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.
From what I understand from that discussion, if comuni is not allowed as a category name, municipalities would be the best alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWP:UE, seems like the English word is "municipality from the linked to discussion -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support any changes; right now it's ridiculous. Commune is a FRENCH loanword... Either stick to english with Category:Lists of municipalities of Italy or go full out italian with Category:Lists of comuni of Italy. This inbetween Italian-sounding-but-not-Italian compromise is neither accurate nor consistent with the rest of the wiki. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is the English WP, so that unless a common English usage can be shown for a foreign plural, the plural should be formed according to English rules. Though commune has come to have a different context in English, as Carlossuarez46 has pointed out, but if ther English word for the Italian minor polities is commune, the English plural should be communes. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 7 September 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:Baltimore City, Maryland Registered Historic Place stubs[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: All other Wikipedia categories related to this city call it "Baltimore, Maryland", not "Baltimore City, Maryland". עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 20:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was most likely done to distinguish it from Baltimore County. Perhaps you should see whether "Baltimore" or "Baltimore City" is the official NRHP designation. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 21:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have stub categories for both the city and the county - c.174 and c.70 items respectively. Both are potentially large enough to keep (assuming no overlap. However, if the rename goes ahead, the county stub should also be mereged. I am not voting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the city of Baltimore, Maryland is an independent city - that is, no part of it belongs to any county, Baltimore County, Maryland or other. And since each has at least 60 stubs, they shouyld both be kept - the question is what the name should be. And US counties are always called "XXX County, YYY", but cities aren't called "XXX City, YYY" except where the word "City" is a natural part of the name (e.g Kansas City, Missouri). עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to be consistent with other Baltimore categories. If we need city it should be in all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 20 September 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:American people executed by decapitation[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: This category is a bit tricky. Of the twelve articles currently in the category, four relate to people were kidnapped and murdered by terrorists in one-or-another Middle Eastern war zone. I know media tend to use the word "execution" to refer to these murders, but including them in the same category as people who were found guilty of a crime and subjected to capital punishment seems problematic. Four more were apparently murdered, not "executed", in the United States. One was apparently murdered in the 1850s under circumstances I don't fully understand and I'm not sure if the word "execution" is appropriate or not. Two more were executed by hanging, but accidentally decapitated in the process -- this means they were technically both "executed" and "decapitated", but the implication of "executed by decapitation" is still wrong. Only one (Mildred Harnack) was indisputably "executed by decapitation". If the category exists to use the common wording of "execution" for the first of these groups, then we can theoretically keep the title, but the other articles need to be removed... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is an aberrant category. England executed its nobles (and Charles I) by decapitation with with an axe. France used the guillotine for the death penalty. We need to distinguish judicial execution from murder and from death in battle. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is part of a larger Category:People executed by decapitation category so we shouldn't rename just this one. Adding some text (that is compatible with parent categories) and purging may be appropriate. DexDor (talk)
So, we should remove all but one of the twelve articles in the category, to keep it consistent with the other subcategories of that larger category? 'Cause in case you haven't noticed, almost no one here was actually "executed by decapitation". Are single-article categories allowed? (I honestly don't know.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although, someone needs to rationalize what "executed" means particularly when it's not a recognized state actor doing the "executing". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Carlossuarez46: "Keep" implies someone is arguing for "Delete". Please re-read my opening comment. This is about either re-naming or re-organizing, since almost none of the articles in this category fit the current name. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake, I'm afraid. When someone suggests a rename, Keep means keep the name as it is. Pretty standard lingo at CFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the category is a childcat of Category:Capital punishment, it seems to me that we should restrict it to Capital punishment applications. That may be added to the header. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has to be hundreds of persons Americans killed by accidental decapitation annually. Will these victims also them be included in this category? ~Technophant (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's no execution for sure, so I'd say no. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding that I hadn't made clear that I would favor keeping the name as is! Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep and do not rename, as a proper subcategory of its parents and as part of wider category scheme. There is no need for arbitrary deletion of the category's articles to make some point or another. This category serves the purpose of categories: to aid readers in navigation to similar articles that might interest them. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Hmains: "Keep" implies someone is arguing for "Delete". Please re-read my opening comment. This is about either re-naming or re-organizing, since almost none of the articles in this category fit the current name. Are you saying we should remove the 11 articles about Americans who were murdered and/or accidentally beheaded? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Technophant: "Keep" implies someone is arguing for "Delete". Please re-read my opening comment. This is about either re-naming or re-organizing, since almost none of the articles in this category fit the current name. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri 88 I'm just copying the style of other users. I mean leave as is or don't rename or keep the same. Also with as many other countries listed at Category:People executed by decapitation why would we want to create an inconsistency and change only American one?~Technophant (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep name and purge to restrict this category to Capital punishment applications (its parent category). That restriction may be added to the header. My vote was implied by my earlier comments but I had forgotten to make it explicit. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
cmt what is all the quibbling about just having capital punishment here. If a terrorist group kills someone by beheading them, then that is an execution and the Americans so victimized belong in this category as it is currently named. What other category and name would be used instead? Hmains (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply the current category structure: Capital punishment - Prisoners sentenced to death - Executed people etc. I don't think it's a good idea to start mixing up the Capital punishment tree with the Terrorism tree, those are two completely different things in my honest opinion. If a terrorist group kills an American by beheading him then the Wikipedia article about it belongs in Category:American terrorism victims, if there's a sufficient amount of articles about beheading by terrorists - let's hope not - a new childcategory can be created here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we follow the principals of common name. If our reliable sources (the media) call an event an execution, than it is one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 20 September 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:List of scientists whose names are used as non SI units[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: Not a good way to categorize scientists. Could be listified. If kept, should be renamed to something like "Scientists whose names are used as non SI units". DexDor (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per nom, not defining characteristic for the scientists, category does not contain lists, it contains scientist bios. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update Delete per nom, list already exists, as pointed out below. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OC by shared name characteristics. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the existing list and navigation template are sufficient. – FayenaticLondon 20:32, 9 September 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. It currently contains the author page, which does not belong in a "works" category. – FayenaticLondon 20:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom this a empty category after the delete all in the AFD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- speedy? Empty categories are routinely culled. Is the prescence of the CFD notice all that is preventing that? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 7 September 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.
