether or not either incident was really terrorism rather than the result of mental health policies, and questions as to why the 2014 Moncton shootings have not been similarly "classified" by the "authorities" are highly relevant to the "contentious" nature of the word "terror", a term which has also been used by politicians and "consultants" to refer to native and environmental opponents of the government. The need for a CfD, given the prior existence of the non-year Category:Terrorist incidents in Canada, can be found in this discussion on the Ottawa article's talkpage. What I see here and on countless pages is the "seeding" of the "terror theme" across Wikipedia in a highly subjective and resistant-to-dispute kind of way (as with the false edit comments and POV deletions/additions in the history of both articles in the category). Be that as it may, this category was created by someone who falsely hyped the alleged "terrorist" incidents and has only two items, and the existing parent category is more than enough. Other than the Moncton shootings and some fracking protests where the word "terrorism" got thrown around (by authorities), there were no other so-called "terrorist incidents" in Canada in 2014 and no other year-defined category exists.Skookum1 (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to parent categories. Category:Terrorist incidents in 2014 is not fully broken down by country. (If the articles do not relate to 'terrorist incidents' then the articles should be removed.) Oculi (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Full upmerge -- I trust there will not be enough to populate this national category better. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 25 November 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:Sashes of the Order of the Star of Romania[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. – FayenaticLondon 23:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete because it's not a defining characteristic of the articles of this category, WP:NONDEF and WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is a highest level civil order of a country. It marks a person's distinguished role in the international relations of Romania. I agree that there is potential within this tree for categorisation by much less defining characteristics (see contents of Category:British knights by type or order). Still, National honours do affect how a person is addressed however and typically display a level of recognition by the given state. I think the rationale of this nomination goes far beyond the stated category. SFB 19:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The very least that you would expect from a Wikipedia article in this category is an indication why the person was awarded with the order e.g. by mentioning what special relations the person had with Rumania. But Rumania is often not mentioned in these articles at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LIstify (if necessary) and delete -- A large proportion of the contents appear to be foreign heads of state to whom the award has bene made as a diplomatic measure. This is very differnet from an award made by a country to its own citizens (which indicate it has recognised their notability). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron and Black Falcon. As Black Falcon said,"The recipients of the Order appear to be primarily foreign heads of state who have received multiple such honours and are not defined by this recognition." -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:40, 29 November 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 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 28. The category was not tagged until November 25. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)