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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 13:06, 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.
Category:Films directed by John Schultz (director)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary to disambiguate in the category name, as there is only one director by this name. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it is the general convention to follow the article name. Oculi (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep names for people in category names should match the form of their name in the article on that person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWP:POLICY "should always be applied using reason and common sense." Since it is only the director John Schultz who is directing, we do not need the disambiguation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the reasons cited by Shawn in Montreal. Unnecessary disambiguation. Dimadick (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep proposed name contrary to C2D. Pppery (talk) 15:25, 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. Only contains category "Villages in Lokachi Raion" Rathfelder (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is part of a tree, anyway, I have fixed the category at Lokachi so it, too, is in the category - as the (apparently only) urban place in the Raion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I also have my doubts about categorizing at raion level at all. This raion only has 22,000 inhabitants. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 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.
Category:Battles of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) involving Afghanistan[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. --Tavix(talk) 19:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to grandparent -- The by country split should be limited to foreign forces. I am not convinced that we should be closing this category tree, except in regard to countries that have withdrawn all troops whatsoever. There still seem to be Military v Taliban engagements, and this will no doubt continue; or are we starting a new category for "Civil war in Afghanistan 2014--present"? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge if needed), agree that this should be limited to foreign countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Afghanistan's involved in all of these battles, so the current scope is unhelpful. Converting it into a category for battles in which the Afghan government's military is involved would be downright confusing: the Taliban were the government at the beginning of the war, and now they're rebels against the current government, so the contents of the category would ultimately include battles fought by Afghans on both sides of the war. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 15 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.
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) 06:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should not categorize people by law firms we lack articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 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:Historic district contributing properties[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 to rename or delete. An explanation of the category would be useful though. --Tavix(talk) 19:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name does not convey (to me) what the category should contain. Oculi (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeCategory:Something is an even worse name. Come up with a name before going to cfd. Pppery (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the category is supposed to contain, so how can I produce a name? Properties? Districts? There is no article, and no inclusion statement. Oculi (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find Contributing property so I suppose this is a phrase familiar in the US, but certainly not in the UK. I would be content if someone could add an explanatory US-specific intro to the top cat, otherwise people will wonder if Windsor Castle should be added. Oculi (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there are contributing properties in historic districts listed on the NRHP (which may happen to be contributing buildings, or contributing structures, or contributing objects), there are properties that are individually listed on the NRHP (i.e. they are NRHP-listed, they are just in regular categories like Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Delaware), and there are quite a few properties that both are individually listed and are contributing properties to historic districts. We use the term "individually listed" in articles about historic districts expressly to discuss contributing properties that are also separately listed on the NRHP. I have no idea what is meant by "Category:Individually listed contributing properties to historic districts on the National Register"...that mixed-up wording should be avoided. --doncram 03:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That category is for properties that both are individually listed and are contributing properties to historic districts. What do you think would be a good name for this category? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're on to something – I wrote something somewhere around six months ago suggesting a shorter form than spelling out "National Register of Historic Places" in every single subcategory, regardless of how far down the tree you get and correspondingly how much longer the category names get. You can see what sort of attention spans people have, which I don't think are being helped with some categories towards the bottom of the tree. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's something else. I didn't feel like pouring through hundreds of subcategories, but I saw zero to little indication that we're seriously covering historic districts not listed on the NR throughout much of the United States. I see tiers of empty categories supporting each other, strewn about the tree in one size fits all fashion. Maybe it's high time for WP:Other sources exist or WP:Other topics exist, because the existing expansion of our coverage is becoming hopelessly self-absorbed or at times even incestuous. Are we considering historic districts not NR-listed to any degree to justify multiple levels of categories for every state? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The main article for the tree is Contributing properties, which is meaningless except in the specific context. I assume that a historic district designation is similar to a conservation area in my country (UK). I also take it that these are important properties that are not individually on NRHP. If so, are they in fact notable? I agree that the present name is unsatisfactory, but I cannot think of a better name. "Contributing properties in historic districts in foo" is little better than the present name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After reading McGhiever's comment below (and thinking about this a bit more) I'm still in favour of deletion (although recognising that as the subcats aren't tagged that won't be the direct result of this CFD) per WP:NON-DEFINING (and essay WP:DNWAUC). Example: If an area of countryside is being proposed as a national park then specific places (mountains, lakes etc) in that area might be mentioned in that proposal, but that isn't a defining characteristic of those places. If not deleted then it should be renamed to mention the NRHP. DexDor(talk) 05:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, subcategories, and (in theory) other categories pertaining to contributing properties unless they're about a single historic district. That a building is a contributing property to a historic district is significant within the context of a historic district, and its listing on the National Register is significant in general, but saying that a building is a contributing property without the proper context doesn't tell us anything useful about the building. It almost seems like an effort to distinguish individually listed buildings on the National Register from those which are part of historic districts (especially in the particularly egregious case of the "individually listed contributing properties" categories), but in a lot of cases this is just a function of the order in which a place decided to pursue the historic preservation of its buildings. The distinction is occasionally relevant when determining whether a building should be covered in its own article or as a section of the article on the historic district, but it's not particularly useful for categorization. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 03:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Hmains and RevelationDirect above. The wording of this category tree can be clarified and there's no need to burn the whole thing down. This category largely exists because there are numerous buildings and structures in the United States which are notable enough for their own articles—and happen to be contributing properties to NRHP historic districts. That seems like a defining characteristic and thus acceptable for categorization. In DexDor's example above, the fallacy is that that apartment building shouldn't be in the categories Category:National Register of Historic Places in Omaha, Nebraska and Category:Residential buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Nebraska because it is not itself on the National Register, merely part of a larger entity on the Register. It is, however, a contributing property and should continue to be categorized as such—if we adopt wording that is properly scoped and understandable -McGhiever (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
"notable enough for their own articles—and happen to be contributing properties" doesn't sound like this is a defining characteristic. DexDor(talk) 05:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is making things overcomplicated. A historic building is individually on a list or it's not - and if it's not then it's just a historic building in the buildings category. There isn't any difference between historic buildings in- or outside historic districts insofar these buildings are not individually listed. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment rename to Category:Contributing properties to historic districts on the National Register to refine my suggestion above. It is also obvious that many commenters here do not understand the concept of NRHP contributing properties being listed as making up an historical district when the historic district was listed or revised on the NRHP, without themselves being a separate numbered item on the NRHP. This is defining. The current category structure matches the reality of the NRHP.Hmains (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rename. I've never found the category particularly useful myself, but if you're attempting to track National Register-listed locations that are also contributing properties to historic districts, it's definitely useful. Whether it's useful enough to be kept isn't particularly my concern. However, since we're not tracking CPs to HDs that aren't NR-listed, we don't need to qualify the category name, and we can just do like someone else suggested and put some explanatory text atop the category page. If we delete the category, its name won't matter, and if we keep it, the text will define its scope without making the category name absurdly long. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 15 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:Ministers of Oil and Gas (Kazakhstan)[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:renamed. --Tavix(talk) 19:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Capitalization. Also follows better the current naming convention of similar categories. Beagel (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 30 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:Recipients of the Makdougall Brisbane Prize[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Having received this award is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of, for example, Max Born. Some of the articles in this category make/made no mention of this award in their text (I've just removed Colin R. McInnes and James Geikie). List of Makdougall Brisbane Prize winners is a much better way to present this information (e.g. it can contain dates, redlinks and further information). Note: Peng Huanwu is in the category, but unreferenced so I haven't added to the list. DexDor(talk) 05:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not relevant whether there are some people in this category for whom it is non-defining. If we are bothered about "defining", what matters is whether there is a substantial number of people for whom it is defining. I agree that the list is preferable and the nominator has been constructive in creating it. Thincat (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NON-DEFINING doesn't state so explicitly (perhaps it should), but my (and I think most other categorizers) interpretation of it is that (for the category to be valid) the characteristic needs to be defining for all rather than a substantial number of the topics. The alternative would allow articles to be in a category when the relevant characteristic isn't even mentioned in the article text.DexDor(talk) 08:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Part struck - as pointed out below that's not the only alternative. DexDor(talk) 13:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you found Bill Clinton in Category:American anti–Vietnam War activists would you remove this category from the article (because it is non-defining for him) or would you seek to delete the category because it is not defining for all of its topics? Perhaps you think he should be added to this category because it is valid for him and defining for other people. WP:NON-DEFINING does not address the matter of which categories should exist. Rather it gives guidance about which categories are appropriate for any particular article. A category may be defining for the topics it contains but for other topics the category may be of slight relevance and so not defining. Thincat (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the alternative you put forward is not at all a consequence of my remarks (as I think you know). I suggest categorising topics by their defining characteristics. A characteristic may be defining for some topics and not for others. I would never suggest categorising by all characteristics that logically apply to a topic. Thincat (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Bill Clinton: Category:American anti–Vietnam War activists comes under Category:People by occupation so the question I would ask is: is he notable as an activist (i.e. would we have an article about him if he hadn't gone on to be president etc)? This is a borderline case (cf, for example Ronald Reagan who clearly belongs in a category for actors and Clint Eastwood who clearly doesn't belong in a category for golf caddies). Thus, I'd neither add nor remove Bill Clinton from that category. DexDor(talk) 13:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it is very difficult to source any of these, and hardly any of the articles mention it. On the other hand it is certainly of interest and the list is a splendid idea (but difficult to source, except for 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, unless I have missed something). I suppose one should try Macdougall as well as the correct Makdougall. Oculi (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most the articles I clicked on don't even mention the award, the rest just in passing. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support There was an intelligent discussion WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 31#Category:Peace activists which led to a merge at the higher level so if that was a sensible result so would this be. I'm not sure it was a good decision but we are unlikely to have such a thoughtful discussion these days so I'll go with it. Thincat (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are highly subjective and differ depending on what conflict is being opposed - many are placed on people who were at one time anti-war and then whole-heartedly pro-war Charles Lindbergh for example. And it mixes up people who are pacifistic generally (i.e., oppose ALL WAR(s)), those who opposed one or another of America's wars (a few flip-flopped), some who oppose other country's wars (a few flip-flopped, especially Communists were non-interventionist in WW2 until June 1941 when they en-masse were interventionists). Some were Nazi apologists, who were only opposed to wars against Germany, but were in favor of Germany's wars with Poland (and then some of those folks changed their tune after Pearl Harbor). Some were more difficult to characterize, but lumping them together as "activists" (see our article to see how broadly "activism" can be construed) is useless and misleading. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's subjective when they were activists. Just having an opinion is not enough, of course. If someone like Charles Lindbergh (who has been an anti-war activist) later converted he can still be in the category. We also allow conversion from one religion to another in our categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom to match category pattern Hmains (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support to be consistent with past decisions and current Category hierarchy. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:22, 28 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.
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.
I agree with the rename, actually I suggested it almost 4 years ago. The-Pope (talk) 04:59, 22 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.
