Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 11 April 13 >

April 12[edit]

Category:Fictional military academies[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. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I do not see the necessity for this cat at this time. Of its four pages we have two that are arguably not military academies - Starfleet Academy and the Jedi Academ(ies). Grant it, I am not an expert in either of these expanded universes, but Starfleet was supposed to be primarily an exploration rather than a military organization (how much that was true in practice is debatable, but that is beside the point.) The Jedi, as Mace Windu stated in Attack of the Clones were supposed to be primarily a peace keeping order, rather than soldiers. I know next to nothing about the Judge Dredd universe, only having seen the 1990s film, which is supposed to be inaccuate, but I understand that the "Judges" are supposed to embody a policeman, jury and judge, not necessarily soldiers. The only other page, and the only page that undoubtedly covers fictional military academies is the list page. So I do not think this category serves its stated function very well at this time. If more pages could be created for fictional military academies that were unambiguously described as such in their source material, then I would reconsider.Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:SMALLCAT. I personally would put Starfleet in, but it's really the only legitimate member, and when you look at the list article, only a couple of the entries are linked, and one of those is a link to the non-fictional Fork Union. Mangoe (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2016 (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:FC Wil players[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. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: team name is FC Wil 1900 Joeykai (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The target is currently a cat-redirect. This should be reversed, so that the subject becomes the cat-redirect.
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:Characters who speak a fictional language[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate per WP:NONDEF and WP:TRIVIALCAT —swpbT 18:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as non-defining, especially when you add in every Marc Okrand-voiced TV and movie character. Mangoe (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Normally when studios create a character for a film, a TV show, or a video game, they usually make him/her speak English or any real language. But in less often cases, they make a character speak something made up probably to give him/her some personality or to make the work exotic. I guess this trait is worth classifying. Authors would give characters bizarre traits to make them distinct. 172.56.16.112 (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone elaborate what's wrong with this one? How often does a character speak something non-real? If viewers see a film they never saw before, they probably expect the characters to speak English. But if some characters, speak something out of this world, viewers are likely to be surprised. 172.56.16.112 (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I was watching a historical costume drama film set in Paris in the 1800s or a cop drama set in present-day London, then sure, I'd be surprised if some characters were speaking a wholly fictional language. If I were watching a science fiction or fantasy film, however, then I'd be surprised if some characters weren't speaking a wholly fictional language — and in science fiction films, there's also the trope of the universal translator, which exists so that characters can be understood by each other (and by the audience watching the film) even though in the film's own internal reality each character is actually speaking his or her own fictional native language rather than English. Which means that what language a character is speaking in that kind of film cannot be assessed as a factor of what language you're hearing their words in. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every typical or unusual characteristic is a defining characteristic. While reading through the articles, it doesn't look like it's defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's kinda obnoxious if critics give their critical remarks without giving any explanation. 172.56.31.9 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The way I see it, categorizing characters who speak a fictional language is no different than categorizing people who are LGBT. 172.56.31.9 (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being LGBT is a defining characteristic of a person. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a defining point of commonality between characters who are speaking different fictional languages. And looking at the category, it appears to have been used solely for a random selection of animated characters, 75 per cent of whom aren't even human — so "speaking a fictional language" simply goes with the territory. Then there's the question of end product vs. internal universe: in their own internal world, many characters (alien races in science fiction films who are being filtered through the universal translator, the Smurfs smurfing their way through Smurfland in smurf language, etc.) are not actually speaking the language you're hearing, so do they belong here too? Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Smurfs speak a fictional lanaguage? I thought they just speak English or French. 208.54.39.229 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The end product is presented in English or French, so that the audience understands the program. Within their own internal reality, however, they're speaking neither. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is this defining? When programmers created games in The Sims series, they thought of making the characters speak a real world language but figured that might get to repetitive which is why they created Simlish. As for Pingu, the language he speaks is something that made him a hit. 208.54.39.229 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2016 (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:Communist encyclopedias[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. These two articles are already in encyclopedia categories other than this one, and I'll add Category:Communist books, which should be non-controversial. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I do not feel this is a wise category. Certainty encyclopedias published in Communist states were subject to the same kind of censorship and ideological bias as every other form of media, but does that make them technically "Communist"? The Academy of Sciences of the USSR for instance, was no officially a Party organization and it could have people working on its publications that were not Party members. Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support The two examples currently in this category clearly are Communist in the sense of propagating (a kind of) communist ideology. But there are only two examples which could be upmerged to Category:Communist books Furius (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is something wrong with the tagging of this category: no tag but two comments on the category page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put a correct CfD tag on the category page, almost two weeks after nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge to some appropriate encyclopedia category. The category appears to contain a Soviet encyclopedia and something in Cyrillic (which I do not read), but may well be the Russian version of the same thing. If so, this is a one-member category, and better for some kind of upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Communist books. No merge needed to encyclopedia categories, the articles are adequately classified in the encyclopedia tree already. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to exist to hold the article on the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but we already have the category Category:Soviet encyclopedias and also Category:Russian-language encyclopedias. No justification for this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2016 (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.

Commonwealth army squadrons[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 as described in nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In Commonwealth armies, "company" or "squadron" is purely a designation that depends upon the corps; by tradition, some corps call their companies squadrons (and the Royal [Australian] Artillery calls them batteries). It's not something that's worth a separate category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: this makes sense to me, they are both quite small categories. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Australian merge as there is a historical difference between the two, squadron is larger in size and has a history related to mount(mechanised) troops where as a company has/is foot/infantry soldiers and the two co-exist, such that an Australia company is clearly a defined term with very specific traits with squadron actually transporting companies, both have had different terms of service when deployed.[1] Gnangarra 10:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there's no difference. The terminology is the same in both armies. Both are company-sized units usually commanded by a major. That's quite clear from the page you have yourself cited. Some squadrons are larger than companies; some companies are larger than squadrons. It depends entirely on the corps and the type of unit (note that it's not just cavalry/armoured regiments that have squadrons - the term is also used in the engineers, signals, transport, SAS, etc). I have no idea what you mean by "squadron actually transporting companies". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2016 (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:Music of Denton, Texas[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Or better yet Delete the category all together and merge appropriate entries into People from Denton, Texas. Please note the category page says its main article is 'Musicians from Denton, Texas' Proper categorizing of people from a location is Musicians from Foo. Some of this categories entries are for people whose only association with Denton is that they went to North Texas State University. Consensus for categorizing of people is that going to a university in Foo doesn't make than alumni a person from Foo unless they otherwise lived in Foo at some non-college time in their life. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some of the articles in this category today are musical ensembles, so renaming to Category:Musicians from Denton, Texas or moving to "People from Denton, Texas" would not be an appropriate course of action. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. I good deal of the content seems to be based on the people being alumni of a music college there. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Musicians, since this is primarily categorizing people. The UNT pages should be removed accordingly. kennethaw88 • talk 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we delete this category, where exactly would we put B4S? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as constituted. Not everything in this category is an individual musician — some of them are bands and thus would belong in a Category:Musical groups from Denton, Texas category rather than a "musicians" category, and there are also a couple of music venues, a music journal and a music festival. A Category:Musicians from Denton, Texas category should be created if there are enough musicians left over to justify it once it's purged of people whose only connection to Denton is having attended North Texas State, but it should be a subcategory of this, not a renamed replacement for it. It's entirely normal, if the content is there to support them, for a city to have a "Music of City" category, of which "Musicians from City" and "Musical groups from City" are subcategories — so this is in no way outside of normal practice. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow creation of subcategory Category:Musicians from Denton, Texas per Bearcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Music of Texas and disperse as needed. I think we need to roll back on subcategorizing musicians by city. The first article in the category is a music festival that apparently happened in Austin for its first 4 years and then relocated to Denton 7 years ago, so I am less then convinced Denton has a specific music scene outside of North Texas University, but not enough to justify a seperate category. What next, will we have Category:Music of Provo, Utah to cover Neon Trees, Jericho Road and a few other musical phenomenon linked to that city?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:Musicians from Denton, Texas and Category:Musical groups from Denton, Texas and make it a container category. There is useful categorization here that shouldn't be deleted, and the "Music of Denton, Texas" keeps the category tree consistent. If we're keeping Category:Musical groups from Denton, Texas, we should keep this. ~ RobTalk 20:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it shouldn't be a container category due to things like 35 Denton. Those can stay in the parent. So this is more of a selective rename/merge vote. ~ RobTalk 20:12, 3 June 2016 (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:Art conservation and restoration[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I believe this is a useful subcategory of the overpopulated Category:Conservation and restoration and its other parent cats. A user with expertise in conservation and restoration disagrees and has depopulated the category (see discussion here), but, with sincere respect, I would like to see broader input on this. It seems to me that we've had no problem identifying art in other contexts—if it's intended as art, it's art—and it should be easy to identify restoration topics that are exclusively art-related from those that are not, on that basis. —swpbT 14:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat different I have some sympathy with the arguments of the other user, expressed on his talk page here, that "art" is a tricky distinction here. The whole category has all of Category:Art history, Category:Cultural heritage, Category:Museology, and Category:Collections care as parents, which sort of covers it. What remains a problem here is that most articles were also individually in all of these cats, and often other wholly inappropriate ones (Museum occupations, museum collections and others) which I have been trying to tackle by removal. What would make sense is for smaller specific groups to be split off to sub-cats - paintings-related to Category:Conservation and restoration of paintings, and perhaps the sculpture and library-related ones and others, and I would propose that. In addition many of these articles have not been categorized in the obvious categories relating to the type of object they are. This area is something of a secret garden, and understanding of general WP policies is sometimes lacking. There is plenty here for User:Marcocapelle or others to get their teeth into. Johnbod (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse creating Category:Conservation and restoration of paintings, for its much sharper boundary. Great idea! —swpbT 13:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with the tag. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I cannot see what I am supposed to be discussing: it is an empty category. Has it been emptied out of process? The suggested rename would probably be appropriate, but only if it is populated. I assume that the conservation of sculpture was never in this category, but it might have included drawings (which are not paintings). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was emptied without discussion, certainly, having once been pretty large. There is no suggested rename. The category previously included art in all media, and the C&R of materials used for both "art" and other "non-art" objects of archaeological or historical significance, which was what the other user didn't like, as well as drawing a line between what is and is not art, which contemporary theory tends to find difficult or inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nominating this category. For conservation and restoration, the more useful categorization would be by type of material or media, rather than if it is or is not "art." --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2016 (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:Tenhipalam[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, as it only contains one page Chelari, which is already categorised in Villages in Malappuram district. – Fayenatic London 12:52, 12 April 2016 (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:All-star films[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. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OR and per a similar previous CfD. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the films I put in this category have the term "all star" in their respective entries (or in other entries referring to these films). This category merely collects them together. If there's a problem with gauging which films are eligible to use this term, then (optimally) guidelines should be set, or, alternatively, the usage of this & similar terms must be barred on Wikipedia.
This is a topic of interest to me, so I think it might interest others, and so rhis category is useful. Shilonite 12:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by שילוני (talk • contribs)
  • Listify Delete: I share Lugnuts' concern that this category will be applied indiscriminately and in cases where the category is not a defining feature of the film (I note the category currently includes at least one Harry Potter film, where I doubt that this is a defining feature). A list where entries needed proper citation for inclusion, would, I think, serve this function better. That said, perhaps at that point entries on that list could be placed in a category. DonIago (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Categories should not be applied to articles where it is not defining. This category would inevitably boil down to whether or not someone looks long enough to find some random critic calling a film's cast "all-star". - SummerPhDv2.0 14:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did say "perhaps". :p DonIago (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hopelessly POV. We do not have criteria for what qualifies as "all-star". We cannot arbitrarily set criteria either. Rather, we would need unambiguous criteria from independent reliable sources. Is "all" everyone in the film or just the major characters? What makes for a "major" character? Is a star someone who has a starring role (whatever that might be) in an arbitrary number of prior films? How many? Where did that number come from? Do minor films count? By discussing all of these questions we might eventually reach a consensus. The end result would be a non-notable topic: one we created. It would be similar to creating List of actors who have won a lot of major awards or List of really popular foods. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far too POV. The same would apply to a list article so I can't see that as being an alternative. OTOH my List of really popular foods would be so large it might cause the servers to crash :-) MarnetteD|Talk 14:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: I just feel that this is a case of "Shooting the messenger; the category merely collects movies that are described, in existing Wikipedia entries, as "all-star". As was said above: "We do not have criteria for what qualifies as "all-star". etc....". I agree. But along those lines, such phrases would have to be purged from Wikipedia as a whole. At the moment this description is employed in hundreds of entries. Deleting this category won't make the use of this phrase more legitimate in the individual entries. Shilonite 16:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by שילוני (talk • contribs)
Comment - In article content, such wording (if used) should always be attributed: "Jean Critic of Bigtime Newspaper said it was 'the first all-star Bollywood film'." Not "It was the first all-star Bollywood film." Cementing poor writing in place by making it a category or list is a step backwards. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like others have said, this is unworkable. The category is wide open to interpretation, and there's no objective measure for when to describe something as "all-star". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Too subjective. Mangoe (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Per the article on All-star: "The term all-star also used in films,[1] often used as a form of publicity gimmick to promote the cast of a movie in which a number of high-profile actors appear, sometimes merely in cameo roles." The way casting goes, this could potentially include thousands of films involving high-profile actors. I could argue Batman & Robin (film) is an all-star film because it includes major roles for George Clooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Uma Thurman, and Alicia Silverstone. They are all high-profile actors, but how defining is this for the film itself? Dimadick (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Whether a film is an all star one depends on the POV issue as to what actors merit the classification of "star". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2016 (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.

People convicted of murdering police officers[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: keep but encourage unbundled renomination. While this discussion has an apparent split of opinion between "support" and "oppose", a closer inspection of the opinions show an underlying consensus. There is agreement that renaming from "police officers" to "law enforcement officials" will make the scope of the category clearer in some jurisdictions (e.g. USA, Canada) but more confusing in others (e.g. Britain, Australia). So I'm closing this discussion as keep, but there should be a discussion on whether specific instances of these categories should be renamed and broadened. Deryck C. 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some of the people included in these categories were convicted of killing law enforcement officials that were not, strictly speaking, police officers. I suggest broadening the category names slightly to accommodate this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: In a death penalty context usually all law enforcement officers are grouped together. For example the Texas state laws say people who murder "peace officers" (on Wkipedia redirect to law enforcement officer) may be sentenced to death. That includes regular police officers, game wardens (see James Garrett Freeman as an example of one such murder), etc. It may not necessarily include code enforcement as in some cities it's a civil government department enforcing city code, although if murdering a code enforcement officer (or any other government official) is done in "obstruction or retaliation" it's also a death penalty offense (see Adam Kelly Ward). WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a reasonable broadening of scope in cases and states where there are multiple law enforcement agencies, not just the police. I don't understand, however, what this has to do with the death penalty. It has been banned or out of use for the entirety of Europe for quite some time, though that does not mean there is a lack of severe penalties for murder. Dimadick (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dimadick: In many states of the USA, if a person is found guilty of murdering a law enforcement officer, that alone is enough to elevate the murder to "aggravated murder" and thereby make the person eligible for the death penalty. This is relevant to the category Category:People executed for murdering police officers. It's mainly an American issue now, though I suspect some Asian and African countries also still have similar laws. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Australia, Ireland, UK, and many other countries have one police force; in Ireland's case called Garda. IN the case of UK (and I am British), I have no idea what "law enforcement officials" would cover, apart from the police: perhaps judges and public prosecutors. If a British traffic warden is murdered in the course of duty (which is unlikely), I would see not objection to the person being in the police category, though strictly inaccurate. The fact that USA had FBI, ICE, Border Security, State troopers, county police, Fish and Wildlife police, and a myriad of other "law enforcement officials", most with police-type powers does not mean that every other country should have to mirror (or ape) US practice. I see no objection to a change to all US categories. I assume that nationality in this context mainly refers to the place where the murder took place, rather than the actual nationality of the murderer. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: no, in these cases, the nationality is the nationality of the murderer. Location of the murder is not relevant to these categories. For instance, Carlos the Jackal, the sole article in the Venezuelan category, was convicted of murdering a French officer in France. The murder-by-location tree is Category:Murder by country and Category:People convicted of murder by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think that we should stick to "police", which is well understood, rather than the vaguer "law enforcement officers": I still have little idea how broad that is supposed to be. The majority of the cases will be internal ones whether the officer and the culprit are from the same country. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither Australia nor the UK have a single police force! Britain has several dozen! It is true that "law enforcement" is most commonly used in the United States, but there are certainly law enforcement officials in the UK who aren't police officers: PCSOs, prison officers, Border Force, HM Revenue and Customs, National Crime Agency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Australia does have police forces for each state and major territories, as well as the Australian Federal Police, but we consistently use "police officers", not "law enforcement officials". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs)
        • Indeed, but Australia too has law enforcement officials who aren't police officers and aren't referred to as police officers. Almost every country does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, this is mainly a US law issue. In that case a tree by nationality does not make too much sense. Suggest collapse and purge the tree to Category:People convicted of aggrevated murder under US law. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's fair to say that this is mainly a US law issue. For instance, in many countries without the death penalty but with multiple "degrees" of murder, murder of a law enforcement person will be enough to elevate the murder to "murder in the first-degree", even if it otherwise would have been a second-degree murder. Some states of the US differ only in that the death penalty for murder is an option. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point, in that case simply collapse to Category:People convicted of aggravated murder. In any case it's not about the nationality of the murderer and the occupation of the victim, but it's about the country of conviction and that country's law. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that "aggravated murder" is a term that is widely used throughout legal systems. It seems to be limited to certain common law jurisdictions, mostly within the U.S. It might be doable to collapse these categories somehow, but I think it's probably simpler to keep the system that is in place since it's reasonably clear in meaning and avoids legal jargon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename The more broad name covers enough added people to make it worth renaming. Plus, the target is more clear. We are more likely to have debates on who police officers are than who law enforcement officials are. The second is much clearer in who it covers, even if in many cases the terms are used as synonyms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't understand claims like "the target is more clear". I find "law enforcement officials", especially in Australia, when all of the people in the category killed police officers, and we don't generally use terminology like "law enforcement officials". There is no reason the category should not be specific and we shouldn't be tarring everyone with the one (American) brush. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Law enforcement officer notes that this term is only in use within North American English. This is an indiscriminate WP:ENGVAR rename, which is almost never a good idea. ~ RobTalk 18:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some good points have been made about usage in various countries. I'm happy to withdraw these nominations if users are satisfied with using "police officers" to refer to those who work in a variety of law enforcement occupations. Given that Category:People convicted of murdering police officers is a subcategory of Category:Law enforcement and that we have categories such as Category:Law enforcement occupations, I figured that it could make sense to broaden it out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2016 (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:Suburbs of West Coast, Tasmania[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 to Category:Localities of West Coast, Tasmania. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is well intentioned, but a misuse of the word 'suburb', where current and former isolated communities exist within the current local government authority known as 'west coast, tasmania' - in some cases the former isolated communities no longer exist, and term 'community' avoids the problem of whether a locality was designated as a 'town site' or otherse on the lands department maps and plans of the early 1900s JarrahTree 09:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • support rename. "suburb" is inappropriate for almost all these names in the category. "Localities" could also be used. Some of these places are uninhabited, but were inhabited before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suburbs and localities (Australia) has a wide view on the issue. If you think it is more appropriate to move to Suburbs and Localities of the West Coast (Or West Coast Council). South Queenstown is a suburb of Queenstown. Towns/Places like Linda and Gormanston are still sign posted to this day and the average 'Joe' would recognize them that they belong to the area. I have not included them on the West Coast Council Page as they are no longer recognized by ABS. But for someone researching an area it is good to have the links to history in the one place. Mmunji1 (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the naming was consistency with the Category:Localities in Tasmania and Northwest Tasmania and grouping the towns of Tasmania by area. It is the Local Government Area which is classified as a city. And these are suburbs of that local government area. I see also that both Graeme Bartlett and Jarratree have a vested interest from higher level catergories created in 2010. No categories have been created to group the local government areas, Suburbs and Towniships.

I am writing as a local of the Island State.

It seems that you have following and harassing my work for a number of weeks. Thank you for your persistence Jarratree. I will always in a losing battle against more experienced users. I thought that I was making improvements to Wikipedia's navigation.

They are not communities, communes or small groups of people. They are Townships, Suburbs, Localities, Areas that are bound by Local Government Areas or councils

Maybe User:Grahamec can assist me as he is not a critic concerning the work I have been doing. Mmunji1 (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is taking things at a personal level and misinterpreting, rather than discussing the issue at hand. This is a CFD, not a personal issue at all. Simply - the places in the west coast are not suburbs. JarrahTree 00:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not supposed to be a battle that someone loses, but a proposal to improve Wikipedia. There is no proposal here to use the categories created by Jarratree. The issue is the use of the term "suburb", of which almost all of the members in the category are not suburbs. My interest in the matter is that I have Crotty, Tasmania and Darwin, Tasmania on my watchlist, and I saw the category added that included the word suburb. I asked Mmunji1 to make a new name for the category, and then later I saw this CFD. I agree with Mmunji1 that a category for localities in the region is useful, but also agree with JarrahTree that the name is inappropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been to most of these and I agree that they are either towns or localities, not suburbs.--Grahame (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many articles refer to these places as "towns", that suggests to use "towns" in the category name as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem with that is they were designated 'town' in the enabling legislation in 1900 say, they were 'town' size and status for a very short time, and in most cases have not been that since, but the name sticks for ghost towns and very diminished populated places JarrahTree 02:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I think that in this case a towns category for places that were towns is still appropriate. But if a majority prefers "localities" that is fine with me as well, it is definitely better than suburbs. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This CFD/ re-name also carries into Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_13#Category:Suburbs of Waratah-Wynyard Council, Tasmania and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_17#Category:Suburbs of Huon Valley Council, Tasmania JarrahTree 12:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to localities as they dont meet the definition of a suburb Gnangarra 06:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to NSW Category:Suburbs of the Hunter Region and the categories below it. This category is under Localities of NSW. Note the use of suburbs of a Area. Mmunji1 (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the incorrect use of language elsewhere isn't justification for replicating that use Gnangarra 11:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it's "incorrect use of language elsewhere" is misleading. In NSW, "suburb" and "locality" are used interchangeably because the definitions for the two differ only very slightly. Per the Glossary of designation values in the Geographical Names Register the definitions are:
  • Suburb - A bounded area within the landscape that has an "Urban" Character.
  • Locality - A bounded area within the landscape that has a "Rural" Character.
As a result of the similarities, this means that some borderline "localities" like Bobs Farm are officially registered as suburbs. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Gnan - rename to localities. When I came across the Maydena article categorised as a suburb my initial thought was vandlism or an edit by some editor who had never visited Tasmania. Anything further from a suburb is difficult to imagine.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

refer also List of Sunshine Coast Region suburbsMmunji1 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I am using the Australian Bureau of Statistics as the Source of the Information and Data. This is a higher respected government body and does recognize the areas as state suburbs Mmunji1 (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Mmunji1 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • "State suburb" is what the Australian Bureau of Statistics calls all of their statistical districts, which, very confusingly for other purposes, are completely unrelated to geographical place naming and boundaries, and drastically mash up actual real-world gazetted places. They essentially have no application in any other context, and the ABS isn't making any statement about what these geographical places are - it's just their chosen name for "statistical collection district". You can't, for example, write a letter addressed to somewhere in an ABS "state suburb" without hoping it'll get corrected by the post office to the actual geographical place at the other end. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, the ABS refers to localities in the Northern Territory as "State Suburbs", and that's not a state, so I don't think that terminology is any kind of definitive nomenclature. --Canley (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to localities as per above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to something other than suburb (town, locality and community would all be acceptable). The ABS does not appear to be a reliable source for geography. Does the Tasmanian government have an online source gazetteer of some kind? I use http://maps.sa.gov.au/plb/ for South Australia and http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/place_naming/placename_search for New South Wales. They both have clear definitions of placenames and a hierarchy that mostly makes sense (although not entirely compatible with each other). For example, South Australia is Partitioned into suburbs (type SUB) in urban areas and bounded localities (type LOCB) in rural areas. The LOCB areas represent the legal address for postal and emergency services and often correspond to a town in the middle. For Wikipedia purposes, all LOCB articles are being treated as "towns" whether or not there is or was an actual town in them, and the article covers both the town and the rural area around it. Some have no concentration at all, and some have a church or hall miles from anything else. Type LOCU are unbounded localities. Some correspond to former towns, but all are explicitly documented as now being in a particular LOCB, so we are generally noting that in the articles for the LOCB towns and not writing articles for unbounded localities (I am sure there will be an exception somewhere). NSW has a slightly different system, and it seems each shire/LGA/council has made slightly different interpretations, or perhaps I haven't read the unifying document that brings together towns, villages, localities and rural places, but it mostly makes sense to boil things down to "town"s with their outlying farmland. Categories and navboxes have not been entirely standardised yet, with names and titles that include "towns", "localities" and "towns and localities", but definitely not suburbs with more cattle than humans. --Scott Davis Talk 06:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Placenames Tasmania. If you search for a town, say Ouse, there are two boundaries, one for the town centre and one for "Suburb/Locality", which does not match the ABS State Suburb boundaries. --Canley (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming I agree using the ABS designation of suburb is not appropriate. I would generally consider a suburb to be a bounded locality within a city. I think locality is an ideal catch-all term for town/village/township settlements outside of Hobart and Launceston for a navbox or category. --Canley (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The ABS doesn't deal in geographical locations. It uses statistical areas. When using {{Census 2011 AUS}} I always recommend using the GL_number from the url rather than using the state suburb code (SSC) because the SSC is, more often than not, not the area of the officially recognised suburb. See for example Ferodale, where the SSC only includes a few houses east of Grahamstown Lake and includes the population data for the rest of Ferodale in Swan Bay. The ABS should never be used to determine whether a place is a suburb or a locality. The definition of "suburb" appears to vary from state to state. In NSW a suburb is officially "A bounded area within the landscape that has an 'Urban' Character." It doesn't have to be in a city to have an urban character and to therefore be a suburb. Whether something is a suburb or locality for the sake of this discussion really depends on the official Tasmanian definition, not what we as editors believe a suburb to be. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For modern addressing purposes, the whole of Tasmania (like all other states) should be partitioned (in the mathematical sense of being fully covered and non-overlapping) into a set of bounded areas generally known as suburbs and bounded localities. Suburbs are normally within urban areas and bounded localities are normally rural (but one can find many counter-examples). In Queensland for Wikipedia purposes, we categorise all suburbs and towns by their LGA(s) (where the category name is sometimes just as the LGA name, other times as Suburbs of LGA (mostly done for the more urban LGAs) or similar, it's not entirely consistent. I think the lack of consistency is because of the discomfort of using "Suburbs of" for rural areas but equally thinking that "Suburbs and Localities of" is a bit long and that "Localities of" also fails to address the distinction of bounded localities and unbounded localities. My glance at other states suggests that we have little consistency within states, let alone across the whole of Australia. So there is probably not going to be some perfect solution for Tasmania either. Having said all of that, we should use Placenames Tasmania as the primary source as that is the official gazetting of place names and not use the ABS's state suburbs which are artifical constructs (intended as far as I can tell to avoid the problem of loss of anonymity in low population gazetted localities through aggregation). But my suggestion would be to use LGAs as the basic aggregation method for categories of Tasmania's suburbs and localities, rather than vague and ill-defined region names (unless forced to due to unincorporated areas, but I don't think they apply in Tasmania). While we are stuck with ABS's state suburbs for population reporting, we should not use them for other purposes than reporting ABS statistics. Kerry (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the ABS should be used for population approximation only. The official national administrative boundaries have now been released as open data by PSMA, so the days of the ABS geodata being the only free/open data of admin boundaries are over. By the way, the PSMA boundaries call that boundary level "suburb/locality". --Canley (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:Mmunji1, you keep citing the ABS as support for your assertion, but have you actually read the definition of ABS State Suburbs? To summarise, what the ABS calls "State Suburbs" are statistical approximations of Gazetted Localities. It then goes on to define Gazetted Localities as "the officially recognised boundaries of suburbs (in cities and larger towns) and localities (outside cities and larger towns)". In other words, it actually defines suburbs as boundaries within cities and larger towns, not any and every boundary immediately below LGA level. --Canley (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to rename to localities as per arguments above. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Placenames Tasmania, ABS and Austalia Post calls them SuburbsMmunji1 (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. As I mentioned above:
  • Placenames Tasmania uses Suburb/Locality, indicating there is a distinction between the two.
  • The Australian Bureau of Statistics call their approximations of gazetted localities "State Suburbs", but define a distinction between suburbs and localities with suburbs referring to GLs in cities and larger towns.
  • Australia Post do show a column heading "Suburb" when you do a postcode search, but if you look at the Australia Post Data Guide for the Postal Address File, this data is contained in the Australia Post Locality File, in which suburbs are a subclass of localities.
--Canley (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have just stated "Placenames Tasmania uses Suburb",ABS "State Suburbs" and these are Gazetted. "Australia Post do show a column heading "Suburb""Mmunji1 (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. Placenames Tasmania says "Feature Type: Suburb/Locality" for the ones I have looked at, and a "town" with the same name. I have not found any examples that identify the locality purely as a suburb. It simply means that the difference is irrelevant to the purpose of that database. The state is partitioned in to urban suburbs and rural localities. Calling Strahan a suburb is ... umm... unusual. --Scott Davis Talk 10:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Towns of West Coast, Tasmania - Of the 9 members of this cat, 6 are listed as both "town" and "suburb/locality". Reviewing the maps reveals that these are all towns within a suburb/locality of the same name. Another is a town within an unbounded locality of the same name (yes, ironically boundaries are shown for an unbounded area), and yet another is only listed as a town. The final place is only listed as a locality. The full list is as follows:
That makes 9 of the 10 clearly towns, while only 2 are clearly localities and none are clearly suburbs. It would therefore seem more logical to move the cat to a name that represents the majority of places. Regatta Point, Tasmania would obviously have to be removed from the cat, and could be moved to Category:West Coast Council, the parent cat. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:46, 29 May 2016 (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.

Executed people by nationality and mode of execution[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: upmerge then delete as per nom. Several opposes seemed to result from misunderstandings of the nomination. In particular, several editors cited a desire to be able to find people in categories more specific than just all people who were executed, but that is preserved here. As for looking for intersections in categories, see PetScan, which does exactly that. Additionally, there is a strong case for WP:OVERLAPCAT based on categories like Category:People executed by Poland by hanging. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting/upmerging categories that combine nationality or place of residence of an executed person with the mode of execution.
Nominator's rationale: For a number of years now, Category:Executed people by nationality has been subcategorized into oblivion, far beyond what it needs to be, with the result that we have many very granular categories that have very few articles in them. I am proposing that we upmerge the categories that categorize executed people by nationality combined with mode of execution. The target for each will be Category:Executed FOOian people.
The reason we can upmerge to this single category and not lose any data is because the mode of execution is already included in the category for the article that categorizes by a combination of mode and by the jurisdiction that performed the execution. (This is also a very extensive category system, which in many cases is probably also over-subcategorized.) The mode of execution is relevant to and directly connected to the jurisdiction that performed the execution—it has little, if anything, to do with the nationality of the person being executed. It makes some sense to combine mode with jurisdiction but very little to combine mode with nationality or place or residence.
Most of the subcategories being nominated are of the "by nationality" type, but others are by place, as with Category:People from the East Riding of Yorkshire executed by hanging, drawing and quartering.
If this nomination is successful, I think there will need to be further nominations to clean things up further. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
list of nominated categories
  • upmerge the rest, which are below:

firing squad

firearm

hanging

burning

electric chair

hanging, drawing and quartering

lethal injection

decapitation

misc

Survey[edit]
  • Support All The multiple categories for what jurisdiction executed someone and the ethnicity of who was executed is occasionally different, but in the vast majority of cases it leads to duplicate (or worse) categorization. The first article in the first category is Reza Khan (Afghan) which serves as a good example to see how this looks at the article level. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the tree that we have by executing jurisdisction x method of execution should be sufficient, we don't need by nationality x method of execution next to it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- this nom as too far reaching. However, I generally support the proposal. Most countries use a single method of execution at a time; this may change from time to time. In England and Wales, hanging drawing and quartering was an exemplary punishment for High Treason, but was applied to some Catholic martyrs. Decapitation was generally reserved for the nobility. Burning is probably burning at the stake, a penalty for heresy, applied to Protestant martyrs. We need to retain categories for the method of execution, probably split by nationality. The split of English categories by county is however inappropriate. They should be upmerged to a national category for each method of execution. Some of the categorisation here is highly anachronistic. South Yorkshire was not invented until 1974. If we keep a split by county, we only need one for the whole of Yorkshire. Hanging was the normal method of execution and there may be a big enough population to merit a split by pre-1974 county; not the present counties, as there have been no executions since 1974; I think the last were in the late 1950s. Immurement and Gas Chamber executions were sufficiently unusual to be retained. I would welcome a move from nationality to country of execution, so that a Frenchman executed in England was listed in an England category, but that would require major work and cannot be done through a CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: as explained, there is no loss of data here, because the articles are already categorized by categories that combine jurisdiction of execution and mode of execution. There's a completely parallel system of executions by jurisdiction—no "move" is required from nationality categories to jurisdiction categories since both already exist. Could you therefore explain what is the benefit for double categorizing mode of execution by nationality of the executed person? (I hate to doubt, but sometimes I do wonder if users really read the nomination and take the time to figure out what the current set-up is. From your comment, it could at least appear that you did neither.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now Support -- You are right. I failed to spot that for the cases I sampled, because of the way in which the tree for English cases is structured. The jurisdiction is the important issue, rather than nationality. The split by county of origin in England will be adequately covered by a higher level category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I don't see why we need to clean this up. Such categories make it easy to get specific information. If I want a list of Polish people who where hanged, now there is a convenient category for it. Once you delete it, finding out such a list becomes much more cumbersome. Why break what works well? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one, because it results in many excessively small categories. I don't think it's very easy to navigate, either. If looking for Polish people who were hanged, Category:People executed by Poland by hanging is a great place to start and you'll have very few other articles outside of that, which can easily be located using Category:Polish people executed abroad. The greater question is why would anyone be looking for such information? Being Polish has nothing to do with how the person was executed. Being executed by Poland however, will have a direct effect on the method of execution, since mode of execution depends on the jurisdiction, not on the nationality of the condemned. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take a look at the other categories of the articles in Category:Polish people executed abroad and see what you think. Joseph Epstein has 8 execution categories while Paul Jaworski has 6, for instance. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not know who needs this information, but why make it more cumbersome to find for those who need it? I don't think this is excessive categorization. A criminology researcher might find it useful, I'd wager. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Piotrus: I highly doubt that they would. Nationality and mode of execution have no conceivable relationship to one another that I can think of. It always depends on jurisdiction. I don't think executioners or a court ordering execution would typically say, "ah!—a Pole! Let's hang him rather than shoot him." Perhaps such attitudes and approaches might be used by the killers in cases of murder or war crimes, but not in legal executions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Being executed is a defining feature, being executed by firing squad (for example) is not IMO.—Brigade Piron (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until we have the ability to do searches for intersections of categories. I agree with User:Piotrus' observation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All Yep. This cluttering is getting ridiculous! AlwaysUnite (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The example given seems worthy of cleaning, perhaps. Given the widespread use of the form of execution in certain periods, though, I'm not so sure. Also, the nationality element should be kept for giving some sense of how widespread some forms of execution, such as the guillotine, are/were used. Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Daniel the Monk: I don't follow you. The nomination does retain the forms of execution categories, which can be used to give a sense as how widespread they are. It's just that we don't need to duplicate this information by combining it with nationality. They are already coupled with jurisdiction of the execution. Nationality tells us nothing about which methods were used in any given period of time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I use these categories all the time when looking for articles on executed people (a generic "executed" cat wouldn't do the same job). That being said, the "by place" categories could probably be reduced. Manxruler (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom We can list the specific form an execution took in the article, but splitting those executed by electric chair from those executed by lethal injection has no justification on the level of defining. In both cases the defining part is the person was killed by state action, the exact method is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_12&oldid=1075704670"