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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to be consistent with other container categories ("X by Y") and reflect that this category includes child categories related to the United States in particular (e.g. Category:Northern Mariana Islands culture) and not categories related to the American continent in general. Ibadibam (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep 'American' here, as throughout WP, refers to the people of the United States and no one else and to just the United States not other political entities in North or South America. This is a subcat of Category:American culture which is solely about the United States. Current name is correct for WP. Hmains (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose American in Wikipedia means the United States, the name is correct.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 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.
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:deleted by user request. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:23, 29 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.
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 deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tanzania not created until 1964 Rathfelder (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good point. I started the category, and didn't realize that at the time. - Paul2520 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteTanzania didn't exist in the 1950's and the category creator agrees with this nomination. No need for lengthy TFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:49, 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.
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.
Note: Following the recent creation of similar categories by new accounts, I have opened an SPI enquiry into those accounts here. – FayenaticLondon 13:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the editor admitted to using multiple accounts, and that one has now been blocked. – FayenaticLondon 10:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. These are neologisms that are not found in reliable dictionaries and if sources do not describe the mythological relationships as incest (or cousincest), then neither should we. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on the cited prior discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the previous discussion. I'm not convinced we should merge the second one, since I don't think they were considered incestual relationships. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename to Category:Cousin relationships and Category:Cousin relationships in mythology. I agree with all your points: it's a neologism, and these were (and mostly still are) not considered incestuous. However, the topic is still relevant and sufficiently distinct, so there's no reason to purge it altogether. --PanchoS (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per PanchoS. Cousin relationships are not legally considered incest in most of the world (some US states are principal exception). Given that, any title containing "incest" is not globally valid. And cousincest is simply a questionable neologism. SJK (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't fancy a rename, cousin relationship is a pretty trivial characteristic, there is no article about it either (except for a redirect to Cousin marriage). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, I agree with Marcocapelle on the proposed rename, which was made after my !vote was already written. I'm not sure that cousin relationships is a distinct topic as such. There is WP article on it, as noted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well into the 19th-century cousin marriage was common throughout the United States, and remains legal in many parts. In some cultures the marriage of first cousins is down-right encouraged. Even where it technically meets the definition of incest (sexual relations between two individuals too closely related to marry) it rarely is considered to be true incest, the term is normally reserved for sex between parents and children or between siblings. I do not think there is evidence it is a distinct category of things, and at times our understanding of the sources might interpret as first cousins those who actually are second or third cousins.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete - just because somebody added this to the urban dictionary or tv tropes doesn't mean we should categorise by it. - jc37 09:50, 4 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.
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.
Delete. The categorization seems arbitrary. Academic literature is listed as a primary source, though it could well be a secondary or tertiary source. Works of uncertain authorship are listed though the contents seem to include works from any era whose author or authors is unknown or disputed. This could be anything from who was the writer of the Epic of Gilgamesh to who wrote a fan fiction story in 2016. Dimadick (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these things don't make sense, they're not even correct. How can all "documents" be primary sources? -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This grouping is just not accurate. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all scientific and encyclopedial terminlogy. Stefanomione (talk) 07:41, 1 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.
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. I will retain redirects on the "secession" categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, while secession may be the goal of separatism, the goal hasn't been achieved (yet) in the above categories. These categories are about separatism ("work in progress") rather than about secession ("goal achieved"). This is a follow-up nomination after this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the Cypriot category from the above list. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose. Per our current article on separatism, the definition does not only include secession movements. It covers autonomy movements, racial separatism or segregation movements, religious separation movements who want to gain independence from a wider religious group, and separatist feminism and queer nationalism supporters who think they should form a separate community or ethnic group based on their gender or sexuality. Somehow, I don't think we should redefine the category to include these kind of movements. Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If you separate from pre-existing country Foo, you secede. I agree with Dimadick that "separatism" adds all sorts of extra things which complicate the overall utility of the category.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I also disagree with the nom's characterisation of the linguistic issue. The Katanga secessionfailed, yet is never refered to as the Katanga separation for example.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per our current article on Separatism, secession is merely the ultimate goal of secessionists. A secession may fail, and may still be called "secession", but in most cases these movements are far too weak to even wage a secession. Mostly they even are mischaracterized as being "secessionist", when in fact they represent the typical spectrum between seeking decentralization, autonomy, confederalism or secession. I'm not against Category:Secession by country subcategories wherever there is enough content that is correctly characterized as actually waging secession. But for the vast majority of cases, Category:Separatism by country is more correct and more useful. Should this nomination fail, there is no reason why we wouldn't create the Category:Separatism by country tree at a parent level. After purging Category:Secession by country from content that fails the definition of actual Secession, we will then have dozens of categories falling empty or being nominated per WP:SMALLCAT. We can go that route just as well, but the more diligent approach might be the nominator's proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At the risk of expanding the scope of this category to encourage the creation of more articles on frivolous fringe movements, "secession" refers to completed legal separation of one polity from another. Many articles under these categories refer to academic ideas or small groups which propose separation on some grounds, but which group(s) and what boundary exists to separate one group for another, is not clear. That's separatism, not secession. Shrigley (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Actual secession is infrequent enough that it would have obvious WP:SMALLCAT problems throughout the tree. Expanding the scope to include separatism in general will fix that concern. ~ RobTalk 00:31, 7 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.
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. While this is a small category, it's part of an overall categorization scheme. This is an explicit exception listed in WP:SMALLCAT. Those supporting the existing categorization scheme were not convinced by the perceived minor nature of the name change. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The team was known as the "Hiroshima Carp" from 1949 until 1967. In 1968 "Toyo", the name of the main sponsor, was added in the middle of the name. This is a minor name change to the club and does not warrant separate categories for players depending on what year they played. (As a side note, the corresponding category on the Japanese Wikipedia is "Hiroshima Toyo Carp and Hiroshima Carp players") Only four articles were listed in the category and three were also included in the "Toyo" category. I have already taken the liberty of moving/removing them so that the category is currently empty. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rebuke WP Baseball consensus is that players categorized by the name of the teams they played for. Minor league teams regularly change names. Take for instance Oklahoma City. That franchise has played under the names Indians, 89ers, and RedHawks. There are categories for players who played for each of those names. At least one player in the Hiroshima Carp category played for the team long before the name change was done. He was never a Hiroshima Toyo Carp player. His article shouldn't reflect something he never did.
Please also note the nominator of this category for deletion emptied the nominated category. That is inappropriate behavior when nominating a category for deletion or merging. I have refilled Hiroshima Carp again but the nominator only knows if there are more articles that need to be put back....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your Oklahoma City example is an entirely different scenario. The Indians folded five years before the 89ers were formed, so they are completely different organizations. Looking at the article of the latter organization, subsequent name changes seemed to accompany changes in stadium, ownership or the league they played in.
But in Hiroshima's case there was no change to the organization other than the sponsor's name (a company that had long been a shareholder in the team) being inserted into the name. Today, despite "Toyo" being in the official name, it is omitted in the majority of news articles, both English and Japanese. An argument could be made pursuant to WP:COMMONNAME that the "Toyo" could be removed, but that is a separate issue. In any case, separate categories based on when the sponsor/owner claimed naming rights still seems unnecessary to me. Further, I can't see why the rules that apply to the categorisation of American minor league players have to apply gospel to a Japanese team.
On the other issue of emptying the category, I can't remember how I even came across the category, but I discovered the category of four articles inside a larger category of approximately 160. It seemed unnecessary based on the history of the club as a whole, so I made what I considered an uncontroversial move. After being left with an empty category that I consider superfluous, I looked into how to have it deleted. I expressly mentioned the removal of the four articles in the nomination so that it could be undone if it was improper. So the "please note" paragraph and the calling for a "rebuke" seem a bit unwarranted, but I thank you for restoring the articles to the category. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per standard practice for baseball team name changes. Spanneraol (talk) 15:24, 30 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.
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 per the above. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The above "players" sub-category is the only thing listed in this category. If the above category is deleted, this will become empty and should be deleted also. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:13, 26 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.
