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 all and salt top category. – FayenaticLondon 13:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Sports" is more appropriate here because the Philippines generally uses U.S. English—it was administered by the U.S. for many years. This same rename was agreed to in 2010, but it keeps getting changed speedily in apparent ignorance of this previous discussion. The main article is Sports in the Philippines. (For the same reasons, the sport categories for Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands also use "Sports".) Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think i prefer convenience following standard wiki-wide convention than having to abide by dialectal accuracy. Also the Filipino (Tagalog) for it is isport.1--RioHondo (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That could be one approach to take, but the U.S., Palau, FSM, and Marshall Islands ones already use "Sports", so it appears that we are using the WP:ENGVAR approach. And of course we wouldn't use the Tagalog word, as this is the English Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not on Wikipedia, in reality Palau and the Marshall Islands both definitely use U.S. English when English is used there. I don't have a formal list, but I generally understand it to be the U.S. and its current territories, Philippines, Palau, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, pockets of Canada, and probably Mexico. I don't know of others, though there may be some in Central America, South America, or the Caribbean. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per the previous discussion and salt. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the previous discussion and the article. US English is appropriate here. (And watch the main category.) Oculi (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename I think there is a clear consensus that this is the preferred naming convention. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel(talk) 02:58, 29 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:Norman and Medieval London + Economy of Norman and Medieval England[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 17:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Norman is part of Medieval anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- I very much doubt that we know enough specifically about Norman London to split between Norman and Plantaganet periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 17 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:Highlife albums by Nigerian artists[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 13:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per Fayenatic, plus Highlife genre is a popular genre in Nigeria and most other West African countries, so this category can be easily populated.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:24, 18 October 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.
Support per previous discussion to create a clear overarching container for folk material. SFB 22:59, 16 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename as WP:SMALLCAT. Just created, along with the parent category; they each have only one member page. – FayenaticLondon 17:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to fractal software. Further subcategories are not required at this point. SFB 23:00, 16 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Are we really categorizing people according to Nazi laws? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The people in the category appear in a list in the Mischling article (and a number of them were prominent Nazis.) — Robert Greer (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not a defining characteristic. The word does not occur in the sample of articles I picked, and thus cannot possibly be defining. Oculi (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unmaintainable racial category, with a really appalling name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete presents BLP issues as a likely slur. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 15 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:speedy mergeWP:C2E, keep as redirect. – FayenaticLondon 19:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Category clearly created in good faith by an editor unaware of the existence of the other category, but which entirely duplicates it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created the British courtiers category and have no objection to a merger. Tim! (talk) 16:58, 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. – FayenaticLondon 16:37, 19 October 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. – FayenaticLondon 17:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I don't know if this category should exist or not, but if it does, then surely we need to indicate that it is for people. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of this category doesn't feel right to me, but I don't know if we violate any rule or guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was kind of my gut feeling too. The people in it are people who were primary suspects for a particular crime but they were never tried for the crime and it was discovered later that they were wrongfully suspected. So the category certainly fits with how it's being used; it would also certainly be open to abuse, but I don't see any signs that it has been. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete three reasons (1) we don't have alleged categories (BLP), and this is very similar, (2) "wrongfully accused" tends to imply that the accusation was wrongful - where often, like many theories and arguments made in good faith was disproved or never put to test, and (3) subjectivity of inclusion: was Lee Harvey Oswald wrongfully accused? How about George Zimmermann? certainly each was named as a "prime suspect" of something but ultimately neither was convicted of what they were "suspected" of. Best be done with the cat here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some good points here, which I think is the essence of why my gut feeling was to feel that maybe it should be deleted. As it's being used in practice, it seems to be limited to people for which the facts are much more clear cut than Oswald or Zimmermann—it's being used in instances where the investigators (or whomever the accused was) have been quite upfront that they screwed up and that the suspected person was not involved, and for those who are included right now, one of the main reasons that the person is notable is that they were wrongfully accused. However, Carlos does point out some theoretical or potential issues, if nothing else. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is the Category:Wrongful convictions for people who were wrongfully convicted of crimes. But people are wrongfully accused all the time, and exonerated at various points in the legal process. That's one reason there are criminal defense lawyers. Abductive (reasoning) 03:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- Too vague. This could cover people who were tried but acquitted; those whose conviction was quashed on appeal, and those who were acquitted on a technicality; but also cases where the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, though the accused had in fact done the crime. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 17 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I found these a little bit hard to believe when I ran across them. Categorizing people because their death occurred in a hospital, or in a particular hospital? This is overcategorization. Very few people are defined by the fact that they died in a hospital or by the particular hospital that they die in. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual hospitals - WP:OC not defining. -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining. I have argued for retaining 'burials' categories but these are ridiculous. Oculi (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it wasn't defining it would not appear in their obituary. That is how we have objectively determined what is defining in the past. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really what "defining" means. The standard for what is defining has never been equated with everything that is mentioned in an obituary. See WP:CATDEF. In any case, there are likely multiple examples of obituaries of the people included in these categories that don't include a mention of the hospital that they died in. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An obituary may say things like "He leaves a widow" or "His funeral will take place next Tuesday", but we don't categorize by those... DexDor (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that. Tim! (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename top category, delete sub-cats. – FayenaticLondon 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subcats. Add text to top category explaining what the inclusion criteria are - also possibly rename it (per Tim!) and/or put it in the Category:Events tree. DexDor (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All What's next, dying at a hospice? Dying at a hospital is not noteworthy or defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to read the category article contents which are now generally 'deaths by murder at hospitals by medical staff'--clearly a noteworthy subject, whatever category name it might carry. Hmains (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmains there is no main article and the cateegory name is unclear. I'm open to a different category under a different name. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DElete all -- The institution where a person died is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 17 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:merge biography pages (remove article on the prison). – FayenaticLondon 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Deaths in custody is worth having, but not a split by prison. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 17 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is not one of a series, so there is no "standard" naming convention to adopt, but it's basically a list category for topics related to Christianity in Australia, so I think the proposed name makes this clearer, and it matches the parent Category:Christianity in Australia. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can be a personal thing but for me the dash was confusing. I initially read it as |Christianity|in|Australia-related lists|. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hyphen, but point taken. The "FOO-related lists" format is pretty commonly used, even when "FOO" is more than one word. To absolutely avoid confusion, we could go with the Category:Christianity-in-Australia-related lists, but that is less commonly in these types of category names. I think it's not perfect, but it's certainly better than what exists right now, I think. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could. I bet though that it would eventually be nominated speedily by someone to add in the hyphen, since that's the usual format. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge to parent; possibly rename to match its style. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 17 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.
Moved from User talk:Robertgreer § Mischlinge