Category:Cultural depictions of Roger II of Sicily[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:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Possibly the one article should be named King Roger (opera) as its present name really ought to be a dab-page. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 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.
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: One of only two baronetcies with an own category. Only two entries, and it's extinct. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither of those are valid reasons for deletion. Does it have entries which would pass AfD, as to their notability? Stegosaur is extinct too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per the above seems the most appropriate option. Philg88 ♦talk 05:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose upmerging here. People are not baronetcies. If we took that line, that baronets belong in the cat on baronetcies, a large cat would suddenly become grossly overpopulated. It would then need diffusion, and by far the most obvious way would be to diffuse into categories on each baronetcy.
But why is "we haven't yet categorized others like this" any policy reason to delete? There are plenty of baronetcies out there which have been long enough established in order to collect several notable members, and they warrant creation as well as these. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andy on the upmerge counter-proposal; people are not baronetcies – instead I have now placed the two articles in Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom, as that is what they were. However, we disagree on whether to keep the category. Categories may not necessarily need to be deleted just because there are only one or two articles. But this category's only content is two of the three baronets, and that's not meaningful. If there were several articles that belonged in the category, it would be another thing, but for two titleholders, no. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested upmerge is to 'Baronets', not Baronetcies, as indeed Baronets are Baronets. So we all agree. Oculi (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears both me and Andy misread your proposal. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're already there. I placed them there earlier today, before I realized our common misreading. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Judging from my own experience, most of the "X baronets" pages list only one or two notable individuals. The parent category would still contain several hundred entries (as opposed to 1700+) and the subcategories, as Oculi noted, would mostly fail WP:SMALLCAT. I just don't see diffusion making the category structure easier to manage here. Choess (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to baronets. The best means of locating the article on the holder of a British aristocratic title is to search by the title. There is a substantive list article with some introduction on every title, extant or extinct, except those with a single holder which redirect to the one holder. I have tended to oppose categories even on major titles such as dukes and earls; we certainly should not allow them for baronets. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 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.
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: One of only two baronetcies with an own category. Only one entry. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep although there is some overlap with Category:Lethbridge family, created much later. The baronets were categorized here previously (as was the obvious main article for this category), but they seem to have been moved to the family category. I don't understand " One of only two baronetcies with an own category. " as a rationale: is that suggesting that baronetcies belong here as categories because of the precedent, or suggesting that they do not, because WP's current level of subjective coverage controls their objective notability? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the one article is not a person at all, so it should be empty.. Oculi (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be empty, even from the articles we do have - the existing articles on the baronets have been moved from the "baronetcy" cat to the "family" cat. Now do we keep both family and baronetcy, or just one? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using your own logic on Chatterton baronets above against you here, Andy. You said "[p]eople are not baronetcies". Similarly, Sandhill Park, the only article in the category, is not a baronet. This would leave the category empty (unless you add the only available article, the one on the 1st Baronet). Both this category and the one above are set categories (as opposed to topic categories, see Wikipedia:Categorization#General conventions), and so should only hold articles that fit the description proper. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you now trying to repeatedly blank the content from the family cat? Whether we call this a "family" or a "baronetcy" (and as not all the notable family members are baronets, we're likely to end up with the family as the surviving category) there are relevant links to the main article for this eponymous category, and to the related category at Commons. Why are you repeatedly deleting these, especially not during a CfD itself, if it's not to skew the CfD opinion. Your original nomination was "deeply flawed", shall we say, when it claims that there is "only one entry" because (as has been explained to you) the original entries had since been removed by another editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what that has to do with this nomination – other than that it seems that you have taken offense by the nomination, as the category was created by you. It would appear that you added Category:Lethbridge family to Category:Baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom as some sort of "compensation" for the lack of a Lethbridge connection in that category tree.
It wasn't exactly "explained to me" that my nomination was flawed. On the contrary, you are the only one in opposition, and other editor suggested upmerge – per WP:SMALLCAT (above). So, if anyone had something explained to them, it appears it was you.
I wasn't "blanking" the content, I reverted your addition of the catagory. Per WP:BRD, you should then start a discussion. You broke WP:BRD and reverted back, which is the reason I "repeatedly" removed the category. Please tell me how many R's you see in WP:BRD. It's Bold, Revert, Discuss, not "bold, revert, revert back, discuss".
And why not stick to the truth when discribing what I did? You know, people can check diffs.
Andy, I suggest you step back and cool off. This isn't personal, although it seems that you take it that way.
Update. I need to have my eyes checked. I didn't notice that Andy had added more than the baronetcies cat to the family cat. I reverted more than I intended to. Hope everything calms down now. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge for the reasons given above on the Chatterton baronets. Choess (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to baronets, for reasons as given for Chatterton. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 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.
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: per WP:OCEPON: "Eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist". This category contains only the head article Billy Bush and the current hot topic Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording controversy, both of which are adequately interlinked. No objection to a merger to Category:Bush family if that is considered more appropriate. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need an eponymous category just to contain his WP:BLP and one spinoff article about one incident he was involved in. Given the article in question, I'm presuming that this was created specifically to parallel Category:Donald Trump, but that's not in and of itself a valid basis for it. If there were 20 or 30 spinoff articles that had to be filed here, then there'd be a case for this — but there's no navigational benefit to having an eponymous category just because the eponym's BLP is augmented by one standalone WP:EVENT article. I wouldn't, for the record, think that the article in question warrants inclusion in Category:Bush family at all, as it's not remotely connected to anyone else but him. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. At least the main article does possess some qualities I would expect from a biography article, despite the fact that most of it comes across as a celebrity worship / current events WP:COATRACK whose value in terms of enduring notability will need to be re-examined once this particular circuselection is over with. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- I would hope we will lose a lot of election coatrack articles after the election. I suspect the controversy is an election incident which will become obviously NN, as soon as Trump wins or loses. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 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.
Category:Scouting and Guiding in the Palestinian territories[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.
Oppose as anachronistic. The relevant Scout Association was founded as far back as 1912, long before the State of Palestine was even thought of. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peterkingiron; we don't re-write history for modern naming conventions (especially if those conventions are Wikipedia's own). Hence, we talk of battle of Stalingrad, not of Volgograd, Anna and the King of Siam, not the King of Thailand, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural point so this is not really a delete nomination, it's a rename nomination. Will @Kintetsubuffalo: please amend nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was an automated thing I missed, not a tech guy, yeah, want a rename. @Laurel Lodged: Thanks for the catch.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the oppose red herrings, the three articles that populate the category are modern articles.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Scouting and Guiding in Palestine. That would be my first choice, since it would match Scouting and Guiding in Palestine and would avoid the issues debated above. Barring consensus for that, I would support the proposed rename in preference over the current name, as the arguments for renaming make way more sense to me than those who are opposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:14, 21 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.
