Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 17 July 19 >

July 18[edit]

Category:Science technology engineering and mathematics[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: While STEM may be introduced as a marketing term to recruit students for these fields, it is not a widely used term for these academic fields as a whole. "Science and technology" is, and usually covers engineering and mathematics as well. This would also bring the category in line with our extensive category scheme that includes Category:Science and technology by country, Category:Science and technology studies or Category:Science and technology magazines.
Secondly, Category:People in STEM fields is an arbitrary collection of science and technology people, mostly organized by the company they work for, and does not seem useful, or representative for science and technology people as a whole.
Finally, I propose bringing Category:Science and engineering awards into line with this category scheme. already categorized under both Category:Science and Category:Technology, it already holds technology awards that are only vaguely related to engineering. The per-country subcategories would then be subsequently renamed per WP:CFD/S (C2C). --PanchoS (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Question: What about Category:Women in STEM fields? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • @Ottawahitech: THX for reminding me. I suggest renaming and reparenting that one, as added above. --PanchoS (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how about creating Category:STEM specifically for articles related to this initiative. Using the Acronym makes it clear it is about the initiative and not as a super category of Science, Engineering, etc. --Salix alba (talk): 17:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could become an option when more articles would appear about the initiative. As for now, there is too little content for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with that proposal, if it helps finding a consensus. I don't intend to purge the notion of "STEM" from our category system – it is one out of several notable ways to describe science and technology fields. --PanchoS (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Keep STEM is a well-known acronym used across science and adademe (and technology and engineering and mathematics) I suppose the acronym STEM would be an OK rename, but these categories are appropriate, and particularly the People/Women (presumed the former is non-diffusing) categories. Montanabw(talk) 22:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The term STEM is ambiguous (e.g, are social sciences included?; WP:CAT suggests there should be inclusion criteria, and any choice of criteria would, in this case, be arbitrary) and is essentially, as the nominator said, a marketing term. As well, even if kept, I question whether most of the subcategories should really be in this category (e.g, we have no way of knowing that everyone in Category:Alphabet Inc. people and its subcategories are in a STEM field rather than, say, working in the marketing department). Graham (talk) 03:02, 17 August 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.

Legislators by term[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: To fix a long-standing error, which I think may have been originated by me in some long-forgotten discussion<guiltyface>.
These categories are all containers for categories which group the set of members of a given parliament(or assembly or congress) between two general elections. A common terminology is hard to find. Some parliaments allocate a number to the new parliament elected at a general election, whereas others are commonly distinguished only by date. The question here is what word (or phrase) to use to consistently describe this type of set.
For example, Dáil Éireann numbers its incarnations as 1st Dáil etc, and this terminology is widely used, so its members (Teachtaí Dála) could be grouped in a Category:Teachtaí Dála by Dáil. However, that "foo by foo" formulation will look bizarre to a non-specialist reader, and a similar approach doesn't work for other assemblies such as Seanad Éireann, which in its 1922-36 incarnation didn't use numbered iterations.
Many categories created in recent years have used the word "term", and I have adopted it for other categories, grouped in Category:Legislators by term. This is an Americanism, but it is also a relatively neutral and straightforward descriptor. By contrast, in the two Irish cases the word "session" is plain wrong. Per Legislative session, it is a division of the time between two elections, whereas what we want here is the whole of the time between two elections. I don't know whether Greece uses the word "session" at al, but Hellenic Parliament#Tenure says that the interval between two elections is called a "Parliamentary Term". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Constantine that's a good idea, for consistency as well as the avoidance of redundancy. I think that it is outside the scope of this nomination, but it should be done as a WP:C2C speedy after this disucssion closes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 26 July 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:Pianists from Georgia (country)[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 18 July 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:Phitsanulok FC 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: delete. Category has been emptied already. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: duplicate of Category:Phitsanulok F.C. players‏‎ Rathfelder (talk) 20:08, 18 July 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:Philip Hardwick railway stations[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, without prejudice to re-creating it is and when more articles are found to populate it. (The precise acceptable number is not defined, but in my experience, somewhere over 5 articles starts getting into safe territory at CFD). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger. There are no other railway stations mentioned in the Philip Hardwick article, so I've no expectation there will be any other articles anytime soon. Sionk (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. Philip Hardwick was the architect to the London and Birmingham Railway, so it is likely that he designed other stations on this line, and possibly others as well. Andrewrabbott (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Taking a 3 article category and creating a 1 article subcategory harms navigation. Once we get up to 30-40 articles in the parent category, we can reassess. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 20 July 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:Heritage Languages in Toronto[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a concept, which serves only to categorize its own head article about itself and one misguided essay about a particular language which is up for AFD -- but even if the essay were to be rewritten and kept, this would still be a two-item WP:SMALLCAT with limited prospect for expansion. Upmerge contents to Category:Culture of Toronto, but delete this rather than maintaining it as a categoryredirect. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 18 July 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:Phil Ochs family[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: administrative close, category has been deleted already. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: nondefining. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories like this are permitted in certain very rarefied circumstances — but every notable person who happens to have two or three other notable relatives does not automatically get one of these, and I'm not seeing how it's helpful from a navigational perspective at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – a sublist of Ochs (surname) would be a better way of presenting this info. Oculi (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the category's creator. I wasn't aware of the Ochs (surname) article. I've removed the three articles that were in the category and asked for its speedy deletion under WP:G7. I'll add the articles that aren't already there to Ochs (surname). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:45, 19 July 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:Algerian Quebecers[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) 05:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While categories of this type are appropriate at the country level, Wikipedia does not have an accepted scheme of further subdividing them by individual province or state of residence. The only content here is a single subcategory which has been listed for merging below for similar reasons, meaning there will be nothing to actually upmerge to Category:Algerian Canadians. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subdivision below the national level needs a very strong distrinct ethnic gorup (like Pennsylvania Dutch) which this is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 25 July 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:Algerian emigrants to Quebec[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While categories of this type are appropriate at the country level, Wikipedia has no accepted scheme of further subdividing them by the individual province or state that the person happened to settle in within their new country. Upmerge. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but also merge to Category:Immigrants to Quebec. This general subcategory for Quebec within Canada is OK, I think, because the province operates an immigration policy that is separate from the federal government's. But I agree that the subcategories of it are not necessary. See previous discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I've added that category to the nomination accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 19 July 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:Nadeem F. Paracha[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) 16:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category where the subject was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadeem F. Paracha Tim! (talk) 13:51, 18 July 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:Mymensingh Division geography stubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn
Nominator's rationale: Limited number of articles in permanent category. Stub category not needed at this time. Dawynn (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mymensingh is one of eight top-level administrative divisions of Bangladesh, each of which has a stub category. Any under-population of the category is undoubtedly because Mymensingh is much newer than the others, it was created just last year by splitting the Dhaka Division. Editors haven't yet plowed through every Dhaka Division stub and evaluated whether it still lies within Dhaka Division or is in the new Mymensingh Division. Probably 20-30% of the 192 pages categorized as Dhaka Division stubs should be recategorized as Mymensingh Division stubs (which would bring the population of the category to at least 50). Deleting the category would only further delay and discourage necessary maintenance. Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless Worldbruce and others can bring it up to the required size. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant effort put into loading this category. Withdrawing my nomiation. Dawynn (talk) 18:27, 18 August 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:The X Factor (TV series) judges[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) 03:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's possible I could be sold on the regular judges, but this is overwhelmingly one episode guest judges. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral As much as I agree, I also disagree, so I don't think I can !vote either way! However, I do think this is different to "actors who have played James Bond" or "actors in Oceans Eleven", or whatever, and I would prefer to see it only used for regular judges. If it is deleted, it should be upmerged. Also it should be renamed to Category:The X Factor judges to match the un-disambiguated main article and category. anemoneprojectors 08:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per PERFCAT. Changing my !vote. Just because I like the category isn't a reason to keep it. anemoneprojectors 15:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- Even if it were for regular judges, it still fails PERFCAT. No objection to listifying, though we do not usually do so in such cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 23 July 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:Soriano stubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looks like about 19 articles in the permanent category. Not ready for a stub category. Propose deleting category and upmerging template. Dawynn (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also misnamed, since it's populated by a geo-stub template (should be C:Soriano geography stubs). Likely to remain undersized for a long time too, as you say. Grutness...wha? 11:38, 21 July 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:Gloucester Shire geography stubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, category has already been emptied. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 14 articles in perm category. No need for stub category at this time. Propose deleting category and upmerging template. Dawynn (talk) 10:04, 18 July 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.
  • I realise that the discussion is over but I wasn't aware it still existed and there are some misconceptions that need clarification. The category was previously discussed at CfD and kept. The same person who nominated it previously, accidentally nominated it again recently. He withdrew the nomination at the category page, but apparently left the discussion open. The category had actually become redundant after several local government areas were merged into a new one and articles have been moved to the correct category to fix that problem. The now empty category was then nominated for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bristol Bay Borough, Alaska geography stubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all of those discussed, except for Category:Southeast Alaska geography stubs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 14 articles in permanent category. Stub category not needed at this time. Propose deleting category, upmerging template. Dawynn (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Category:Alaska geography stubs was deemed too large and split off into regional subcategories in September 2008 (see discussion). These were further split off into borough/census area-level subcategories in December 2015, which was completely undiscussed as far as I'm aware. A number of these categories don't meet the expected 60-article threshold, though some of them could; tagging stubs has proven to be an erratic, haphazard process at times.
  • Propose also deleting the following:

Category:Dillingham Census Area, Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Haines Borough, Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kusilvak Census Area, Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Petersburg Borough, Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Skagway, Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Southeast Fairbanks Census Area geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wrangell City and Borough, Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Yakutat City and Borough, Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

None of these categories are likely to meet the 60-article threshold anytime soon, even if an effort is made to properly tag everything. This takes into account an ongoing problem: the total lack of concern about the incorporation of the Petersburg Borough three-and-a-half years ago, plus the prior large-scale annexation made by Yakutat west of the 141st parallel, means that many articles, including stubs, pertaining to Southeast Alaska are incorrectly categorized. In the case of Petersburg, a good deal of the land mass of the former Petersburg Census Area is now in the Prince of Wales–Hyder Census Area.

Category:Interior Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Northern Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Southcentral Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Southeast Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Southwest Alaska geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Plus upmerge subcategories and templates to Category:Alaska geography stubs, which is not so overburdened that the present level of specificity is necessary. Within the Category:Western United States geography stubs tree, only California has the same structure. At present, I count a total of 5,532 articles and lists assessed for WP Alaska, versus 39,597 articles and lists assessed for WP California. In other words, such specificity amounts to overkill. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Notified WikiProject Stub sorting. BTW, it's rather ironic that this undiscussed mess was created the same month that a thread started on WPSS's talk page asking why the project even still exists. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion (yet), but in case anyone's interested, the stub templates were discussed in September 2008; I don't see a link to proposed individual borough categories anywhere in the WPSS archives.Her Pegship (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the undersized borough/census area stub categories. Weak delete for the regional ones - they might potentially be easier to search, though given the number of subcategories they have in total is wouldn't make too much of a problem to move them all up into the Alaskan parent. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind, keep the Southeast Alaska category, as that one can sustain itself both in subcats and stubs once you upmerge (you know, I'm not a big fan of Dave Ramsey, but he hit it right on the head: "A twenty-dollar word to describe a fifty-cent concept") the borough/census area categories. Its geographic isolation from the rest of Alaska, the preponderance of smaller, more closely-connected/knit subdivisions and the fact that most of the area sees far more human contact than say, Umiat, means that there will be more of a likelihood of content which is particular to Southeast Alaska and relevant to these categories versus other regions. The other regional subcats just create an unnecessary extra step down on the tree, too much of a negative compared to the limited additional navigational function it provides. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, rather than delete -- The effect of deleting a stub category is to de-stub the articles. I see no objection in principle to merging to regional categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm... no it isn't. That's the effect of deleting a stub template. When a stub category is deleted the template is simply repointed to upmerge the articles. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 24 July 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:Czechoslovak football competition stubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete; template edited to merge to both parents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only about a half-dozen articles truly a part of the permanent category. Stub category not needed at this time. Propose deleting category and upmerging template. Dawynn (talk) 09:56, 18 July 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:Police detective 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: do not rename. The later question of Kailash29792 is better to be discussed at WikiProject Film. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match with the parent category Police procedurals and the namesake genre. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a film genre based on an article that lists supposed members (suspects?) without any citation for them (no evidence?), until someone can reliably source the existence of the genre and the membership therein of the articles, this is best deleted rather than retained as purely original research. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This category is about detective fiction in films, not only police procedurals. Dimadick (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alright then. If the "police detective films" category can stay, then can "police procedural films" be created as a separate category? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:11, 2 August 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:People who studied at San Lazzaro degli Armeni[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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with all other alumni categories Rathfelder (talk) 08:27, 18 July 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:People who lost citizenship[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, the category cannot be deleted because the child categories are not co-nominated. There is no clear consensus on the definingness of lost citizenship. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Adds nothing to the subcategory " People who lost United States citizenship‎" Rathfelder (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory, similar subcategories might be possible for any other country on earth — I don't know for sure if there are enough articles to justify subcategories for other countries, as this isn't a subject in which I'm particularly knowledgeable, but the possibility does exist. Delete if other categories can't be created, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they can, but keep if it can be more widely populated than this before closure. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless I'm misinterpreting something here: This category is for people who would be expected to be, or have been, a citizen/national of a state, and then had that citizenship/nationality nullified or rescinded by the state, right? I'm not sure if category this is intended to include people who have renounced citizenship, or only people who have been denied or removed from the citizenship they were formerly expected to have. Either way, surely there must be a substantial number of those people with Wikipedia articles. The category name doesn't imply that it's only allowed to have subcategories; people could lose citizenship in any country and be put in this category. It seems that just Category:Stateless people would have some overlap, as it is somewhat difficult to become stateless these days: With more or less all the inhabited land on Earth claimed by some state, usually some specific series of events has to occur to cause a person's statelessness. And that's not including the people who lost citizenship/nationality in a country but managed to pick up citizenship elsewhere so that they didn't become stateless, which I'd guess is much larger than the number of people who have become stateless. --Closeapple (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize I have some concerns about the 2 subcategories. But, as long as we have them, deleting the parent category would just orphan the two subcategories. (I would definitely not favor loose biography articles in this category though so it should be marked as a container category.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is potentially a very big category. For example, in the United Kingdom the Naturalization Act 1870 provided that a British subject woman marrying a foreign man lost her British subject status on marriage. That was partially lifted in 1933, but not full removed until later. The 1958 Convention on the Nationality of Married Women sought to remove such sexist discrimination globally, but such laws affected a lot of women around the world.
However, I am unsure how often this was actually a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The fact that an attribute has a simple binary quality gives clear inclusion criteria ... but that is an insufficient basis for a category which risks lumping in people who chose to marry overseas with people who were basically evicted. Any category like this will have pockets of definiteness, but drown them in a sea of irrelevancy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment potentially huge category per BHG. Not only the folks mentioned by her, we can add every Jewish German citizen in the 1930s (we have lots of categories of German Jews, Jews who emigrated to avoid Nazism, etc.), lots of people stripped of citizenship (and often banished) by various governments - Turkey after the 1980 coup had a bunch (I suspect we'll have a bunch more from this latest one), people who serve in another country's military often lose their original citizenship, people emigrate to countries that do not recognized dual citizenships so must renounce (lose) their prior one upon accepting the new one. And then there's Category:People forcibly stripped of Soviet citizenship, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as long as there is at least one People-who-lost-<country>-citizenship‎ categories then it's reasonable to keep this one. Support containerization. DexDor (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:People forcibly stripped of citizenship per precedent Category:People forcibly stripped of Soviet citizenship, in response to BrownHairedGirl's valid concerns. This type of losing a citizenship is the only one clearly notable. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 for bringing this up. --PanchoS (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that rename captures the category's useful purpose; it would also remove literally millions from the categories of having lost citizenship by the country dissolving (e.g., Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, USSR), or merging (e.g., East Germany, Tanganyika, Malaya, Newfoundland) too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs)
  • Populate -- In looking around, I found Lost Canadians, people who thought they were Canadian, but turned out not to have been, despite long residence. Category:People forcibly stripped of Soviet citizenship belongs here. Albert Einstein is the one person in the German category. It should be born in mind that those who gain a new nationality so not necessarily lose their old one, instead becoming dual nationals. There may also be cases of criminals whose naturalisation is cancelled because of their criminal record. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is thought useful it certainly needs better definition. The 3 articles I sampled among those who "lost" American citizenship all appear to have renounced their citizenship voluntarily. Rathfelder (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are way too many countries that remove citizenship from people who are naturalized by other countries for this to be a workable category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons given by DexDor. Dimadick (talk) 12:50, 29 July 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_July_18&oldid=1138409913"