Category:Retractions of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements[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.
Delete. These are people, not retractions. 62.64.155.196 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is over-categorization and WP:RECENTISM. Of further concern is that most of the articles in this category don't say anything about Trump at all (either an endorsement or retraction). All of the material is coming from List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016#Retracted endorsements. If nothing about Trump is even on a person's page, it certainly doesn't see notable (or sustainable in light of sourcing requirements) to have a Trump-related category. We're already collecting this information at the aforementioned list of retracted endorsements, and that is perfectly sufficient. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 62.64.155.196. StAnselm (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. This seems like a WP:BLP headache for a relatively minor detail of questionable long-term significance. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't categorize people by who they endorse in a presidential election in the first place, so why on earth would we start categorizing on retractions of endorsements? Not WP:DEFINING. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator, Bearcat; categorization by endorsement or retraction thereof seems like a subset of categorization by opinion, contra WP:OPINIONCAT. — Ammodramus (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (1) It's an WP:OPINIONCAT. (2) WP:RECENTISM problems: There's no evidence yet that this category will be WP:DEFINING for these people. (3) WP:BLP issues: For the 27 days, it's going to go like this: The community will have to go through the category all the time seeing if the claim matches reliable sources, which may or may not be in List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016#Retracted endorsements, or may or may not have to be dug up from somewhere buried in a subject's individual article. Then it will have to go through the whole thing the next day, figuring out who changed from "supports" to "endorses but not support" or "support but does not endorse" or God knows what in the last 24 hours. --Closeapple (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know much about category deletion, but if there's such a thing as WP:SNOW delete here, it seems applicable in this case. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENTISM. And if we were to have this category, surely it would be called "People who retracted their endorsements of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign" as the articles it contains are about people, not about the retractions themselves. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete – Anyone with concern about the long-term viability of the encyclopedia shouldn't merely view this category and/or CFD as if it exists in a vacuum. Instead, take a long, hard look at our coverage of this particular election and 2016 United States elections in general. Contrast it with our coverage of just about any election predating Wikipedia's existence. For example, I knew a quarter century ago that Timothy Leary ran for governor of California in 1970. This is mentioned in Leary's article, while Leary's name doesn't appear in California gubernatorial election, 1970. This sort of pattern prevails throughout our coverage of elections. What good is it to trump (no pun intended) our coverage of current events when such coverage amounts to one huge minutiae / puffery magnet, while our coverage of events which are already in the can with an abundance of reliable sources is deliberately kept at the level of WP:INDISCRIMINATE by editors with an attitude of "it's not my problem"? More importantly, why do people keep insisting that I'm full of shit when I point out that this makes us out to be another media outlet instead of anything remotely resembling an encyclopedia? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bad to categorize people (especially politicians, whose positions often change quite publicly) by specific one-off policy or other decisions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 17 October 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: The result of this discussion is reverse merge and split. I'd like to add that I am not convinced that Claudius, Duke of Lusitania needs to be purged from "Ancient Roman generals", because the scope of Ancient Rome seems to allow his inclusion on the upper edge. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ancient isn't really necessary, unless the romans still had generals. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 12:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: looking through it a lot of them are around 200Ad or so, if we merge the two we could split them off by what type of Rome (i.e. Empire, republic, kingdom, split empire) and further split them off by type. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 17:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: the ancient roman tree should be purged, as Rome is only used as a location or informal name for the Vatican. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 19:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, but that's outside the scope of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: if your issue is with the timing, we could use Roman generals as a master cat, and seperate them by century, or else by what Rome was when they served. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 19:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite hesitant about whether we should have Category:Roman generals at all, it seems too ambiguous. Does it refer to generals born in Rome, or does it refer to generals serving any state that the city of Rome ever belonged to? Probably we don't have any other "generals by city" categories either. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:, we could simply define it in the category: "a Roman general is a general that served Rome, the kingdom of, the republic of, or the empire of." IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 19:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly where the ancient Roman tree is meant for, that is not about the city of Rome but about the ancient country (kingdom/republic/empire). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Split -- This is a mess. Ancient Roman generals seems largely to be about military commanders of the Roman Republic, some of whom were in command because they were consul. There may be a few generals from the Roman Empire, but emperors commonly preferred to conduct campaigns themselves, because any other general was liable to be a threat to them. Thirdly we have generals of the Subroman period (called late antique in the East and Dark Age in Britain), which includes Aegidius in the present Ancient Roman Category and Claudius, a Roman serving a Visigothic king. I would suggest splits at the accession of Augustus as Emperor and the sack of Rome in about 450. However, in principle the two categories are identical and should be merged, but the result should largely be a container for a series of new subcategroies. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Do you mean: (1) make a new split after merging as nominated, (2) make a new split after reverse merge, or (3) don't merge these two categories at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting we need three categories (1) Generals of the Roman Republic (2) Generals of the Roman Empire (3) Generals of the sub-Roman period. This probably requires both merger and split, but it might be simpler to rename and then purge. I suspect that the imperial category will be small, because emperors did not like having over-powerful generals. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interpreting your reply as "make a new split after merging as nominated". That is important because the split can be made after closing this discussion as merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
make a new split after merging as nominated per Marcocapelle Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:11, 25 October 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 set in New Rochelle, New York[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: In line with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 23#Films set in Albany County, New York, it's not particularly useful to obsessively subcategorize films all the way down to the level of the individual town they're set in — especially when that results in a large cluster of one, two or three item WP:SMALLCATs. Unlike some of the other categories batched in the first discussion, Westchester does seem to have enough films (almost 20) to justify a category at the county level — but that's not enough films to warrant being comprehensively diffused to the individual towns. Bearcat (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per consensus in the previous cfd. Oculi (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- These are obviously far too specific to be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 16 October 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.
