Category:Republicans who will disavow the party if Trump is the 2016 nominee[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: snow delete, obviously inappropriate categories with no chance of being kept. BencherliteTalk 15:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what to say exactly, but I don't think this is the proper use of a category. Melonkelon (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Whatever one thinks of Trump, this will all be over in a few months. It is too brief an issue to merit a permanent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT: "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue..." — Ammodramus (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammodramus and Melonkelon: Done. Whether this category is good or bad, there's surely only a need for one of them. (If the nominator objects, I'll submit a separate nomination though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both Textbook WP:OPINIONCAT. If kept, only one of the two similarly named categories should be kept. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT, as well as WP:OCASSOC as it lumps these people together over a contrived association with Donald Trump. Olision889 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 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:Americans promising to leave the country if Trump is elected[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: snow delete, an obviously inappropriate category with no chance of being kept. BencherliteTalk 15:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what to say exactly, but I don't think this is the proper use of a category. Melonkelon (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It is a unique assembly of people who are tied to each other in their desire to leave their homeland over a political candidate. However, I like your passive agressive dismal, Melonkelon. It is exactly what I expected from someone who would disagree with this categories existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.43.62 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
184.88.43.62 - This is a joke, right? A passive-aggressive complaint about someone being passive-aggressive? I genuinely can't tell. If it is a joke, lols! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is the nominator editing whilst logged out. 18:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.65.134 (talk)
Agree - Delete At the very least, such entries would require citation per WP:BLP, and WP:VERIFY. At the time of this edit, no citations were listed on the biographies for whom this comment is attributed. Also, even if sourced, entries referring to Americans who made specific comments would probably fall under WP:IPC, and the category itself would probably fall under WP:Trivia. Curley Wolf (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Whatever one thinks of Trump, this will all be over in a few months. It is too brief an issue to merit a permanent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT: "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue..." — Ammodramus (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear and direct violation of WP:OPINIONCAT. I don't know what else to say, seems clear cut. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS applies. Threatening to leave the country, not notable in its own right. Actually leaving the country; undoubtedly so. 18:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.65.134 (talk)
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:rename, since "Palestinian" is anachronistic in this case. The monks of this category lived in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, mostly under Roman/Byzantine rule. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- While Palestine is derived from Philistine, I think the application of the term to people of the late antique Byzantine period is inappropriate. If anything, we should be using the name of the relevant province or imperial diocese. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you intend to say "rename" rather than "merge". Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good comment! Neither the WP article nor any other source that I could quickly find mentions since when the term "Holy Land" is in use. However, as you mention, the term Palestine was definitely in use by the Romans and Byzantines, until 390 as Syria Palaestina and thereafter split in several Palestine provinces. So the term Palestine is not anachronistic at all, and I think I don't have much choice than to withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term Palestine is not an anachronism, but the term "Palestinian" seems to be far more recent. Suggesting the need of clarification. As for Syria Palaestina, it covered a relatively large area and the capital was Antioch. Our article notes that that it was split c. 390 to Syria Coele, Phoenice, Palaestina Prima, and Palaestina Secunda. Their respective capitals were Antioch, Tyre, Caesarea Maritima, and Scythopolis. The Byzantine Empire maintained control over the entire region until the 7th century. It then kept loosing and regaining control of Antioch alone until the late 12th century. The Principality of Antioch spend much of its existence as a Byzantine vassal state and retained some Byzantine ties until its fall in the 13th century. Dimadick (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Christian monks from Palestine would be enough of a disambiguation. Palestinian is the name of a modern ethnic group. Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 25 March 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:Mandatory Palestine only existed from 1920 until 1948 for the only "century" for Mandatory Palestine will always be the 20th century. The 20th-centuy cat can be upmerged. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainly for three reasons; firstly the above title is the most suitable title for the entries that populate the category, secondly, I think the delete rationale is invalid because it seems to be a play on semantics. For example I could say I dont know how many people are in the room - note the usage of the plural people there? That is despite the fact that the number of people could be zero or one thus overriding the usage of the plural term people. Thirdly, I'm assuming that categories ought to look similar to their counterparts. Hawaan12 (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The entire content of the category still remains within Category:History of Mandatory Palestine, mostly in Category:Decades in Mandatory Palestine, so nothing is lost by deleting this category. The same process is taking place, or has taken place, for other countries that only existed in the 20th century (e.g. Czechoslovakia). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A category that can only ever have one member is a hindrance to navigation, not an aid. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:52, 8 March 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:merge to the parent categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The target already exists, so merge instead of rename. Merge to all three parents, per rationale of nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, I somehow missed that. Agree with upmerging to all parents. --PanchoS (talk) 11:48, 14 March 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.
