Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 24 June 26 >

June 25[edit]

Category:Public domain 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted. The category is unworkable. A film that is PD in one country will not be PD in another country. Determining PD status in a single country is often complex - the film may be PD but the music score is not (films are multi-layered works of art not a single entity); or it was PD at a certain time but no longer due to changes in international agreements; or etc.. There is also a defining problem as all films will be PD eventually. All films pre-1922 are PD but that doesn't need a category. GreenC 20:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Per WP:G4. This was deleted in 2009 and, unlike others topics whose categorization needs changes as the article count grows, the legal problems with this category haven't changed. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone has been speedily populating the category within days of creation; there is some work to cleanup, should there be a deletion. -- GreenC 03:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, we have a bot which clears categories and deletes them as soon as their empty, on request by administrators; the population of the category is being done directly, so the bot will handle it easily - getting it emptied and deleted will only require one human edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous deletion discussion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I am not fundamentally opposed to having information on public domain works, the complexities on the subject matter are not properly handled by Wikipedia's category structure. And take a look at List of countries' copyright lengths which gives a brief summary of copyright laws and public domain limits across many countries and international organizations. Works which are considered to be in the public domain in one country are still under copyright in another. There are differences on whether the copyright lasts for a fixed period following publication, or for the entirety of the life of the creator(s) and a fixed period after that. Even in the same country, two works that were published on the same year may have different copyright status. Canada, for example, has a copyright law protecting some works for 50 years following the death of their author. A work published in 1950 and whose author died in 1967, is probably still under copyright until 2017. A work published in 1950 and whose author died in 1965, is probably already in the public domain. How the heck do we explain things like that in the format of a category? Dimadick (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining for the films, as one year they aren't and the next they are. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confusing. Public domain in which country? For example, I see that His Girl Friday is in this category. The French supreme court has ruled that the film is copyrighted in France, but the film is apparently in the public domain in the United States. It might be possible to use public domain categories which identify specific countries, but this risks resulting in 19th century films appearing in hundreds of different public domain categories, making it difficult to browse through the category list at the bottom of the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more that 100 articles of movies on public domain, as someone comment above, all pre1922 movies are on public domain, and many others... If a movie was produced on USA and now is on public domain here it will be a PD movie in every other country. This category only link to movies that are on public domain somewhere. If somebody want to know in which countries, they can go to the movie article or check the references links or they also can call the legal department of the company that produced the movie. I do not see any reason to delete this category. If there is any question about the legal status of the movie, that can be specified on the article, or also can be created another category for those few movies, we cannot delete the whole category just because one or two movies do not fix on this category.--P2prules (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment More than a hundred? You might underestimate the scope. If every film prior to 1922 is already in the public domain, that would include everything in Category:1921 films which has articles on 556 different films. Our categories on films by years begin with Category:1874 films (with a film using a then-experimental technique) and continue all the way to the present. Some of these categories are tiny, others contain hundreds or thousands of films, and naturally there is still scope for expansion since there are many films which do not have Wikipedia articles. Several of these are actually lost films, but I do not think this definitely affects their legal status. Also it might not be possible to find the legal department of a still-active company. Many companies involved in film production, film distribution, or companies which simply bought the rights to an older film are now defunct, either due to being shut down at some point or because of corporate mergers and acquisitions. For example, Keystone Studios was established in 1912 and went on to produce several notable films, but went bankrupt in 1935. And there are a bit more complex cases as to who owns what. The Van Beuren Studios was one of the key animation studios of the 1920s and 1930s, and also purchased the rights to a number of older live-action films. It shut down in 1937, while the theatrical rights to most of its library passed to distributor RKO Pictures. RKO has long since sold the theatrical or other distribution rights to most of its own library, and other assets passed to more than 5 different companies. In several cases RKO only had rights to the original theatrical release of a film, which was actually produced and owned by another company. (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), for example, was an RKO release but produced by Walt Disney Productions, and Disney has retained ownership and distribution rights to the film. ) So who owns the rights to Van Beuren films is unclear and several of its films are available in home video collections which claim them to be public domain, but it might not be that clear-cut. Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If a movie was produced on USA and now is on public domain here it will be a PD movie in every other country." That isn't accurate, the copyrights in Mexico, Spain and other countries would outlast those in the United States. , See File:World copyright terms.svg. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The copy-right status of a film is non-defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I understand US law correctly, from reading the article on copyright lengths, than films created before 1964 would have lost copyright in 2002 if not renewed. However British copyright gives 70 years from the death of the main director, writer of the screenplay, writer of the dialogue, or composer of a score specifically composed for the film, whichever of these possibly 4 but maybe less people die last. This means no film made after 1946 in the UK is public domain, but as you go back from that year the number of films that are public domain starts to rise, but in complex and hard to know ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't write that something is in the public domain without specifying where it is in the public domain. For example, British films are in the public domain in the United Kingdom if four people died more than 70 years ago, but British films are in the public domain in the United States if the film was published before 1923 (or if those four people died before 1926, which is less likely). Also, United States law says that United States films from 1923-1989 lost their copyright if published without a copyright notice, or if published before 1964 without a renewal within 28 years, meaning that a lot of United States films from that era are in the public domain in the United States. However, the French supreme court ruled that those formality rules are incompatible with the rule of the shorter term as defined in the Berne Convention and that such United States films are copyrighted in France unless four people died more than 70 years ago (or the film was published before 1923, I suppose). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:34, 30 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:Christian Democratic Union (Germany)[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. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: per head article Christian Democratic Union of Germany, reverting a speedy move in 2010. Not doing this as a speedy, because the current titles are the result of an undiscussed move in 2014[1], and even tho the title of the head article appears to have been stable since then, it seems best to give an opportunity for discussion here.
Note that AFAICS, the current article title "Christian Democratic Union of Germany" is arguably correct, because it is a direct translation of the party's name in German Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands. So the "of Germany" is a part of the name, rather than a wiki-addedd disambiguator ... but since there is a case to be made that this is WP:OFFICIAL and the WP:COMMONNAME is "Christian Democratic Union", this full listing gives editors a chance to do an RM first if they want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- If that is its official German name we should use it, even through the common abbreviation is CDU. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:31, 27 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:Wikipedia:Christianism[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: Meanwhile the category appears to have been redirected to Category:Christianity, which is a satisfactory outcome of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Such a neologism isn't really appropriate on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What an ugly neologism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not really a neologism, it is based on uses by other languages. The Late Latin term for Christianity is "Christianismus", the French term is "Christianisme", and the Greek term is "Χριστιανισμός" (Κhristianismós, Christianismos). The Greek term at least is ancient, first mentioned and possibly coined by Ignatius of Antioch (d. 108) in the 2nd century. I did some search for the use and origin of Christianism/Christianismos. Per the book "Christianismos"&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Christianismos%22&f=falseThe Emergence of the Christian Religion: Essays on Early Christianity: "The "-ism" words may be misused, to be sure, but they have their utility for scholarly discourse. "Christianity", in fact, is such an "-ism" word in its original Greek: Christianismos. ... Here we do well to consider the very first recorded instances of the word Christianismos ("Christianity"). They occur in the letters of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 110), in Magnesians 10.1,3; Philadelphians 6.1; and Romans 3.3." The book then translates and quotes the letters of Ignatius, before analyzing the meaning of the term. "These passages from the letters of Ignatius can certainly be taken as evidence that, at least for the bishop who penned them, Christianismos is a distinct way of life centered on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, separate from the Judaism from which it sprang. Christianismos, in Ignatius's usage can be construed in history-of-religions terms as "a religion", or "the Christian religion", a distinct complex of religious beliefs and practices." The book discusses the doctrinal dimension of the term for Ignatius and his co-religionists, before returning to its meaning. "Bishop Ignatius lays great stress on his claim that Christianismos is and must be distinct from Ioudaismos [the Greek term for Judaism ]".
    • Laurel Lodged, as a Greek-speaker, I would appreciate it if you did not call my language "ugly". Also please research the history of Christian terminology before assuming that something is offensive. Dimadick (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh??? Where did I call the Greek language ugly? the term is only ugly in English, this being the English wiki. The English term for Christianity is Christianity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- This is a case where transliteration from another language does not provide a good translation to Category:Wikipedia:Christianity. The content is two "how to" help articles about the religion. If we delete this category, where do they go? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renamed. Sorry, stupid mistake. Apokrif (talk) 12:59, 27 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:Nelson, New Zealand 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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is borderline WP:G4 as a category that has been previously deleted via a deletion discussion, but further discussion may be helpful. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_8#Category:Nelson_and_Tasman_District_geography_stubs where the decision was to eliminate a Nelson-specific category, even if the exact category name wasn't the name used here. This is still too small for a stub category. ~ RobTalk 15:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging all participants from the previous discussion @Od Mishehu and Good Olfactory:. Editor who recreated this category notified via user talk. ~ RobTalk 15:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, with 53 stubs it's borderline - it probably shouldn't have been created, but once it as we probably shouldn't delete it. The logic here is that if a stub category tends to be right around 60, some times going below and others being slightly above, we wouldn't keep recreating it and redeleting it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest of possible keeps G6 has nothing to do with this. Perhaps you mean G4? In any case, this particular category has never been nominated for deletion, so no speediable criterion is applicable. The category which was renamed (not deleted) was Category:Nelson and Tasman District geography stubs - the rationale behind that deletion was that the 20 Nelson geography stubs which it contained were far below threshold for a stub category, which is true. However, that category failed to take into consideration Nelson river stubs, which for some reason were not listed in that category, and also failed to take into consideration the growth in Nelson geography stubs. There are no longer 20 stubs - there are 60. This is the usual threshold for the creation of a stub category. As such, and as the category is still growing in size, deletion of it would be against the interests of stub sorting, and against massive precedent. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, right now we have only 13 river stubs in this category, which is less than enough to bring the "20 Nelson geography stubs which it contained" to the threshhold of 50-60. And all of the 13 river stubs were, in fact, tagged for the category which was under discussion - which means that presumably they were part of the "20 Nelson geogarphy stubs". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um... no they weren't @Od Mishehu:. There were 20 marked with Nelson-geo-stub, plus 13 marked with nelson-river-stub, plus quite a few which were incorrectly marked with Tasman-geo-stub. In all, there were around 40 nelson-geo-stubs and since the closure of that category I was in the process of making more as the final part of the expansion of the articles on New Zealand geography. I did not create this new category until it was clear that there were over 50 stubs and that I was in the process of making enough others to take it past 60. By the time I got round to starting work on the remaining few today, I saw that someone had nominated the category for deletion - and nominated it with spurious reasoning that somehow suggested that splitting the Tasman stubs out of the defunct Nelson and Tasman geography stubs category (which you okayed the creation of, OM!) somehow meant that this category was a deletion target under G6. For what its worth, I had to re-form the nelson-geo-stub as well, because the former one was taken to TfD with no notification to WP:WPSS and - against every single precedent with stubs on Wikipedia - was made into a redirect. This made sorting of Category:New Zealand geography stubs massively more complicated. When I corrected this problem I became aware of the TfD, and also became aware of the nelson-river-stub. It was this which prompted me to run a check of other articles marked as Tasman stubs. From that it became clear that Nelson could easily have enough stubs for its own category with little effort. As you will know OM, this is pretty standard stub-sorting practice, and since equivalent categories exist for every other New Zealand region it is natural under normal WPSS practice to create the category. I don't know why you think it "shouldn't have been created". Grutness...wha? 05:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep - any claim that the earlier discussion can be used as a precedent assumes that no significant change has happened since the said discussion. In fact, the current category is significantly larger than the number of Nelson geography stubs would have been back then - Grutness says 20, and probably isn't that far off. Even a stub category that was outright deleted under a deletion discussion only as undersized could be recreated once it passes the threshhold of 60, which this category is now up to. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grutness says the former category contained 20, but there were far more which should have also been in that container. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not object to a SNOW close as keep. I'm not saying the earlier discussion is precedent; I'm saying that the earlier discussion is the existing consensus on whether we should have a Nelson category, so we need a new discussion (and close) if this category is to be created. At the time of nomination, there was less than 60 articles in this category, but it has since been expanded. I do not object to its existence given that it now passes the threshold. ~ RobTalk 19:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep With now 63 articles in the category, it's time to close this discussion. Schwede66 18:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the procedural nature of this discussion (reversing the consensus at a past discussion), a SNOW keep would be more appropriate than a speedy keep. ~ RobTalk 19:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, a speedy is more appropriate. There has never been a past discussion about this particular category. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per OM and Grutness, stub threshold counts, previous discussion, and SNOW. Her Pegship (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Currently it has over 60 articles, which is enough for a category. I see little objection to a rename or merger to a sibling (if appropriate), but plain deletion of a stub category should be out of the question. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:43, 27 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:Fathers of Presidents of the United States[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) 01:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:G4, WP:OCASSOC and WP:NOTINHERITED
We already deleted a presidential parents category here and splitting that category by gender addresses none of the concerns raised in that CfD discussion. The U.S. presidency is not inherited, parents of presidents have no formal governmental role, and they also have no specific social role (probably because they're usually dead). Some readers will be interested in this people when they want background on a President's family so, without exception, all these articles are already in the Category:First Families of the United States tree. For instance, Woodrow Wilson's dad is already in Category:Woodrow Wilson family. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Markvo as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject United States Presidents. – RevelationDirect (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fathers: Francis A. Nixon, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., James Earl Carter Sr., Prescott Bush, Leslie Lynch King, Sr., Alphonso Taft -- and in each case, they are clearly defined by their parentage of a POTUS.
Mothers: Ann Dunham, Mary Ball Washington, Ida Stover Eisenhower, Lillian Gordy Carter, Susanna Boylston -- all clearly defined by their parentage of a POTUS, and in most cases it is by far their strongest defining characteristic. Only Dunham appears to be notable for something other than motherhood. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply We don't disagree that presidential family members have articles because they are related in some way with the president which is why we already have the presidential family categories to create a clear navigation path between each president and their mothers and fathers (and uncles and grandkids). The question here is whether we want to add a second presidential category to each of these articles to group mothers of different presidents together. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @RevelationDirect: one step at a time. Do you agree that being a parent of a POTUS is a defining characteristic? If we can clear that up, then we can see what common ground exists on the rest.
    Many characteristics are usefully categorised by more than one component, to allow navigation in difft dimensions. Here we have a set of women whose common, shared, defining characteristic is that they are all POTUS-mothers. Sure, they all have other attributes relating to that fact (such being in a particular family) ... but Lillian Gordy Carter and Susanna Boylston do not share the attribute of being members of the same family. They do share the defining attribute of being POTUS-mothers, which is why it is appropriate for a category to group them together according to this shared, defining attribute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Wikipedia readers are most likely looking at these articles because they are interested in understanding the personal context of the president: what their parents were like, how their siblings turned out, what their kids thought of them, who they leaned on for personal support, what influences made the president tick. I don't think a father of one president has much in common with the father of another president. Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. and Leslie Lynch King, Sr. don't provide a shared experience. In contrast, First Ladies are a specific position in the administration which is why we have Category:Acting First Ladies of the United States if there is not a spouse available. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RevelationDirect: "Shared experience" is not a criterion for categorisation. Defining attribute is a criterion, and you are dodging that question. Do you wanna try answering it, or do you prefer to keep evading it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks * I'm not sure how to reword my viewpoint a fourth time without repeating myself but I didn't want to just ignore your follow up without explanation either. Thank you for explaining your perspective and trying to better understand mine. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Now with inherited royal titles, I'll give some leeway when the exact relationship matters: Category:Queen mothers reflects an official legal status to the crown. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Being mother of a POTUS" per se is non-defining, as it doesn't define a person individually by his/her own merit. It just happens that POTUS parents are probably more well-researched than the parents of presidents of other countries, but that doesn't make such a parentage defining. You may compare this to Category:Nobel laureates or Category:People by occupation, for example, which are defining cats. Brandmeistertalk 22:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brandmeister: So you still didn't actually read WP:NONDEF :(
    It's nothing at all to do with "merit", however you subjectively define that. Lemme bold it for you: "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having". That is the case with these articles on people whose single most important characteristic is that they are parents of a POTUS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brandmeister: No overstretch; the definition is very clear. The examples are illustrations, not limitations.
    As to parents of film actors, it's not at all complicated. If we have a set of articles on people for whom being a parent of a film actor is their defining characteristic, then we should probably have such a category. I don't know whether we have any such set of articles ... whereas in this case we clearly do have a set of articles on people who defining characteristic -- i.e. of the key things any v short article would say about them -- is that they are parents of a POTUS.
    It's bizarre that you persist in trying to drag this discussion off into dubious analogies rather than looking at the actual set of articles in this category. Sure, we have many other articles on people who are mothers ... but the point about these mothers is that being mother of a POTUS is their most important characteristic. If [Ida Stover Eisenhower]] hadn't been mother of a POTUS, we wouldn't have an article on her, because the sources are clear that's the reason for writing about her. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What better way to readily determine, and learn more about, notable parents of presidents (without digging through all the members of the First Families category to find them)? I don't agree that keeping these categories will lead to similar ones for other countries (but what's so awful if it did?). These categories have been in place for 7 or 8 months already. —ADavidB 17:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - far too specific. We will have brothers-in-law of the first lady's sister next. Oculi (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category and listify. These articles are all in categories such as Category:Carter family and its equivalent, and all would be readily accessibly by links in the articles on their famous offspring. I see no problem with having a list article where the names of presidential parents are assembled, however. PS - I would approve of a redirect from "Woodrow Wilson's dad" to Joseph Ruggles Wilson, per nom :) Grutness...wha? 11:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category and listify or upmerge to Category: Presidents who had a pet cat called Tiddles Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While we have this class of articles, we should have a category for them. I would see no objection to merging into Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States. If the parents only have notability inherited from their children, it must be questioned whether we should have articles on them, but Joseph Kennedy was certainly independently notable. Fathers of kings of Spain would be a stupid category, because the monarchy is hereditary, so that the father will commonly also have been king. Such argumetns by analogy often cite ludicrous cases and are commonly unhelpful. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a Reductio ad absurdum and is used to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance (see Tiddles). Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, are we really that far away with Category:Siblings of Prime Ministers of Japan? (I plan to nominate that later.) How far down this road do we really want to go? RevelationDirect (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about we follow policy and keep such categories only insofar as they are WP:DEFINING? And that we determine that by looking at the articles so categorised, rather than by by applying some abstract presumption? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if notability isn't inherited, presumably these folks' notability lies other than their relation to some notable other person. Otherwise, let's just delete the statement that notability isn't inherited because we only honor it when we don't like it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Notability is not the issue here. Notability is a criterion for whether we have an article on a topic, and if you think any articles should be deleted, WP:AFD is thataway. Before you go, read up again on notability. It is about whether a topic meets WP:GNG, and that may well be because of extensive coverage relating to their relationship to someone else. The "notability isn't inherited" policy is narrower: it is simply that nobody gets to bypass WP:GNG simply because they are related to someone else. They still need sufficient independent coverage of their lives.
      This discussion is about how to categorise any articles which we do have, specifically about whether the relationship to a POTUS is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the people so categorised. Sadly, most of the participants in tgis discussion are zealously determined to avoid actually assessing the articles concerned against the policy, and prefer to rely on unevidenced assertion. It will make fora difficult close, and interesting DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper BrownHairedGirl's cogent arguments. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:48, 3 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:Boston Board of Aldermen members[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory. A distinction without a difference. TM 20:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, there would be similar such categories for virtually every city in the United States.--TM 01:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba: how would that be? Very few cities have had bicameral city councils. In most cases, "alderman" is just another name for "city councilor", but the two terms here appear to not have been synonymous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most cities had bicameral councils at one time or another. Everett, Massachusetts did away with their bicameral city government just a few years ago. Established to mirror the state and federal legislation system, bicameral governments were once popular in New England but began to be phased out early in the last century. or Originally, the majority of cities, following the federal example, by a bicameral council.--TM 03:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was originally listed at CfdD 2016 June 16. I closed it on 24 June, but after a discussion with the nominator on my talk page (permalink) I am relisting it here for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was definitely common in nineteenth century Massachusetts and there are plenty of other historical examples from the Northeast. Nationally though, I think bicameral city councils were sometimes tried by large cities (Seattle City Council) but not other (Los Angeles City Council) but were rare with small cities. I wasn't able to find a source that said how common they were though. My perception is somewhere between obscure and universal. (-: RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My impression has been that it has not been very common outside of New England. The suggestion that is existed in "virtually every city in the United States" goes way too far. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There is just about a sufficient population to keep. However there is a more basic problem: local councillors (even aldermen) are generally NN. The objection seems to be that the category is small. What hope is there of getting it better populated? Having aldermen was common in English councils, which provide a model of American ones; they were abolished in England in most cases in 1974. They were generally long serving councillors, who were promoted to hold the position. Is that the case in Boston, in which case picking them out may not add much? Would it be sufficient to have it (if kept) as Category:Boston Aldermen? As I Englishman, I avoid voting on American matters of which I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in this Case For this example, there is sufficient quantity to maintain a sub-category. I would not favor creating small (<5 articles) categories for each sub-type of city council member for other cities though. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination, based on the five biographies in this category I would consider membership of the Board of Aldermen a non-defining characteristic, not needing a category of its own. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 3 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:Initiatives by the Government of Uttar Pradesh[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. At the close the only content was IT City, Lucknow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is too obvious that a government is initiator of, or involved in, an urban development project, that doesn't require separate categories by government. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The category speaks about 'Initiatives' which is a wider term than 'Urban Decelopment'. This might include the different programs the government has or had initiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chints247 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_25&oldid=1188394100"